POA to Vote on Extending Pay Cut

A day after the City Council decided to go to the ballot box in June for pension reform, the police union signed a tentative agreement Wednesday with the city of San Jose to extend a 10-percent pay cut through the 2012-13 fiscal year. The agreement will need to be ratified by the Police Officers Association membership. If that is achieved, the POA expects the deal to save the city $25 million.

Voting will begin Tuesday, POA President Jim Unland said, and an arbitration hearing with the city that was scheduled for Monday has been canceled. Unland added that he is hopeful the agreement will prevent any more police officers from being laid off. This past summer, 66 officers were laid off for the first time in city history.

The timing of the deal is surprising considering how upset unionized employees were about the council’s 6-5 vote to have pension reform on the ballot. But Unland said the POA had been working on the deal for several days before Tuesday’s vote.

“I’m trying to not to put the two together,” he said. “I think our actions continue to show we’re trying to find solutions, and I think the actions of the mayor [Tuesday] night show he’s just a political animal. That vote did not have to happen.”

Both Mayor Chuck Reed and the city’s lead negotiator, Alex Gurza, noted in a Mercury News report that the concessions by the POA would remove a major obstacle in balancing next year’s budget. Both, however, maintain that pension reform is key and negotiations should continue.

Josh Koehn is a former managing editor for San Jose Inside and Metro Silicon Valley.

15 Comments

  1. Nice offer POA, but I bet Chuck will turn it down insisting it is not enough just has he has every other give back.  He is on a mission and that is ballot measure in 2012.  He will argue that you need to give up buyouts of sick time, vacation and comp time.  Then he will ask you to buy into another pension program.

    Good Luck!

    As for retirees he wants out COLAS.

  2. Lets see.  POA Pres. gets over a thousand a month. Gets a POA Credit card, Has a take home car from P.D. Has Sgt’s pay.  Whats 10%?  Why fight? Why Vote? Does the vote count anyways?
        This wasn’t even discussed at the last meeting.  Kind of like the President stepping down right after the election. 
        Am I doing good Mr. Mayor?  Huh Pal, am I doing good?  pant pant pant.  Let me have your leg.

    • If you do not like the POA president, vote him out of office or run yourself.  The city took AWAY the 2 used cars that the Police Chaplain and his assistant use to respond to all city tragedies on a 24/7 basis. 

      Two, yes two beat up lousy used city cars by the Police Chaplain, helping all of San Jose citizens in a time of help, Often they would work 24 plus hours to comfort families of violence.  While all council members and city managers have cars and free gas.  What is wrong with this picture, 

      The Chaplain runs a program to give free turkeys and food to those that can not afford and yet the city council cannot give up 2 used cars to these great people. 

      This is how much Chuck hates the Police Department.

      These great men are funded only by contributions out of officers salary deductions.  The same salaries that are cut 10% for another 2 years.

      God Bless these great men and hope they never have to come to comfort you!

      Thank you Chuck, Deb, Pete and others.  The Chaplains and citizens of San Jose deserve better.

      • There is a citizen who has spoken in support of the San Jose Police Chaplaincy program many times.

        Mayor Reed permitted the same citizen to read the entire contents of the SJPD Chaplaincy Program into the public record on two (2) separate occasions waiving the two (2) minute period to speak.

        Mayor Reed does not “hate” SJPD.

        Councilmember Oliverio authored a memo on October 21, 2011 that requests the city should fund the Chaplaincy program.  This memo can be seen on the “Rules and Open Government Committee’s October 26, 2011 Agenda,
        Item H(3).” Or the memo can be viewed in its entirety on Councilmember Oliverio’s city web page. Click on “memos”.

        Keep the faith. SJPD Chaplaincy program is going to get city financial assistance.

        David S. Wall 12.12.11

  3. NO vote here, and many more to follow. I am tired of hoping this city will value. Lay off more so that reality of what we face daily is self-evident to all.

  4. Time for Chuck to be removed from office, as well as the council, and the Santa Clara council members, time for something new across the board. Vote no, let the people of San Jose and Santa Clara County see what this current group has done, completely gutted the safety and backbone of the community.

    • Dude, why you so upset.  Our own Union Motto is
      “JUST SAY YES”  Now watch, were going to have a vote. Just like the last election.  It’s going to win.  Funny thing is we cannot find anyone who voted for the CFO.  SHAM! Shenanigans!

  5. Ain’t happening Chuck! NO vote here. You want me to lose my house then you are gonna have to fight for it. You want me to give up everything I worked for and watch my family suffer, then you can kiss my ***. I will never forsake my family or wife for you or anyone else. Period.

  6. Why does the P.O.A. President have a Dept. “take-home car”? And, I sure hope that he gets paid much more then $1000/month by the P.O.A. for being President! It’s a shi**y, difficult job and is deserving of decent pay.

  7. I hope the voters eliminate binding arbitration completely. AB646 will shed light on this citys true fiscal irresponsibility. Be scared Chuck Reed, be scared. Your scam is crumbling. The books will be exposed. Just vote NO! The city will throw other departments under the bus and blame the cops via the puppet paper MURKY news…. Wake up blind citizens. This supposed crisis goes way beyond pensions. The true numbers need to be exposed.

  8. Most SJI readers and many city employees don’t know what AB 646 will do

    http://www.aroundthecapitol.com/Bills/AB_646/20112012/

    The Meyers-Milias-Brown Act contains various provisions that govern collective bargaining of local represented employees, and delegates jurisdiction to the Public Employment Relations Board to resolve disputes and enforce the statutory duties and rights of local public agency employers and employees.

    The act requires the governing body of a public agency to meet and confer in good faith regarding wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of employment with representatives of recognized employee organizations. ( IS San Jose ” to meet and confer in good faith ”  many would so No –  City actions are more like my way or highway ( Layoffs ) )

    Under the act, if the representatives of the public agency and the employee organization fail to reach an agreement, they may mutually agree on the appointment of a mediator and equally share the cost.

    If the parties reach an impasse, the act provides that a public agency may unilaterally implement its last, best, and final offer.

    This bill would authorize the employee organization, if the mediator is unable to effect settlement of the controversy within 30 days of his or her appointment, to request that the matter be submitted to a
    factfinding panel.  ( Amazing actually requires the facts to be determined and tell public facts )

    The bill would require that the factfinding panel consist of one member selected by each party as well as a chairperson selected by the board or by agreement of the parties.

    The factfinding panel would be authorized to make investigations and hold hearings, and to issue subpoenas requiring the attendance and testimony of witnesses and the production of evidence.

    The bill would require all political subdivisions of the state to comply with the panel’s requests for information.

    This bill would require, if the dispute is not settled within 30 days, the factfinding panel to make findings of fact and recommend terms of settlement, for advisory purposes only.

    The bill would require that these findings and recommendations be first issued to the parties, but would require the public agency to make them publicly available within 10 days after their receipt.

    The bill would provide for the distribution of costs associated with the factfinding panel, as specified.

    This bill would prohibit a public agency from implementing its last, best, and final offer until at least 10 days after the factfinders’ written findings of fact and recommended terms of settlement have been submitted to the parties and the agency has held a public hearing regarding the impasse.

    Sounds more like Open Transparent government that San Jose is supposed to have not what Mayor, Council and City Manager has been doing for last 2-3 years— my way or ( Layoffs ) highway

%d bloggers like this: