In a five-day period last April, I attended two forums on City Hall affairs that could not have been more diverse if they tried. Jerry Butkiewicz, head of the San Diego Labor Council, told the Cat Fish Club how he plans to deal with the city's labor contracts. In the same meeting hall at Channel 10, Mayor Jerry Sanders revealed to the Society of Professional Journalists how he wants to resolve pension and labor costs.
I came away from both events with a feeling that the two Jerrys were a long way from being on the same page. That's too bad. It will take a compromise between labor and City Hall to fix the fiscal debacle in the near and long term.
Butkiewicz was in fit form to launch his tirade against those who blame city workers for the pension deficit. His down-to-earth vocal assault shook the rafters with amplification that he surely did not need to get his message across the studio -- a bit crude at times but always with deep conviction.
Often referring to the new mayor, the labor zealot pleaded with the City Council and citizens, "Give Jerry a chance." But where can it go unless the labor groups share some of the pain of city reform?
One suggestion Butkiewicz offered was to cut the ratio of supervisors to workers, claimed to be 2.5 to 3 for each worker. His labor council does not represent these middle managers, which Sanders has already threatened with sizeable layoffs. Maybe this is a starting point to get City Hall and labor on the same page.
The atmosphere five days later with Mayor Sanders was quite a change. Also holding the podium as a solo speaker, he radiated calm assurance that the new team at City Hall will get it right. They just need time and patience.
An overview of his first 100 days as a strong mayor gave Sanders more opportunity to field questions from the press. I will say he was generous in his responses and candid observations without tossing "off-the-record" remarks to the inquisitive journalists.
Besides answering the labor union and pension fund queries, the mayor said the biggest issue facing the city is bonding. Without favorable credit ratings, much of the infrastructure work and pension deficit will remain in arrears. Without a city audit, bond ratings will remain in junk status. Without the consultants' internal systems report, there is no audit report. A classic Catch-22 state of affairs.
Sometimes revealing his frustrations, Sanders observed that in politics some people don't want solutions. That in turn creates new problems, he concluded.
Looking at the city's problems in retrospect, let's play "what if." It was a popular parlor game of the last century that let the game-players have flights of imagination. Only this version has a political motive. Would City Hall be better off today if certain events of the last 10 years were directed down a different path?
First topic -- sports: What if the Padres stayed at Qualcomm Stadium? The citizens' rebellion over building a new ballpark created a huge hole in the center of downtown and a year of costly litigation. The reality was a sweep of the City Council with fresh political faces and a judge for mayor. That didn't turn out very good, but PetCo Park brought a renaissance to downtown that is still blooming.
What if the Chargers kept their original commitment to the city and were content to stay at Qualcomm for the next 20 years? The city's general fund would be a little richer without the ticket guarantee and litigation over contract options. This contentious issue is yet to be resolved.
Second topic -- pension system: What if the retirement plan trustees did not sell their souls to city officials looking for budget cuts to trade for pension perks? The city would probably be current on actuary contribution guidelines, a mayor would not have resigned and millions of dollars for consultants could be spent on infrastructure.
Third topic -- City Council: What if Dick Murphy stuck to his original decision not to run for a second term as mayor and the two convicted councilmen had resigned upon indictment? A stronger leader at the helm and two less distracted city councilmen might have steered City Hall through the rocky shoals of fiscal misconduct rather than enduring eight months of leaderless limbo.
Well, none of these "what-ifs" did happen. But a new mayor with a mandate to run the city, two new councilmen and a combative city attorney have brought new concepts to City Hall. Are their agendas valid enough to clear the debris left by their predecessors?
What is a winning combination? A good start would be conciliation between labor and city administration on what's good for the city rather than themselves.
Ford is a freelance writer based in San Diego. He can be reached at johnpatrick.ford@sddt.com. Comments may be published as Letters to the Editor.
Print
E-Mail
