On
the other hand, one might expect local politics to be more in line with a calm
determination to do what is best for the local community rather than favoring
some sort of national agenda. Most
local communities cannot afford to pay full time politicians to run its city affairs
like Los Angeles or San Francisco; instead, the "City Manager" style of
government is utilized extensively with the idea a local community can hire
someone possessing expertise to handle the many details of city management on a
full time professional basis. This
is particularly true for small communities like Marina, California which has
slightly less than 20,000 inhabitants.
Typically,
a City Manager would insure his city's streets, water, sewer, and the general
infra-structure is properly maintained.
Of course, the city requires fire and police protection along with city
offices which include finance, building inspection and planning. But most of all, the City Manager must
do all of this while balancing the City's budget with expenditures not exceeding
income.
Obviously,
there are possible problems related to placing a Chief Executive Officer (CEO) in charge of all city
affairs. To begin with, the
average citizen has no say in what a city manager actually does. The City Manager is accountable only to
elected officials such as a Mayor and City Council. Individual comments or complaints concerning city affairs
can only be directed to these elected officials much the same as stockholders
of a large corporation might comment to its Board of Directors.
Additionally,
under most local jurisdictions, the Mayor and City Council members are poorly
paid and hold down a job elsewhere to make a living. Marina, for example, pays city council members a modest $200
per month and the Mayor $250.
These "part time" council
members are often required to make million dollar decisions with respect to
their city's future. Accordingly,
they must rely upon data and input from other sources within the city to reach
a decision on budgetary and city expenditures; hence, this leads to a situation
where "non-elected" persons have a greater say in the direction of the city
than the citizens themselves.
Advocates
of City Manager style government point out the City Council meetings, which are
open to the public, provide detailed information concerning city affairs as
well as an opportunity for public comment. In reality, the information provided is in the form of
written material which is hundreds of pages in length and requires considerable
study time. The public is encouraged
to read all this "stuff," but it is more likely they will defer to their
elected officials who, as previously mentioned, are part timers.
But
there's more. The City Manager
negotiates city contracts which, by necessity, include employee contracts. Union contracts concerning wages and
benefits, if allowed to affect the City Manager's income, could well lead to a
conflict of interest.
Those
who criticize the City Manager style of government point to Bell, California, a
community of 37,000 which, according to a Los Angeles times article (July,
2010), was paying their city manager a salary of $787,637, the police chief
$457,000 and even the assistant to the city manager was pulling in a $376,288
salary.
Because
of a potential conflict of interest dilemma, a city manager will often
recommend a survey to determine possible salary and wage increases to bring the
city's public safety and administrative salaries in line with other adjacent
California cities. Marina's city
manager, In accordance to the 2008 contract negotiations, agreed to a 10%
salary increase for Public Safety and 5% increases for the next three
years. Within five years, the city
manager's salary went from a modest $118,000 to more than $240,000 and other
administrative staff salaries nearly doubled.
During
the period 2007-08, Marina's City Manager consented to labor contract
agreements calling for the city to pay 100% of CalPERS pension costs, all
increases in health benefits, uniform allowances, and other benefits including
continued use of the 3@50 pension formula for public safety and 2@55 for other
staff members. According to a
Contra Costa Times editorial (April 8, 2013): ". . .CalPERS and CalSTRS (the
teachers' pension plan) have a common thread: They each lack sufficient money
to pay for pension benefits workers have already earned." Additional editorial remarks point out
that both of these pension funds have a combined $173 billion unfunded
liability.
Marina
was not alone with respect to the generous treatment of the CalPERS pension
plan. Nearly every city in
California jumped on the pension band wagon - and now, many cities in the state
have already filed for, are on the edge of, bankruptcy.
To
be fair, much of these employee benefits were granted at a time when CalPERS
was delivering a massive 7 to 10 percent returns on member investments so
employee contributions picked up by the city were considered a reasonable
alternative to providing an increase in salaries and wages. But by 2009 CalPERS investment schemes
were in the toilet and Marina had an obligation to pay, in addition to wages, a
massive 30% pension costs plus a pension obligation bond which added another
10% to the cost. The health
benefits paid by the city ballooned to nearly $1 million or a $10 thousand cost
per employee per year.
The
moral of the story is that it does not matter whether it's national politics or
local issues; it appears the American citizen is simply not allowed to relax in
his easy chair and ignore whatever his elected representative may be doing.
It
was Frank Birch who said: "The price of Liberty is eternal vigilance .
. ."