Police union miscasts benefits debate
I support the Bakersfield Police Department; I admire the great work they do. I'm working to put more police officers on the street protecting our citizens and their property.
Support for the police is not, however, the same as support for the union decision makers of the Bakersfield Police Officers Association and their recent tactics.
For nearly a year, the union's negotiators refused to accept the Bakersfield City Council's contract offer that would have resulted in an 8 percent pay raise for our police officers -- over half of city employees did. Instead, union officials demanded even larger raises, and they refused to accept reforms to the retirement system for new hires. The economy has continued to worsen, city coffers have continued to dwindle, and more financial hardships are on the horizon. Such a national, state and local fiscal crisis has not been seen for generations.
Recent union-paid radio and newspaper ads have been less than forthright. They claim to be fighting the city manager over pension benefits. Let's be clear -- the city manager is an agent of the City Council; he follows the council's direction.
The misleading union ads do not mention the following facts:
* Only the pensions of future employees are being discussed; current employees are grandfathered.
* Police pension costs have grown from $2.8 million in 2002-03 to $10 million in 2007-08, and total costs for all employees exceed $25 million.
* Unfunded liability for police pensions is $55 million as of June 30, 2007, and nearly $100 million for all employees
* Police pension costs are 29 percent of salary.
* The city pays the employee's 9 percent share of pension costs for those with over five years of service; the employee pays nothing.
* $10 million was budgeted for future pensions in 2007-08.
* A police officer's pension benefit with 30 years of service garners 90 percent of his salary for life. In fact, all current city employees can receive the same benefit after 30 years.
Pension costs will increase another $6 million within the next two years. Neither the private nor public sector can afford such costs.
With these circumstances, the City Council has proposed modifications -- for new employees only. Those modifications do not force officers to work until they are 55, as has been portrayed in the ads. They will only wait longer to get the maximum benefit. Other plans are available, such as returning to the formula of 2 percent at 50, which was the rule until December 2003; that guaranteed a 30-year employee 60 percent of his salary. This was a generous benefit; returning to it would save the city millions.
The Bakersfield City Council, as configured in 2001-2003, raised retirement benefits by a whopping 50 percent, by granting the unions the 3 percent at 50 benefit. During the years that have followed, that decision has proven to be disastrous for city finances.
We can afford to put more police on our streets if we adopt a lower-cost pension plan for incoming employees. That's what hard-working taxpayers want and deserve. That's what the City Council needs to provide.
Zack Scrivner is the Ward 7 councilman and vice mayor of Bakersfield. Community Voices articles are expanded commentaries that generally contain approximately 500 words. The Californian reserves the right to reprint commentaries in all formats, including on its web page.
