|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 1/2/08
|
| Dear Majesty, What is it going to take to give the VFD the royal boot. Angry educated villagers with pitchforks and torches ? A legal loophole? A City Council with more than 2/5ths of a brain ? your faithful fan, G. Manicotti
|
| Dear G.Manicotti: That is a question that might go to my higher power -- the Prime Minister perhaps? -- but interesting. I think the question might be how to get rid of the IAFF 1186 union leadership. How can the community trust them to do good by Vallejo ever again? Hundreds of thousands into the recent elections, UBL abuse. This City is really run by a shadow government made up of certain members of the community -- many who don't live here, many who are profiting from our misery. How do we get rid of that? First of all, the community needs true information and as long as we rely on the Times Herald, we will never get it. Enter VIB... keep reading and spread the word! |
|
|
| DQ, As many of us know now Union Business Leave (UBL) has been admittedly, under sworn testimony been used for such things as: Hotels, eating, drinking, abalone diving trips, financially supporting election candidates chosen by the firefighters union, bankrolling the overtime paychecks for firefighter volunteers for such things as medusa run, etc... I know the perpetrators of these outrageous misuses of our tax dollars have been caught... But, my question is, has the firefighters misuses of this UBL been stopped? Are they now still using the UBL at Henke's discretion... or has this abuse been halted? Thank You? DW
|
| Hi DW: I don't believe under the Interim Fire Chief's direction that this is happening anymore. If you recall from the UBL report, after the Solano County Grand Jury report, ex-Fire Chief Donald Parker was clearly given the authority and the responsibility to control UBL. Parker shirked his responsibility to control UBL misuse/abuse by stating that the authority to control UBL rested solely with Kurt Henke (the fox guarding the hen house again!). In the UBL report, Sherman is quoted in saying that prior to Parker's arrival, UBL was used "in a more controlled fashion." I'll if I can find out something more specifically.
|
|
|
| 12/22/07
|
| If
we layoff a city employee by eliminating their position, does our
obligation to pay into the PERS system on their behalf disappear?
Thanks, Doug Sherman
|
|
Hey Doug - here's the lowdown:
The answer depends - we still have that
obligation if the employee worked for Vallejo for five years and was
vested. If the employee was not vested we no further obligation other
than what we have paid to PERS. We are required to fund a
prorated portion of that person's pension based on the number of years
they worked for Vallejo if they were vested. That is, if the
retired person worked 5 of their 20 years in a job that has PERS,
Vallejo has to contribute 20% of that person's PERS expense.
There was an excellent of example of that in a recent Contra Costa Times article. The city manager of Martinez came out of retirement to take the city manager job. He received significantly more pay from Martinez than his previous job and as a result the pension expense for his prior city went up. The pension is based on the last year's salary, but the funding comes from all of the prior employers. So take an employee for example who worked 5 of his 25 years in Vallejo. He goes to another city after Vallejo and make a lot more $. Then he retires - his retirement benefit is based on that job. So even though we might have paid him less than his next job, we have to contribute 20% of his retirement, and his retirement is based on that most recent and highest paid job. Here it is in a Nutshell: Mr X works in City Government for 25 years: 5 years: 1980-1985: Vallejo, makes 15,000/year 5 years: 1986-1990: Richmond, makes 45,000/year (he went to grad school apparently!) 5 years: 1991-1995: Contra Costa, makes 65,000/year 10 years: 1996-2005 SF, makes 85,000/year Retirement is 90% of his highest paid job = $76,500, Vallejo pays 20% or $15,300. So we pay into his retirement more than what he made in Vallejo. This is an extreme case though! The Queen extends a Royal thank you to Paul "The Gadfather" Norberg for his help in answering this question!! |
|
|
| 12/14/07 |
|
Maureen & John Kocourek asked:
City gets their health plan through PERS (Public Employee Retirement System). Plans available including Kaiser, Blue Shield, Aetna, Cigna, Health Net and a few others.
100% (Since employees do not contribute). Well,
this may not be accurate. The City pays it all, they might use some
funds other than the General Fund - The General Fund is where taxpayer
dollars go. This would probably be a lengthy analysis that I couldn't do
without information from the City, but it probably wouldn't make much of
a difference -- that is, regardless of what City fund pays for it, the
City pays 100% of employee and family health insurance for everyone. Pretty darn good deal it seems highly unusual
these days -- most employees contribute some amount towards their
premiums. I don't know specifically how much the City pays, but its my
guess that PER MONTH, Kaiser is $200 to $300 for individual employee
(not including family) and Aetna is about $400-$500. Add on families for
those who request that coverage, and multiply by all employees for all
twelve months and its a staggering expense to the City. Points to why
this country needs universal health care! I Hope this answers your questions! -ADQ |
| 12/11/07 |
|
Katy... -ADQ
|
| 11/28/07 |
|
D Q, since the truth of the events in Palm Springs rests on the
information on the offical arrest report, why is it that the report has
not been provided to the voters so they may make up their minds on the
issue at hand based on the facts and not on conjecture? I assume that no
answer will be forthcoming, just the same as the paper of record. Tom
Buckless |