October 2008

Post your comment below and we'll put up your words...BUT...this is not an open forum for racist, nasty, personal, homophobic, or otherwise offensive comments that do not fall under the category of  intelligent discourse.

True vile pointless nastiness will be deleted.  We will try to be fair but remember--This is about promoting ideas not hatred.

Your comments will NEVER be removed or altered to promote an agenda--political or otherwise

          Please, Don't Feed The Trolls-- Help Keep This Blog Productive

                                                      Report Abuse   This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it

Comments

Add New Search RSS

captain   |October.23.2008 Calpers looks to shore up Assets Tha californiaPublic Employees' Pension System, known as Calpersystemsaid its assets have declined by more than 20%, or at least 48 Billion, from the end of June through Oct. 10. Unless returns improve, Calpers is poised to impose an estimated increase in employer contributions of 2% to 4% of payroll starting in July 2010.... http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122469119659558689

Big City   |October.22.2008 Captain-----I think there's no doubt that CalPERS will raise the city's contribution rate. They do it on a more-or-less regular basis. However, when they do it I see the percentage going up dramatically. Even without the "perfect storm" this was going to happen, but it's going to be LOTS worse now. The amounts the city will have to pay are totally unsustainable. I could easily see contribution rates in the range of 50% of base salary for all public safety personnel---maybe higher. So, while this will go a long way to "stabilize" the pension fund, it will bankrupt the cities in the process. As I've said before, you're going to see a lot of California cities soon going down the "Vallejo Path"-----Vallejo is but the "ignominious vanguard". As a matter of fact, even with a substantial local tax hike, were that even a remote possibility, this "death spiral" is going to occur. It's just unsustainable under virtually any set of circumstances.

captain   |October.22.2008 You are absolutely correct! As of June, Vallejo was at the short end of the CALPERS accepted range of reasonable "Unfunded Liability" (81% funded for Vallejo). Calpers has lost 12% in the last month and I suspect that Vallejo's unfunded liability has grown significantly - under funded. What Calpers is doing is essentially smoothing losses - carrying losses forward for as much as 15 years. When cities see their statements it wont look as bad as it actually is - another Tax Payer trap in my mind. Warren Buffet says that the assumptions made by Calpers (7.75% return annually)are unrealistic. That becomes even more preposterous when you consider the massive losses (12 billion last quarter) of the pension fund. Essentially, calpers has to earn 7.75% going forward + make up the losses they've sustained this year, and maybe losses they will sustain over the next 3 years (maybe they earn but come up short of the 7.75% assumption). Vallejo's funded liability in 2000, thanks to the stock market bubble, was 113% (2@55 was the pension back then). Even though the realestate market provided record gains between 2000 -2006, the funded pension decreased to 81%. What changed was the pension program: in 2000, 2@55 became 3@50 and was made retroactive. I think you can imagine the accelerated depletion of funding that would occur given the increased benefit. In healthy economic times the program can't support itself. In the current environment there are red flags everywhere. I recently read an article on a PS website that addressed members concerns regarding pension funding. The answer to the unfunded pension liability concern was that CalPers would raise the cities contribution rate to bring funding to acceptable levels. The problems associated with "Defined Benefit Plans" are about to rear their ugly heads.

Big City   |October.22.2008 Pyriphlegethon----If you think the Alton, IL situation is bad, wait until you see what happens in Vallejo and a LOT of other California cities when the "perfect storm" of recession, housing price collapse, and stock market collapse work their way through to adjusted contribution rates for the 3%@50 retirement plan for public safety employees. While I don't know what sort of a plan they have in Alton, IL, I can almost guarantee you it's WAY less generous than 3%@50. That sort of plan is totally unheard of in most other areas of the country. The contribution rate increases to maintain it are going to totally swamp California cities, and, especially ones like Vallejo. It's a TOTALLY unsustainable benefit----TOTALLY, 100% unsustainable.

Vallejo Heights   |October.22.2008 On Fire, I doubt that anyone is actually trying to "infiltrate" VIB, as they claim. The value to them in that statement is simply in saying it, in the hopes that anyone new could be tainted with the doubt that they are a potential spy. That would slow the growth of this site in general and the movement for greater public control of city expenses in specific. They're trying to divide and conquer, but (as usual) it's a futile gesture.

WAZ UP WID DAT   |October.22.2008 Calwell says he made a "mistake in judgement" but wants to be made a County Supervisor, a position that will allow him access to greater funds that he can have a "mistake of judgement" with... Maybe he will "turn over a new leaf" and realize the "error of his ways." Perhaps he learned everything he knows about ethics while being a fire fighter... HaHaHa!

WaR   |October.21.2008 "AmCan decides not to reveal fire probe findings" http://www.americancanyoneagle.com/articles/2008/09/18/news/local/doc48d19dcf6e877952088030.txt "Caldwell takes the blame Former fire chief calls bonuses 'mistake in judgment'." VIDEO: http://www.americancanyoneagle.com/articles/2008/10/03/news/local/doc48e442cc2bf69961779874.txt

Coincidence or,   |October.21.2008 Nah they wouldn't do that. What is up with the VFD coincidentally scoping out FLY on how to fight a conflagration there and then POOF it happens. Nah of course there were WMD's in Iraq. We are just too stupid to see them.

Pyriphlegethon   |October.21.2008 Alton, IL: Selling bonds to cover a "$74.63 million in unfunded liability" for Police and Fire Fighter pensions? Check this out: "projections are that the funds' debt would be paid off in 2033, and the final bond debt in 2050". Thats CRAP. Mortgaging the future of their City? Selling bonds to pay off a debt by extending the bad decisions of approving contracts with pensions Alton, IL couldn't afford in the first place. They--like all towns across America bought and sold by the PSUs--need to bite the bullet and tell the unions: no more.

On Fire   |October.21.2008 By the way, love the graphics on Schussel's article.

On Fire   |October.21.2008 As the South Park PSU bunch try to spread their hate on the times-horrid, some have decided to troll their way over here. I love their continuous attempts to down play the role of VIB in Vallejo, only to give more free advertisment to the site each day. If they really believed that VIB has no voice in the community, or that people who post on VIB are such a small group that are of no great concern....then why to they spend so much time talking about the site? They are now trying to find ways to infiltrate VIB, as stated by one of the South Park charecters. But if the best they can do is post the mostly silly, often time vile and always immature way they have on the t-h, they will only expose themselves to even more of the community as the haters that they are.

captain   |October.21.2008 'It was a tragic day, and it has nothing to do with getting paid time-and-a-(quarter)' he said. 'I just don't think that it's appropriate http://www.salemnews.com/punews/local_story_295003239

captain   |October.21.2008 PEABODY

captain   |October.21.2008 Councilors pan 9/11 pay; backlash shocks union head PEABODY

captain   |October.21.2008 ALTON - To meet legal obligations to the police and fire pension funds, the city began the process Monday night to sell about $60 million in general obligation taxable pension bonds in two increments. http://www.thetelegraph.com/news/city_19410___article/bond_bonds Considring Vallejo's unfunded liability, I thought this article might be of interest.

Plain Ole Troll   |October.20.2008 Plain Ole Troll is pretty embarrassed tonight. Plain Ole Troll incorrectly referred to the count of ballot petition signatures as a count of votes. Sloppy old troll. Plain Ole Troll is pretty tired from working day and night under that darn ole bridge. Nevertheless, what Plain Ole Troll was getting at was the counting precision that the current registrars office is capable of. Now Plain Ole Troll realizes that there are lies, damn lies and statistics but this kind of discussion is just too complicated for a plain ole troll. No, Plain Ole Troll was simply pointing out the apparent incompetence in the current registrars office as evidenced by their performance the last time we ask them to count for us with precision. Sloppy ole Registrar.

enlightened troll   |October.20.2008 Thank you again Mr. Schussel. The statement from Plain ole Troll |October.20.2008 "201 votes is well within the margin of error of this registrars office. is incorrect then? or has no foundation?

Robert Schussel   |October.20.2008 Enlightened Troll The margin of error is only used for randomly drawn samples. That is each person would have an equal probablity of being selected. A vote or collection of signatures is not a sample. For example 200 signatures (20%) out of 1,000 collected are in question.The 20%( assuming none are disputed further) is the rate of bad signatures for that petition drive. Its like a vote--if one person is elected by one vote he/she is the winner. There is no margin of error. Hope that helps

Big City   |October.20.2008 Anybody that believe that a crime rate in a city has ANYTHING to do with the number of police officers patrolling the streets is NUTS. Period. Folks with a VESTED INTEREST in keeping the officer ranks high in number will show "statistics" which "verify" their contention. However, people that commit crimes don't pay any attention, at all, to the size of the police force. If any city were to DOUBLE the size of the police force, it wouldn't cause a single criminal to even think twice about committing a crime. By the same token, if a city were to HALVE its police force, it wouldn't cause a single criminal to commit a crime that they wouldn't otherwise have committed or for criminals to flock to a city. This is just not how criminal minds work. The fact of the matter is that most cities have LONG SINCE reached the point of diminishing returns on increased police force size. If more forces are added, the effect on crime will be di minimis; if forces are reduced, the same effect will occur. Wouldn't criminals stand a greater chance of getting caught if there were more officers on the street? Yes, they would. However, the VAST, VAST majority of lawbreakers don't get caught now so the few extra that might actually get caught with more officers isn't even worth the cost. So, why do police departments constantly advocate for more officers? Is the reason that they're really concerned about the safety of the city they serve? Nope, they're not. Most of them don't even live in the city they serve. The reason is that a larger police force means more promotional opportunities for the folks that are working there now. They will be in line for promotion to "detective" (with it's much "cushier" plain clothes work style, un-marked cars so you can do whatever you want, and normal work hours), or higher rank with more pay and perks. That's the REAL reason they want larger police forces. It has absolutely NOTHING to do with the safety of the city they serve.

Firebug   |October.20.2008 The only problem with the billboard idea in Vallejo is I have seen so many creative artists in Vallejo (like the Sunday Funnies); I doubt Mustard and Henke would pay for such a work in progress!

enlightned troll   |October.20.2008 Thank you Mr. Schussel. If "The margin of error is a statistic expressing the amount of random sampling error in a survey's results. It refers to the variability that occurs when a random sample is collected." What "statistic" would be the"margin of error" that "plain ole troll" is referenceing? I was looking at it from the 201 signature value that was expressed by "plain ole troll". He/she was the one to identify a whole value as within "margin of error". How should "plain ole troll" have appropriately and accurately stated the "margin of error"? (ie..."The margin of error would be stated to be +/-3% .95 probablity"

i love vallejo   |October.20.2008 so that billboard photo at the entrance to monrovia that is on the vib page today is gonna make matt mustard and kurt henke think "why didn't we do that?" i can hear the money jingling now and i am sure we will see a similar billboard soon on hwy 80 sponsored by the iaff. vpoa, and times horrid.

Robert Schussel   |October.20.2008 Enlightened Troll You need to take a beginning course in statistics. Your use of the term is inappropiate. The margin of error is a statistic expressing the amount of random sampling error in a survey's results. It refers to the variability that occurs when a random sample is collected. Your example of the Mayors race is inappropiate. Margin of error only refers to the sample being drawn such as a survey to try to estimate the vote that will occur. For example the true population value was 50%. If a randomnly drawn sample of 1,000 was drawn, 95 times out of 100 the sample value drawn would be between 47% and 53%. The margin of error would be stated to be +/-3% .95 probablity.

On Fire   |October.20.2008 Reality unchecked, first off, I wouldn't count your chicks too fast. There are still many options open to the B/A group. The fact that there still are close to 7,000 good signatures is what you need to pay attention to. I suspect that if the B/A group would have shot for the 2009 election to begin with, there would have been less of a rush to gather signatures. Now do you really think that this is going away any time soon? The closer we get to Dec. and the more cuts in City services they public has to suffer from, the more the resentment will grow. My feeling is that if the investigation doesn't garner the signatures this time around, there is still plenty of time to go again. The majority of people that signed those petitions are angry. The fact that the economy is not getting any better is going to make the taxpayers even more angry. So snibbling city employees who can't get past the "it's all about me" syndrome will have a larger ground swell of angry citizens wanting any loopholes, hidden perks and unsustainable salaries dealt with, and dealt with swiftly. I wouldn't be surprized if Council takes a look at putting B/A on the ballot. Remember that the PS whiners have already made it clear that they will try to get rid of two of their funded council members. Now if they get mad, and side with Gomes and Schivley, and we hear that Ozzy is getting real tired of the union's drama, I'd call that a MAJORITY!

Firebug   |October.20.2008 I don't see anything specific either except one post (unless you think Silas blamed me and Onfire). I think the concerns brought up at the registrars's office are ligitmate considering their handling or mishandling of the last election. Why not just post with one of your more familiar handles?

RealityCheck   |October.20.2008 Silas, you need to take your ginko biloba supplements, your memory is slipping. First, I claimed the Anonymous posting immediately as done in error. Read everything before you make an assumption, so you don't continue to make the errors you already are prone to do. Scroll down, oh intelligent one, and you would find a posting from you addressing On Fire and Firebug concerning the scapegoating of this issue with the Registrars Office. You, On Fire and Firebug. One, two and three. Three people in a very short time that are pointing the failing of your dearly beloved BA issue on the Registrars Office. Or don't you three even count on this website? Or could it be that those named three are really one person using three monikers? This would explain the "couldn't find such posts" as they are all from one person.

Firebug   |October.20.2008 Troll why not post as NBR or interesting?

enlightened troll   |October.20.2008 "Margin of error" is expressed in %'s. Not whole numbers. The margin of error for the mayors race was about .003. The margin of error for the invalid signatures collected is about 28%. About 93x greater. Get together with Schussel and maybe he can spin it so that 201 signaures is insignificant. By comparison with the mayors election, if the invalid signature count was 27, then it would be close to the same "margin of error". But it is off by 27+174. If the mayoral race had the same margin of error as this sham of a signature collecion, the difference would have been about 4,400 votes. I have to disagree with Silas about anyone being worried, well... except for the people that want the petition to succeed.

Plain ole Troll   |October.20.2008 201 votes is well within the margin of error of this registrars office. This troll thinks the fat lady is unsung.

the enlightened troll   |October.20.2008 Binding Arbitration Is A Good Way To Resolve Disputes POLICEPAY.NET By: Ron York Binding arbitration is a good way to resolve disputes between local governments and their employees. We have "binding arbitration" everywhere in commerce. Maybe you do not recognize it. It is called "civil lawsuits" and arbitrators are called "judges." Arbitration without the word binding in front of it means that one or both of the parties can veto the decision. Binding arbitration is a less expensive and expedited way of resolving disputes.

silasbarnabe   |October.20.2008 Wishfull thinking from an anonymous poster... first the one that taunted readers here before the letter got out of the registratr's office, and now claiming that there are posts "blaming" someone or somebody for the BA signature failure yet I can't find such posts. I can't find more than one post that implicates anyone spcifically in this peculiar signature rejection rate of nearly double the highest average recommended by the registrar's office. Could realitycheck and other PSU apologists be concerned about why no one is posting and what is going on behind the scenes?

RealityCheck   |October.19.2008 Please excuse the Anonymous, the previous post was mine.

Anonymous   |October.19.2008 PSU Watch, I find it quite amusing that while you tell me to leave, as if my presence would upset the biased views here, you fail to say anything about the subject of my post. The blaring facts, as stated in many of the previous posts, that finger pointing and scapegoating is always the first recourse on any failed issue VIB backs. Was this truly an oversight on your part, or a confirmation that these noted actions are the blatant truth?

PSU Watch   |October.19.2008 Reality Check, if you don't like our discussions so much, go back to the Times Horrid blogs and bask in the company of people with similar intellectual capacity as yourself.

RealtiyCheck   |October.19.2008 Most of you need a 12-step program for denial issues. When one of your issues fails, i.e., BA, you just have to blame someone besides just admitting that you failed for obvious reasons. This time you claim your failure isn't because your issue was weak and you couldn't get the signatures from legitimate voters, it's blamed on corruption in the Registrars Office. Repeat these words: God grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, courage to change the things I can, and the wisdom to know the difference. It states nothing about paranoia. Get help.

Big City   |October.18.2008 Not to worry. In the near term, the binding arbitration issue is moot. The City and the unions will either come to agreement over the contract economic issues or the bankruptcy court will, effectively, impose new contract provisions with respect to economic issues. In other words, an arbitration panel is not going to be able to come up with anything that's "binding" on the bankruptcy court and the bankruptcy court is not going to approve anything that doesn't solve the bankruptcy on a more-or-less long term basis. So, there should be plenty of time to carry out another drive for a city charter amendment to eliminate binding arbitration.

silasbarnabe   |October.18.2008 Thanks PSU troll your posting before the Wednesday letter points to more irregularities in mr. McWilliams organization.

Marc   |October.18.2008 Troll, I would like to thank you for bringing the failure of the BA to our attention. You were correct all along. However, I refuse to answer your questions about the Guardian Angels. Anything I say will look like I was grandstanding and making promises I could not keep. But I still have my red Angel shirt so maybe I will walk around downtown...an army of one.

Sarah A   |October.17.2008 Police pay.net negotiated settlement between Alameda, CA and Alameda Police Officers Assoc. On January 1, 2001 or as soon as possible thereafter, subject to CalPERS rules and conditions, the CalPERS 3% @ 50 retirement formula will be implemented. Police Captain 5120 5376 5645 5927 $6223 Bi-Weekly Employees who are off-duty and who are required to testify in court or attend a District Attorney's conference in any criminal matter will receive a minimum of four (4) hours' overtime computed at time and one-half (1-1/2). The City shall make the necessary contributions per month per eligible employee toward the City's Flexible Benefits to provide the dental plan to the employee and eligible dependents. This coverage will be mandatory for all employees. Maybe the VPD will go on their own and hire this group that is clearly looking out for Alameda, CA.

silasbarnabe   |October.17.2008 On-fire and Firebug- Certainly there is something going on, to reject 1 in 3 signatures which is going to elicit a firestorm on our part. I can't imagine the firestorm the incompetent staff at the county will already be challenged with from our PSU brethren. If I was the county employees I would concur with their assessment of the situation and favor the PSU'sas they have more money than we do, but let's join together to fight the county to contest a mere 201 signatures and hold the appropriate leadership acountable!

Firebug   |October.17.2008 Onfire That is exactly what I am talking about, signatures disqualified because someone used Jimmy instead of James, or a middle intial was used ETC. As incompetent as our County voting organization demonstated last election I was curious if they "over-reacted" because of the ACORN issue to avoid PSU scrutiny which is certain to follow if the the signatures moved to the ballot box. It is hard to fathom nearly 3000 signatures being disqualified without severe measures being taken by that office.

On Fire   |October.17.2008 While it appears that not much information has been released, one has to wonder about anything that comes out of our Voter Registrar office. I'm sure that the voter reg list will need to be checked to make sure that anyone who may have recently registered, or moved due to foreclosure wasn't disqualified from the petition. My understanding is that even if your signature looks different from what they have on file, it can disqualify you. Whatever the case may be, I'm sure a challenge is in order. It ain't over yet! All of which is something that people will need to be watching for so that come election day, that every valid vote is counted.

Firebug   |October.17.2008 Not using the ACORN strategy as much as 'reacting" to it. I am suspicious if individuals have been removed from the voter registration rolls as a result.

Cornerback   |October.17.2008 Yes, I understand the registrar is using the ACORN strategy. They have called each member of the Dallas Cowboys but to date none of the Cowboys seem to know anything about binding arbitration much less Vallejo. Makes me think something is rotten in Denmark.

Firebug   |October.17.2008 Thanks Marc, I wonder if registrar is using the ACORN strategy to disqualify signatures?

PSU Watch   |October.17.2008 Troll, that's because it's all rumor still. Haven't seen anything in the Times Horrid yet, either. Hmmmm. Besides, we're all still laughing our a$$es off at the policepay.net article. Your own people calling your bluff, spanking you for your bad behavior and hurting PSUs across the country with your refusal to be reasonable. It's good to know that honor still exists in the public safety world. You wouldn't know it by Vallejo. Tsk, tsk, tsk, you've been abandoned and banished not just by your community/city, but now by your "brothers and sisters."

On Fire   |October.17.2008 Troll, why don't you ask your source for the information you are seeking? I think you are more likely posting here because you can't get anyone to take your bait on the times horrid. You will get information when it's provided and no sooner. So troll your behind back over to the dank dwellings you so love and try to cause havoc with your own kind. Be careful that the sun doesn't reach you.

Troll   |October.17.2008 Marc, It's been a couple of days now and no update on the BA petition failure? Why the delay? Didn't Libian call you back? I know you have other resources out there...what's up? Also, what happened to your Guardian Angels? All these promises and no results...just a publicity stunt, or have I missed them downtown, nope they are not here.

Historian   |October.16.2008 Some African countries run by strong men are referred to by economists as "vampire governments". They keep their people starving and destitute so that the UN will keep sending financial aid which the powerful suck off to pay for their gold plated lifestyle. Very little trickles down to the people so the cycle continues forever. Sound familiar? By concentrating poverty, section 8 housing, parolees, halfway houses, etc, in the City of Vallejo and starving lifestyle amenities like parks, the powerful can keep feeding off those Federal subsidies. If Vallejo was not "poor", the Feds wouldn't send so much money. But now that the Feds have to pay for the war and the bailout for the Wall Street super rich, I would wonder how much money they will have in the future for "social programs".

Fed Up   |October.16.2008 In Regard to Lost Cause, Ironic that as soon as they realize they are throwing their good money after bad, they decide it is not worth the fight. Of course, as long as the average family of 4 in Vallejo that makes $53,000./year keeps on paying everything is hunky dory. I now realize why medical calls in Vallejo require a response of 3 firetrucks and an ambulance. They have to keep us alive to keep working and paying our taxes. Sort of like giving the slaves that built the pyramids in Egypt just enough food and water to keep going. That is why they say they care soooo much about the citizens of Vallejo. We are the Unions slaves. The herd needs protection.

captain   |October.16.2008 Just loved the policepay.net article: Vallejo is a lost cause. Sounds like they agree that Hankie is driving the Bus over the cliff. Maybe Marc could re-run that Sunday Funny.

Edinator   |October.16.2008 Rumors are rampant regarding the Binding Arbitration Petition. I have called Jim Libien the chairman of the Binding Arbitration effort and left a message. As soon as VIB hears back and has any information that can be confirmed we will let you know.

Troll   |October.15.2008 Marc, Why no comment about the BA failing the petition drive???

MISSMARVELOUS   |October.15.2008 Thank you John C. I am glad to know that Vallejo City representatives were at the "table" for the discussions of spending money on Hwy 29. I feel with a forum such as VIB we can all stay informed on important matters that may and do affect the City of Vallejo. We are going to keep our eye on what is going on "Up-Valley" and make sure the best interests of Vallejo are insisted upon by our City and County representatives.

John C   |October.15.2008 Miss M.: After I posted here I emailed Evans, Wiggins, Gomes, Schively and Davis to express concern that Vallejo's interests be addressed. Mayor Davis and Councilwoman Schively both responded that city representatives were in attendance at the meeting.

Firebug   |October.15.2008 I am pleased Mike wrote, that surely means he has been enraged by someone on this board....

Anon   |October.15.2008 On Fire IGNORE MIKE--he is a PSU apologist who often posts on the TH site.

On Fire   |October.15.2008 You are wrong in your assumption. Your own figures don't make sense. And it ain't over, so don't get happy just yet Mike. More to come shortly.

Mike   |October.15.2008 I talked to one of your birds. That bird told me that you are 2000 signatures short on your attempt to remove binding arbitration. 10000 votes turned in, needed 7000 and you are 2000 short that makes for 5000 invalid signatures. These are the people that I want leading my city.

Robert Schussel   |October.15.2008 HEALTH INSURANCE COSTS--READEM AND WEEP As of October 2008 the annualized cost of health insurance to the City is $9,441,300. Of this amount 39% ($3,669,435)is for Retirees. The City pays an average of $7,942 per Retiree a year and $12,439 per current employee.

Firebug   |October.15.2008 The Chico firefighters are asking for "nothing in return", here Henke, Riley, Mustard, and Gordon hold a press conference about big "give backs" to the City and we find out that the "give backs" go into a trust fund to be used only by IAFF 1186 and VPOA. It is refreshing to see the safety employees in Chico really care about the staffing levels and the City they work for.

Historian   |October.15.2008 You'd have to get demographic data on Mare Island workers from the Feds. Either the census bureau or the U.S.Navy should have percentages. It was Kaiser Shipyard on the east side of the straits that brought in black workers from the south during WWII just like they did in Richmond. Remember when Mare Island closed it had a regional economic impact. Which is why it was Mike Thompson from the Napa Valley who passed the special legislation allowing formation of a Redevelopment Area on Mare Island for economic reasons alone with no mention of the fact that it is a National Historic Landmark. My move to Vallejo is moot because it doesn't qualify for the historic record.

MISSMARVELOUS   |October.15.2008 Bill Dodd, Napa County Supervisor also sits on the Metropolitian Transportation Commission. He is the person spear-heading the talks between Napa County, the city of American Canyon and the Solano County Board of Transportation. In fact he invited all three groups representatives to be present at the talks. I do not believe that anyone from the City of Vallejo was invited. Strange... The focus of the talks was the grid lock "from Napa to Vallejo" the "Gate Way of the Napa Valley" as was the verbage of the Napa Register article. Vallejo rarely has grid lock, the traffic jam thorough American Canyon is caused from the 4 new traffic lights they installed which only allow 3-4 cars through the intersection at a light change. I am guessing they will need Solano County Transportation funds if they wish to widen and improve their portion of Hwy 29, its bound to cost a lot of money. They will throw us a "bone" though I am sure, lets get Hwy 29 "cute" from Vallejo to Napa for the sake of the tourists... VAllejo has its own historic identity that we should be promoting, we dont need to lose our identity by being labeled as part of the "gateway to the Napa Valley." What will be next, signs from the Vallejo Ferry builing saying "Napa 12 Miles Ahead?" Time to keep an eye on our neighbors the "Wine Barons..." Viva Vallejo!!!!!

another anonymous   |October.14.2008 Historian, What year did you move to Vallejo from Napa? What % of MI workers lived in Napa?

Vallejo Born   |October.14.2008 My parents tell a story of driving on Hwy. 80 past the Tennessee St. off ramp and being taken aback at the sight of a bill board adverting homes in Country Club Crest. The name of the contractor on the sign was U.S. Coons. The sign read something like Come join U.S. Coons in the new sub division, blah, blah, blah. They still shake their heads in amazement and sorrow when they tell this story. During the 50s blacks were not allowed to purchase homes in Napa. Blacks were routinely stopped for driving through Napa. Its not pretty but I believe it to be the truth.

Historian   |October.14.2008 No, anonymous is not wrong. I lived in Napa City for many years and moved to Vallejo because of the what I felt to be rampant racism and elitism. Turned out that was one of the reasons Napa City prospered. It was a lily white suburb for Mare Island workers. Check out the historic record. During the post WWII era, new Napa City subdivisions were marketed as such openly. The reason Loftus Manor is on the Vallejo Landmark list is because it was the first suburb built by a black contractor for black families who were not allowed to buy into most subdivisions because of racial covenants. When I lived there, a black exchange studant from Africa was killed at a huge party, no one saw anything and the African government filed an official complaint against Napa City at the Federal level. It is very real.

another anonymous   |October.14.2008 Thank you Historian. From your description it appears that anonymous theory (Napa yard workers leaving low class Vallejo) is without foundation, completely made up and total malarkey

On Fire   |October.14.2008 This Bloody Nose Doctrine has been around for a long time here in Vallejo and people are getting tired of reaching for kleenex. This type of tactic will only make the community even more angry, especially when the economy is already causing families to pinch pennies, yet the police unions, (and fire unions as well) want for us to bleed some more. Why? For some it clearly isn't for their desire to protect as serve the community. I'm not one am not standing by to have my nose bloodied any further. As a city, we have just about bled out. It's time for a transfusion, by way of new leadership from the unions who can see past selfish power plays that merely look out for their membership and egos of the leadership, and will look out for the City as a whole. Gone are the days of the community accepting threats of brass knuckles and union thuggery. Viva Vallejo!

Historian   |October.14.2008 More than one railroad. The first railroad from the Lemon Street ferry terminal to Calistoga was dedicated in 1868. Another spur went through Jamison Canyon up to Sacramento. A few years later, the Big Four established a new railroad into Benicia where train cars were put on a ferry to Martinez and on to Oakland thus bypassing Vallejo and starting one of our first economic downturns. That railroad now extends into the General Mills plant and the tracks are fully intact. There were early railroads on Mare Island. These originally had their own bridge (demolished) but the tracks were added to the Causeway drawbridge in the early 1930's. That railroad is also fully intact and runs down the Mare Island waterfront through the Historic Core next to the ferry dock for the historic Mare Island commuter ferry. The rail line from Napa to Vallejo down Georgia I think was late 1800's to WWI. It might have been a trolley. All of those tracks have been pulled up. So the infrastructure to re-establish a rail line from Mare Island into the Napa Valley connected by a passenger ferry from the Vallejo ferry terminal is fully intact. Plus the historic Farragut Administration Building could easily be rehabilitated as a first class hotel and conference center. But the Napa Valley powers including their politicians sure don't want that to happen and much of our City of Vallejo staff lives in Napa City so we know where their loyalties lie.

another anonymous   |October.14.2008 Historian, your account of the rail line sounds very different from Anonymous version. Your version has rich San Franciscans vacationing in Calistoga and Anonymous's has blue collar shipyard workers leaving lower class Vallejo for Napa. When was the rail line established?

Historian   |October.13.2008 One of the first rail lines in California ran from the South Vallejo ferry terminal at Lemon Street to Calistoga. It was built by Sam Brannon to serve his new resort in Calistoga.."the Saratoga of California". Wealthy folks took the ferry from SF, stayed overnight at Frisbie's hotel at the foot of Lemon and then journeyed up valley on the train to vacation at the Calistoga resorts and other resorts along the way. Stages took folks to resorts off the rail line. That's the answer

Anonymous   |October.13.2008 I second Miss M. Napa County has long been very hostile to Vallejo. Historically, there was a commuter rail line running from Napa City to Vallejo right down through the center of town on Georgia to allow the Mare Island workers who didn't want to live near those they perceived to be lower classes in Vallejo. Things haven't changed much. Vallejo is Napa's cash cow. The big time contractors who benefit from our Redevelopment dollars for infrastructure live north of here and folks there invest heavily in Vallejo "cash cows" (low income and subsidized rentals). Not to mention that our most vicious union thugs live up there. The real traffic bottleneck is in American Canyon because of the Walmart. Imagine poor Kurt with a 90 minute commute from his mansion up Soda Canyon. So Vallejo would not get anything out of "cooperating". We've seen what Wiggins and Evans are willing to do to Vallejo. Why would we think they have changed their spots??? The answer is more efficient public transit and there is an existing rail line. We don't have to buy light rail right-of-way; we have right-of-way. But Napa County has always been the impediment to that because, as Miss M, says, Napa County wants the tourists in their cars so that they can stop at all the quaint wineries and shops along Highway 29. (Anybody who knows the valley, uses Silverado Trail because the traffic is significantly ligher) Short story: I went to a church event in Saint Helena where a woman was bemoaning the fact that she couldn't put her Mercedes on a train flatcar and then a car ferry to go to SF. That's the mind set up there. Vallejo City staff are historically very poor negotiators so we need to watch this one verrry carefully because they will sell us out in a minute with no qualms.

Reality   |October.13.2008 The California FFs and Cops gouge the taxpayers with the help of their criminal Unions, as follows: (The list is getting longer). 1. A pattern of PS union racketeering activity throughout CA for financial gain (potential RICO Act offense) 2. Monopoly Bargaining by the Unions (No competition creates pricier contracts) 3. Quid Pro Quo Endorsements of our Representatives (Corruption) 4. Minimum Staffing Scams 5. Binding Arbitration Inequity 6. Coercive Union Political Power 7. Inefficient Government Operation (especially FFs) 8. Lack of Incentive and accountability to reduce costs and work efficiently 9. Inflexible primarily Seniority-based labor versus Performance-based labor 10. Fake Diploma Mill scams (Fraud) 11. Secret Contract Negotiations with Unions allowed by the Brown Act 12. Union Business Leave scams (Abalone Diving, Sleep-off Hangovers, etc) 13. False Disability Claims (Fraud) 14. False Worker�s Comp Claims (Fraud) 15. Excessive Vacation, Holiday and Sick Time 16. Union FFs getting a compensation of over $200,000 per year for mostly watching TV, shopping, and sleeping 17. Educational Incentive Scams 18. Paying a current FF employee to be a Paramedic 19. Hazardous Duty and Longevity Bonus Pay Scams 20. Paying an Assistant fire chief (over $300,000) to be a full time Vallejo IAFF union president 21. Frivolous lawsuits by IAFF union president Henke (very expensive and intimidating tactics) 22. The PS Unions are in collusion with the Vallejo Times-Herald for propaganda and misinformation 23. Unsustainable increase in pension of 3% @ 50 (Should be 2% @ 60) 24. Retroactive pension of 3% @ 50 to all PS employees (Should NOT be allowed) 25. Annual COLA for retired PS employees 26. PS employees are able to buy (very cheap) service year credits (air time) 27. PS Unions� plan to avoid BK was to increase taxes and fees and extend their expensive contract to 2014 to pay for their gold plated lifestyle 28. The PS Unions are pushing U.S. Senate Bill S.2123 which forces unionism on all non-union PS employees including all Volunteer FFs. This bill does nothing more than open new markets for unions by increasing dues-paying membership (SCAM). 29. Vallejo PS employees get lifetime medical benefits after 5 years of service 30. Union locals throughout the USA are financially supporting Vallejo PS unions to fight the taxpayers and the city Vallejo needs the strength and courage to look at PRIVATIZATION, so that we can rid ourselves of these corrupt unions once and for all, and change our City Charter to prohibit contributions to candidates like the city of Hayward, remove Binding Arbitration like 95% of CA cities, make contract negotiations transparent, have taxpayers oversee all aspects of Government, and replace pensions with 401k plans. AND SAVE MILLIONS ($$$$$$$)!!!!!

MISSMARVELOUS   |October.13.2008 John C. the light rail idea is marvelous idea, but will meet with resistance from the up valley towns of St. Helena, Yountville and other cities north, you see they want tourists with cars "touring" they dont want "just anybody" to have access to their towns. St Helena wont even let the Wine Train pass through, can you believe? Its a shame, as the railroad tracks from Vallejo to Calistoga already exist, its a no brainer. This is the reason I am so opposed and suspicious as to why the Solano County Board of Transportation was invited by Napa Supervisor Bill Dodd to the big meeting regarding improvements to Hwy 29. They need our funding if they are ever going to get the infrastructure they need on their portion of Hwy 29 (BTw, they wanted to rename Hwy 29 "Robert Mondavi" Hwy.) In the article in the Napa Register, someone said to the affect, it doesnt matter which city the traffic problems are in, people just need good roads to travel on. If this traffic jam was in Vallejo/Solano County do you think anyone from Napa County would care?

John C   |October.12.2008 Thanks Mis M. My two cents to add is that while they're "inventorying studies already done" I hope they include the 2005 preliminary feasibility study for a light rail system. Imagine light rail from the waterfront in Vallejo to Calistoga with limitted stops in Vallejo, American Canyon and Napa. www.publictransit.us/ptlibrary/specialreports/sr10.forecastnapasolanorail.pdf

Fed Up   |October.12.2008 In regards to Circle the Wagons. The Union Reps in Vallejo have no "weak kness" about attacking anyone that speaks against their greed. Couldn't help but notice in the paper today that 1500 Cal Fire Fighters are engaged in the Napa Fire currently burning. Now, those are the kind of numbers that we need on our Vallejo Firefighting team. When are we going to get a proposal from Cal Fire?

Robert Schussel   |October.12.2008 Anon You failed to mention that 5 months of vacation time can be accured.Thats a lot of money to be paid out. Look at how a police captain walked away with several hundred thousand for all of the accured time she had. No business in their right mind would allow huge liabilities such as accured time to exist on their books. At my employer everyone had to take 3 days off to spend down accurals. In fact no one is allowed to accure more than 30 days.the city needs to adopt the same practices. If you read the contracts it is obivious that no one ever thought about the finanical consequences of their generosity. this includes accured time,retroactive health insurance and 3%@50 for retires,3%@50 for PSU employees,the various educational and longevity incentives etc. All of the above has helped drive the City into BK.

MISSMARVELOUS   |October.12.2008 I am sorry I could not include the entire article, please go to www.naparegister.com There will be a heavy lobby from our neighbors the "Wine Barons" to get Solano County transportation funds. Solano County has the brunt of the costs of all freeways. As soon as you hit Napa County no more freeways and over passes, just lovely country roads for the tourists. Believe me, if Napa County is inviting their Solano County cousins for a "sit down" they want something. Council woman Stephanie G and Supervisor Barbara K. please protect us from the teeth of our Wine Baron neighbors, we know that Sen. Wiggins and Representative Evans are heavily lobbied by both Napa and Sonoma Counties...

MISSMARVELOUS   |October.12.2008 I would like to bring to the readership of the VIB the following story in the Napa Register, that may affect our city and county, it appears that Napa wants help from Solano County in solving their girdlock on Hwy 29. Is this about improving the infrastructure of Hwy 29 all the way from Napa through Vallejo? If so, I am all for it. Is this a way for Napa County to get their hands on Solano County transportation funds? Then Napa can "suck eggs." Read the following: Transportation planners from Napa and Solano counties may collaborate on a new study of the Highway 29 corridor from Napa through Vallejo to reduce gridlock and improve the look of the highway. The study, which would evaluate traffic congestion, aesthetics guidelines and public transit availability, would serve as a blueprint for the corridor, the gateway to the Napa Valley. While there have been studies done over the years on Highway 29, none have been comprehensive, Napa County Supervisor Bill Dodd said Thursday. On Thursday, Dodd invited three-dozen officials from Napa, American Canyon and Solano County, business leaders and others to brainstorm ideas on how to reach a consensus on what should be done. In the end of the meeting, Dodd said everybody feels there is a need for the study. Dodd, who chairs the Metropolitan Transportation Commission, the planning agency for roads and transit for the Bay Area, including Napa and Solano counties, said he came to the meeting with no preconceived plan or concept. All the group wanted was to define common objectives, Dodd said.

Anon   |October.11.2008 RdP Yes the Public Safety contracts are online for all to see. Yes there is a cap on annual vacation accrual. There is no max on sick leave accrual (good for expectant mothers and long term injury). For a critic of public safety it is amazing that you are so uninformed regarding the contract, especially when it is available through the city web site.

Big City   |October.11.2008 The article does not surprise me, at all. In fact, there's nothing new about any of this. The tactics described have been being used by public safety organizations for a long time now. What's outlined in this article is merely confirmation of the "status quo". If you think about it, the same sort of an article could have been written by a mafia "capo" to his "family organizations" as a primer on just what they need to do to expand and reap greater profits from their individual operations. Folks just don't seem to understand it, but they have created a real "monster" with many of these public safety organizations. And, the "monster", once created, needs to be FED!

Pyriphlegethon   |October.11.2008 Welcome to the new paramilitary: Police Departments in America. This article is chilling, especially the exerpt "make them feel your pain" or "make their lives a living hell" This is shameful! SHAMEFUL! It attacks our rights as us citizens and individuals on so many levels!

Anon   |October.11.2008 Time to Circle the Wagons The world of law enforcement is changing, not just in the U.S. but globally. The cost of wages, health insurance, pensions, training and equipment are skyrocketing at the same time as the economy worldwide is entering a recession. Elected officials are being forced to trim their budgets, and the biggest budgets in any state and local government are police and fire. In many states the non-essential public services have been trimmed back as the economy slowed down. Now many governments have decided to see how much they can trim from essential services. In the poorer communities, there is not much fat left to trim. So who should be worried? The highly compensated law enforcement agencies, especially in areas of the country where the housing markets have collapsed, are the most vulnerable. These agencies have received wages and benefits that far exceed those enjoyed by the general public, including many of the elected officials. Some police unions have started to believe that they are bullet-proof from budget cuts. Just ask yourself what happened to the mighty auto workers, steel workers and coal miners. They were at the top of their game and collapsed. If your union believes nothing bad will happen, you are in for a rude awakening. It will start with a trickle such as civilianizing or contracting out more positions and using technology. The elected officials will tell the public, �Why should we pay a police officer $100,000 a year to do a job a non-sworn employee or private contractor will do for half the cost.� It is getting harder and harder to justify using sworn officers in many jobs that were traditionally police functions. The next move will include red light and eventually speed cameras to �free up� these highly paid officers for more serious police work. Do not expect the revenue to go back to the police department. Next the pressure will mount to create two-tier wage and benefit plans. Despite knowing the internal dissension that will be caused by having two officers working side-by-side, and each having different health insurance or pension plans, police unions are starting to accept or be forced to accept two-tier plans. The common employer pitch to the union is, �We can continue to fund your pension, but we must have budget relief by allowing the city to pay less for future officers. If you refuse, we will be forced to lower the pension for current officers.� The pressure to sell the unborn to save themselves is more than many union leaders can stand. And if all else fails to squeeze concessions out of the police budgets, the city will declare bankruptcy to abrogate its employee contracts like Vallejo, California did recently. While the city is far from bankrupt, the goal is to use tax payer money to tie the unions up in court and drain their treasuries. If you know what to expect in the future and you do not prepare yourself, you only have yourself to blame. Here are some simple rules when you are forced to say, �I never believed it would happen to me.� Rule No. 1 � The battle is in the Court of Public Opinion! The employer will be making its case to the public and media. It is a fight for the hearts and minds of the tax payers. If the public is in a foul mood over their personal finances, you will get little sympathy by arguing you deserve to be paid more than the high school principal. The message has to be directed to how the reduction in police services will impact their lives. It is all about the public! Rule No. 2 � The political fight is the main event and lawyers are a side show. If you are forced into the courthouse or arbitration, you may have waited too long to start the political machine. Police unions can avoid many of these issues by endorsing and supporting candidates who will not ask them to make such a decision, or negotiate in good faith with the union over any change. You have to recruit candidates and be involved in each election. Every decision impacting police officers is decided by a political vote. How many votes do you have on the issue? If you lack a majority, how many do you need to get right side up? Rule No. 3 � If you get caught behind the eight ball, and the employer is attacking you as a greedy and uncaring union you must identify the vocal critics and make them feel your pain. Somehow this seems to be where the unions get queasy and weak-kneed. It is often difficult to convince yourself or the members to picket some councilman�s business, put their home telephone numbers up on billboards, and in general make their lives a living hell. Union leaders who feel they are too professional to stoop to these tactics are the same ones who believe they can win by remote control using some lawyer. The bottom line: The main event is a POLITICAL GAME and the legal game is the side show. Unless you beat them politically, you will never win even if the courts one day decide in your favor. If you discover you cannot win under the current rules, change the rules, and go outside the experience of the elected officials. Think outside the box. Get dirty and fight to win. If you are in this predicament, then your elected officials did not RESPECT the union or the officers. To get respect you have to bloody their noses and demonstrate that the union is willing to make it personal, because it is personal on so many levels. Ron DeLord is the former executive director of the Combined Law Enforcement Associations of Texas (CLEAT).

captain   |October.11.2008 http://www.apbweb.com/featured-articles/952-time-to-circle-the-wagons Everyone should read this article. i am now convinced that to "serve and Protect' has nothing to do with the citizens!

captain   |October.11.2008 From: American Police Beat Featured Article: Time To Circle The Wagons (excerpt) Rule No. 3

RdP   |October.11.2008 There should be a cap on how much vacation time can be accrued...and once they reach that cap, they lose any additional time that is earned - it's like that in our State of CA union. Sick time, I think, should be able to be accrued with no maximum - it's needed for injuries, illnesses, family illnesses etc. But maybe they can cause sick time to be converted to years of service, as the State does, at the time of retirement. There seems to be alot that is not known about public safety here. Our State of CA contracts are online for anyone to see - are the Vallejo contracts online?

MISSMARVELOUS   |October.11.2008 On KCBS this week, Phil Matier pointed out that the sick time and vacation time accrued over the years by both fire and safety, is paid out at the current rate of pay, not the pay that they were earning at the time they receive the sick and vaction pay. If you have a dangerous and stressfull job, you should be forced to take vacation, no choice. If you dont take your sick time, you lose sick time by end of the year. This is stealing from the tax payers!!! I never heard of such craziness. There are fire and safety that dont even show up for the last year or two that they are employeed, they have accrued so much sick and vacation time. If they can manage to get injured on the job, they then can go out on disability pay, and folks thats TAX FREE!!!! They can then get a new job, its fun double and triple dipping!!!!

Big City   |October.09.2008 "Missmarvelous"------The previous, generally used formula for public safety was 2%@50. That was a VERY generous formula, in itself, compared to what any other government workers or private sector workers enjoyed. The change to 3%@50 represented a 50 PERCENT INCREASE and was applied RETROACTIVELY. So, someone with 29 years worked under the 2%@50 formula (or, even, sometime worked under even less generous previous formulas) and 1 year (or, even ONE DAY) under the 3%@50 formula would have their ENTIRE 30 YEARS calculated under the 3%@50 formula. So, instead of retiring at 60% of their final pay, they would retire at 90% of their final pay. There are and were other public safety formulas available but all are or were less generous than the 3%@50. When the 3%@50 became authorized by the state legislature and signed by the governor, the vast majority of cities in the state gave their public safety personnel the MOST GENEROUS of the available formulas, 3%@50, almost as soon as the "ink was dry" on the bill authorizing it. Once-upon-a-time (about 35+ years ago) almost all state and municipal employees, public safety and non-public safety, were provided with the same retirement formula----2%@60. Over the years, that formula was progressively supplanted by other, more generous formulas. This was especially true for public safety. The 3%@50 is the "Rolls-Royce" of pension formulas. Very few other government of private workers have anything even close to it. The public safety CLAIM that they need to retire earlier because of the "strenuousness" of their jobs is just "boilerplate rhetoric". They've had that line drilled into them so much over the years I think a few of them actually believe it. It's TOTAL, PURE, UTTER NONSENSE, though, and most of them know it. It's all just PROPAGANDA based on PUBLIC PERCEPTIONS of what public safety jobs are like---NOT REALITY, AT ALL. This is especially true for fire department positions. Fire department jobs are one of the "cushiest gravy trains" there is out there. PERIOD. That's why there are often THOUSANDS of applicants when positions are advertised. Most fire stations respond to VERY FEW fire calls. Most calls are medical-related. Fire department personnel have become the absolute most egregious PRIMADONNAS of our time and police are a close second. As you point out, there are MANY other jobs out there that are a LOT more physically demanding than the VAST, VAST majority of public safety jobs and VERY few of them have retirement benefits (or, salaries) anywhere near as generous as public safety jobs. The most unfair part of it all, though, is that it's those folks who have to pay the costs of the salaries and benefits that public safety personnel enjoy. It's an absolute travesty.

MISSMARVELOUS   |October.09.2008 It was in the news last week that the IRS is going to look into penalty for early use of pensions/retirement funds which would include Police and Fire departments. Not only can you retire at 50, you can also dip into your retirement and receive no penalty? This is craziness, dont forget a past governor "worked this deal" so that he could receive backing from the Fire and Safety unions (previously they retired with full benefits at 55, now 50?) One of my clients a retired 50 year old Pinole fire captain tried to explain "we have to retire at fifty, our jobs are so demanding and our bodies are just worn out." I replied, yes I understand, my husband who is in construction has fallen three times and severely injured himself, he jokes at retiring at 70. My fire captian client just stared at me, no comprehension of the "real world."

Big City   |October.08.2008 Captain----I was not aware of that. I don't think they'll be able to succeed for those already retired. However, they might succeed for those that have not retired yet. That will be a HUGE accomplishment in itself.

Captain   |October.08.2008 San Diego & Orange County are suing to elimanate the retroactive portion of 3@50. I hope they succeed. The retroactive language is a complete TAX PAYER DOLLAR RIP OFF!

Big City   |October.08.2008 Yup! That's where it's heading. And, it's picking up speed FAST. The cities and the state have to dump these incredibly generous retirement formulas, MOST ESPECIALLY THE 3%@50, or it's going to bankrupt them all. Vallejo is just on the "cutting edge" because of their other "generosities". The cities or the state can't do anything about those who have retired under these formulas and who will continue to affect the "employer contribution". Also, they can't do anything about those that will retire under these formulas just as soon as a reduction is announced. They can't do too much about those currently working and covered under the formulas, at least with respect to a retroactive reduction. However, they CAN change the formulas PROSPECTIVELY for existing employees and all new employees. They need to do it FAST to "limit the bleeding" that they have themselves stuck with. The 2%@60 formula which you reference WAS, once-upon-a-time, pretty much the "standard" formula for ALL state and municipal employees. It needs to be so-reinstated ACROSS-THE-BOARD. It's still far more generous than private sector pension plans and it's still a DEFINED BENEFIT plan which is "fast disappearing from the retirement landscape". So, even with it, public employees would have something which the vast majority of private sector folks (who pay their salaries) don't have. A "side-benefit" of this formula is that it would result in less loss of experienced personnel, many of whom are trained AT THE FULL EXPENSE OF THE TAXPAYERS.

captain   |October.08.2008 I know where this is heading. Calpers lost 29 billion in the last quarter alone - and they're losing more daily. Funding assumptions by Calpers are based on annual returns of 7.75%, something Warrun Buffet describes as unrealistic based on historical market trends. Unfortunately, while most have seen their 401k shrink, California Gov employees are guaranteed the retirement benefit. 90% pension will equal 90% - plus cost of living adjustments. So while the average citizen watches their retirement account dwindle they can expect to spend more money, in the form of increased taxes and reduced services, to insure that Public Safety can retire at fifty with six figure pensions. Vallejo's pension fund obligations were at 80% in 2006 (low) and I hate to see where they're at today. The unions will sue Vallejo to force new Taxes or Bonds to support the Pension Obligation - just a matter of time. 2@60

Big City   |October.07.2008 Here's another factor relative to how the City's costs are going to go up significantly as a result of the current fiscal crisis: As folks may or may not be aware, the money that's used to send retirees those monthly checks comes from 3 sources. (1) the fixed contribution paid by employees (in the range of 7-9% depending upon retirement formula and sometimes paid by the city as a negotiated benefit but still classified as the employee contribution); (2) the return on INVESTMENTS in the CalPERS investment portfolio, and (3) the EMPLOYER CONTRIBUTION. The EMPLOYER contribution is variable. Basically, it depends on whatever is needed to make up for the difference required after (1) and (2) are taken into consideration. When the CalPERS investment portfolio is doing great, the employer contribution may drop to "0". But, when the investment portfolio is doing badly, the percentage can skyrocket. So, expect the City's EMPLOYER CONTRIBUTION RATE to "adjust upward" and dramatically so in the near future. The cost for the 3%@50 public safety formula is already sky-high and guess where it's going? That's just more cost the City is going to be incurring very soon.

MISSMARVELOUS   |October.07.2008 I would like to share the "state of real estate" in our fair city with those of you who are wondering. We do have a lot of foreclosed properties on the market right now, and in fact 70% of what we sell is bank owned. The bright spot is, we close 20-30 homes every week, and first time home buyers who have good credit are able to purchase their first homes. Right now, I am only dealing with "first timers" and it is very exciting to see a family get their first home that a few years ago would have been impossible. The other thing is, people that have been foreclosed on, often have lived in their home for 6 months without making a house payment, which also means they have not paid their taxes. The seller/bank will catch up the back taxes and the new owner will pay the lower new rate of taxes, its less but better for our city to get lower taxes than no taxes. So remember, contrary to what you may hear, lots of homes are selling every week in Vallejo, for less of course, but they are selling. Viva Vallejo!

Pyriphlegethon   |October.06.2008 Big City, you are--sadly--right on. The Dow took another HUGE plunge today, even with an approved bail-out by the feds. (which I am completely against unless it all comes back to the taxpayers. Did anyone see the article in the Chron: re: Leyman Bros execs attempting to get big payouts when the ship is sinking fast?????) Terrible for us fools with 401Ks and other retirement plans attached to the stock market: I.E. not guaranteed at 90% for the rest of ones life like PSUs. Kurt Henke, when I turn 65, I'm gonna be squatting at your BIG house in Napa. save a room for me.

Big City   |October.06.2008 One other point that needs to be clearly understood is that as bad as the Vallejo financial situation is and as bad as was presented in the bankruptcy filing, it's going to get a LOT worse in the very near-term future. As I've pointed out before, property taxes, once a very stable and EXPANDING (due to reassessment when property is sold) source of revenue for cities is going to go into "reversal". The recession is going to significantly reduce sales tax revenue, the other major source of city revenue. The city's borrowing cost is going to increase due to the "credit crunch". And, state-imposed revenue reduction caused by the state budget crisis will probably "come to visit" in the next 12 months, or less. So, as bad as everyone THINKS the revenue side of the problem is, it's going to be A LOT WORSE THAN THAT. With reserves exhausted due to a "spending orgy" of the past several years (i.e trying to keep salary and benefit costs at unsustainable levels), the pain now is going to be much worse. DRACONIAN cuts are in the offing and will be "the only way out". Remember, 1+1=2. It CANNOT be made to equal 3.

Big City   |October.06.2008 The notion that negotiations for new contracts conducted under the bankruptcy circumstances are going to be just like "conventional" negotiations is naive and, even, absurd. This will be the sort of "negotiations" that will NOT end up with a contract/MOU that's likely to look "fair" to ANY of the Vallejo employees. The fact is, the contents of these new contracts/MOU's are what's NECESSARY to be acceptable to the bankruptcy court AND what's NECESSARY to get the city back on solid financial footing. I seriously doubt that the court will approve anything that's going to result in Vallejo being back in bankruptcy court a year or two from now. So, if folks think that there's some sort of "maximum concession" they will have to make, they're being totally unrealistic. The concessions that they'' have to make is WHATEVER it takes to get the city back on firm financial footing and nothing less than that. As I see it and have previously described, that's going to take a MINIMUM of a 30% overall reduction in salaries and benefits. If that much doesn't seem "fair", it doesn't matter, at all---what it takes is what it takes. This all means that there is a VERY FINITE "pie" from which all of the economic-related provisions of the new contracts have to be "cut". When this realization sets in, it will be VERY interesting to see whether IBEW will still be considered "brothers" and "sisters" by the public safety unions. My bet is they'll drop IBEW like a hot potato. Of course, they'll say they're doing it in the "interest of public safety". They'll be right, too; they will be doing it in the interest of public safety----public safety PERSONNEL. This has nothing to do with safety of the public, but they won't tell anyone that. You can bet they'll want to "gobble up" just as much of the "pie" as possible, even if it means their (former) "brothers" and "sisters" take it in the shorts.

Shawn   |October.06.2008 Just reading, new here (to Vallejo)and trying to learn what is going on. Thanks for the blog.

My Contribution   |October.05.2008 You are correct, and I am afraid we will definitely lose something, but remember that the council didn't get us here alone, police and fire took advantage, and as usual, we will get screwed, one way or the other. I don't know what we can do at this point, but the BK will not be stopped, it is a freight train going down hill weighted down with an unsustainable public safety burden. Right now we are just along for the ride, but this is only making it worse. We don't want BK, but public safety will not give in, so it will happen regardless, we are just feeding the law firms pockets at this point. That was obvious from the beginning. The 3 month delay by the judge is obviously to allow the unions to come to an agreement before he decides on the contracts, that does not exactly bode well for what will happen when we don't. He may, however, freeze them for the next 1.5 years, could happen, he says wistfully. Next time try emotional, not unstable, this is making us all a little nervous, and agitated. This isn't like all the times before when the city cried wolf, this time there really is one...

streetsweeper   |October.05.2008 ok sorry I am not a great speller but I feel I have some common sense. I understand who is trying to get in my pocket for money and benefits. That would be upper managment and big money joe. And about me attacking the member who says the same thing at our meetings, sorry but I just get tired of her saying the same thing over and over. I understand fire and police are the Antichrist but how does that help us. If she had a real solution maybe the members would take serious. She wants to act like camp. She must work with them downtown. Lunchbucket makes more sense and sees thing without all the police and fire junk.

My Contribution   |October.05.2008 Lunch Bucket, I have read the minutes, I don't call that disruptive behavior. You don't want to hear a different point of view and insult as a result. My insult to streetsweeper was based on his insulting someone I said I met, I don't know her personally, nor do i know the gentleman in the meetings who is her "ally", not to mention the boy can't spell. You, however, have tried to craft something articulate and have tried to goad me, it won't work. You are one of the one's who think they are bright and intellectual and can lead our union into victory at the cost of the citizens, but alas, you are wrong, and this may backfire in your face. My job can't be contracted, can your's? I am not worried about that, the focus of our union should never have been to fight the BK, it should have been to protect our union and the contract, with our own lawyer. That is why the citizens are angry. You cannot stop the BK and since you believe that it can be done, you are obviously and hopelessly lost. I do commend streetsweeper for saying that we didn't want to band with police and fire, that is true for most, but obviously not all. He also did not feel threatened by my post, unlike you. He is also correct that the union you and your like are leading into disarray have done nothing to stop the endless flow of contractors working for the city. Your moniker says it all, do you do ANYTHING for what the citizens, like me, pay you?! I'll bet you don't live here, either. You took an oath when you hired on, do you even remember that? I am not at the top of the payscale and have never worked with more whiners in my life until I began working for the city, complacency breeds contempt. I don't know if these types are so hardheaded they won't admit they have made a mistake, or if it is because the city has screwed our union so many times that they have just had it. The funny thing is, it has always been for relatively peanuts in the overall budget, but they did it any way and so, the resentment is still there. They are not without blame, however. Threatened continually with layoffs (coerced for the fat meathead), they always cave and approve whatever concessions have been levied at us. In that, I must say I believe the majority have said, enough is enough... (but why would you jump off of a cliff with your friends?) Alas, this still isn't about IBEW, it is about public safety, that won't change, unless the fearmongerers are correct, and they attempt to contract out all the city, woe to us citizens if that is the case.

Joan S.   |October.05.2008 Crap cutter, I don't think this has been a petty discussion. There has been little, if any, name calling and a discussion of opinions. Just because people have differing opinions, and express those here, doesn't mean that it is an immature or unproductive discussion. I've been lurking all weekend and have actually enjoyed the dialogue. It's so much nicer to enjoy a discussion on VIB rather than wading through the childish, content-less, nasty hate being spewed on the Times Herald blogs.

crap cutter   |October.05.2008 You are absolutly right toad that individual talent has little to do whether or not someone is union affiliated or not. However every union job I held required me to pass a certain proficency level before I was deemed trained. While with some labor jobs there was little to learn I shudder to think that the technical positions should be filled with anyone that management deems worthy based on cost alone. Thats like inviting an unlicenced contractor to build your home. You might get your dream home, you might get every code violation in the book. Its ok if you don't agree, thats just the way I see it. I just wanted to get the discussion back on a little more mature track instead of airing petty greivances.

Sonic Toad   |October.05.2008 cutter, you have some good opinions here and some I don't agree with, but such is life. Rather than go into all of it I do have issue with one statement you made "Before you say we don't need unions at all at the city, go to mcdonalds and see what minimum wage competence gets you with minumum benifits. Would you like that person fixing your streets?". Union or non-Union in my humble opinion has little to do with the skill of the worker. I think there is this misguided idea out there that unionized employees are better skilled and thus better qualified. It's news items like the dredge workers that continue this charade. The dredging example has nothing to do with the workers being unionized, its an issue of the company not creating and enforcing their own professional standards. Union or non-Union isn't the point. The requirement to hire employees with the skills to do a job is that of the employer. Sure, there is lots of activity with professional organizations that have their own standards that can be a tool, but in the end it's the employers that have the requirement. The skill sets we need may or may not come from unionized employees.

crap cutter   |October.05.2008 So excuse me for jumping in and laying my opinion out there in the midst of this crap. I read whats being said here as an alternative to whats posted in the times herald. (thanks Marc) This He said She said I'm smarter that you your opinion is wrong is really rather childish. Do you really think anyone thinks the city is healthy right now? Do you blame the Union members for wanting to keep their contracts? Only a blind man would think this situatuon is normal. As a union retiree (CWA) I think (and feel most peaple on this board think) that a return to a middle position is best. The extremists on this board are ridiculous. "Keep the contracts as they are", and " Throw out the contracts and cut everyones pay 30%!" is going to leave the city in a worse position than it already is. For good or bad city workers receive a better retirement package than most private sector companies offer. They also work for less pay in most areas as a trade off. Compare an Ibew electrician and a City of Vallejo electrician and you'll see. For the majority of the positions you'll see that's true. This is not to justfy PSU saftey pay in any way. Thats just gross negligince on the citys part. You can't fault the psu's for taking the money offered. Before any of you high minded folks care to comment, ask yourselves how hard you work at returning a dollar found on the street when there isn't anyone around. The important thing to remeber in this(for me anyways) is that I don't want any less services than I had before. I feel that since both sides seem to be represented on this board it should be brought to the attention of the peaple involved directly to be open minded as to where the other side is coming from. I know if somebody came to my union and said we're throwing out your contract, we would have gone out on strike. However the Unions have to understand that you can't get blood from a stone. The city is broken and sacrifices need to be made. I feel that a salary survey is the only way to get something fair for both sides. A complete survey including benifits,salarys, and perks. That should lower PSU pay and keep Ibew pay about the same while limiting job losses to other city's. I also feel that the city needs to approach the union leadership and negotiate a new contract, agreed upon by both sides, in an effort to aleviate union fears that they are going to have someone disband the unions. No one is saying it but without a contract and some union rights all you have is a bargaining group like camp. Camp isn't saying anything in all of this because they are all at will employees- anything they say could send them to the door. Before you say we don't need unions at all at the city, go to mcdonalds and see what minimum wage competence gets you with minumum benifits. Would you like that person fixing your streets? We need to keep the skilled workers we have, and reallocate the city's money back to the citizens in services desperatly needed in the neighborhoods. We need to pressure city hall to remember the citizens first. The ego's invoved are huge. We need to pressure the unions to be reasonable, even if it means some cuts in wages. The citys health needs to be the most important thing we deal with and this board needs to help with reasonable ideas. sorry for rambling, just my .02.

PSU Watch   |October.05.2008 Sorry Streetsweeper, you are wrong. The union press conference where confidential negotiation info was leaked was held at IBEW. This was before the filing, before any motion to throw out any contracts. Big City is right. Provide the service for a reasonable cost, you win the job.

Big City   |October.05.2008 "Streetsweeper" Contracting for municipal functions only becomes viable when the costs of doing something with city workers gets WAY out-of-line. In that case, it's a very viable option. It's the municipal equivalent of a company sending jobs offshore except that it can be done with US workers instead of foreign. For a company to send jobs off-shore a LOT of costs are involved. So, it's only a viable alternative if the cost of doing something here in the US gets WAY out-of-line. Unfortunately, that's what's happened, so off-shore the jobs go. With municipal contracting, a contractor has to come in, set-up shop, hire people WILLING TO WORK FOR THE WAGE BEING OFFERED, buy equipment, pay taxes (which a municipal employer does not), pay social security taxes (which many municipal employers do not), pay for insurance (which many municipal employers do not because of self-insurance), pay for a whole host of other costs, PLUS MAKE A PROFIT (otherwise, why would anyone do it?). The only way a contractor could do all of these things at a SIGNIFICANTLY less overall cost than the municipality is doing it (which obviously must occur if a municipality is going to consider contracting for a service) is to IMPROVE EFFICIENCY AND GET FOLKS TO WORK FOR SIGNIFICANTLY LESS THAN THE CITY IS PAYING IN SALARY AND BENEFITS. If the city is already doing the work efficiently and/or if the labor market is such that no one is willing to work for the wages being offered, then the contractor is going to have an almost impossible time making things "pencil out". The fact is that in many cases municipal efficiency is so low and municipal unit labor costs so high, the ability for contractors to offer significant cost savings for a municipal function is also very high. Also consider that with a contractor, the city has much more control. BY DEFINITION, a contract spells out not only what the city will pay the contractor, but also and specifically what THE CONTRACTOR WILL DO FOR THE CITY. As I've pointed out before, the city doesn't have that with MOU's. THOSE ONLY SPELL OUT WHAT THE CITY WILL DO FOR THE EMPLOYEES AND, BASICALLY, NOTHING ABOUT WHAT THE EMPLOYEES WILL DO FOR THE CITY. Couple that with the fact that it's very difficult to fire municipal employees once they're past probation (and, they most always "behave themselves" while on probation) and you have a "prescription" for making contracting out of municipal functions VERY ATTRACTIVE. If the city doesn't like the services being provided by the contractor, they can fire that contractor and hire another. They don't have that control with municipal staff. Public safety organizations have been emboldened in their ever-increasing demands for wage and benefit increases by the notion that their functions cannot be contracted-out. While it is more difficult, it CAN BE DONE. For example, police functions could be contracted to the county sheriff or, even, a private company like Pinkerton. I'll bet that a outfit called Rural Metro would be "licking their chops" at a chance to bid on the Vallejo fire services contract. The Vallejo fire union has made it easy for them to come in, provide the service and make themselves a VERY HANDSOME PROFIT. I'll bet that Rural Metro wouldn't have any trouble, at all, hiring folks for WAY less than Vallejo is currently paying in salary and benefits. One other thought: I wouldn't be a bit surprised if the reason that the deceitful public safety unions brought the IBEW folks into their battle is so that the city would be "egged-on" to contract out IBEW functions. After all, the savings generated by such an action could be used to INCREASE THEIR SALARIES AND BENEFITS or, at least, decrease the reductions they'll otherwise be forced to take.

streetsweeper   |October.05.2008 psu watch your facts are way off. Ibew did not involve the union in the nasty part of the fight untill the city filed to throw out the contract.do u think trusting the city not to gut the contract is wise? Look how they have treated us over the years. They won't even blink when they hand over your or my job to a contractor. I'm mad at the union for letting the contractors overrun us already.

PSU Watch   |October.05.2008 Streetsweeper and Lunch Bucket, you are simply regurgitating Henke's bull****. My Contribution should be leading IBEW as he/she obviously has a cool, rational head that is able to discern between truth and fearmongering. The fact is Henke's way of doing business (us against them, fight until death) is what has gotten us to where we are. Your contract is on the block because you placed it there by joining the PSUs in the legal battle. You chose it. By being reasonable and fair and trying to find common ground, I doubt Tanner will contract out. There would be no need.

Lunch Bucket   |October.05.2008 I was done replying until MY Contribution had to post. His reply is a classic example of the disruptive and insulting behavior that he and his lady friend display at the meetings. If you don't agree with them you are not as intelligent as they are. If you are as professional as you think you are then maybe you should be a at will employee but Im sure camp does not see you as a professional. If you are at the top of our union scale maybe you ought to evaluate your pay grade. My guess is you get paid to much for what you actually do. Its hard to defend your position when you insult your fellow union members by judging them on what pay scale they are on. By saying they don't have the capacity and how easily they are coerced just shows how unstable you are if thats how you want to be labeled.

streetsweeper   |October.05.2008 You members who are at the top of the pay scale should be worried about your jobs if this contract is thrown out. The city will get plenty out of fire and police but will contract out your jobs next. That's the way tanner works. I have friends from the last two cities he worked and they both say contracting is a big part of his plan. Why else would he file to throw out our contract? Ibew leaders are covering their asses because if our members hit the street they will be ****ed. So if you smart members dont have a spine join camp

What you say   |October.05.2008 There was a time when VFD,VPD and IBEW members and other blue collars workers were paid close to the same pay and benefits, this is true accross the country. Remember, folks use to work for the Government for the benefits which made up for the pay that was "sub par" with private sector pay. Over the years, something "happened" and police and fire's pay escalated way beyond "blue collar" pay as well as other government union jobs. They justified their pay by saying we are in constant danger, while their jobs are dangerous, so are other blue collar jobs such as electricians, roofers, window washers, painters and the like. Other blue collar workers do not hold their employers hostage due to the fact their jobs are dangerous, in the private sector you are "employeed at will." If your job is dangerous and you dont like it, you shouldnt have signed up for the job! If every blue collar job that had danger involved (dont forget coal miners) had a pay and benefit scale matched to that of Vallejo Police and Fire, private business would not be able to "stay in business." From conversations with many Vallejeons, we have always thought that Police and Fire deserved above average pay and benefits, most Vallejeons were shocked to find out just how much pay and benefits they do earn. To quote my very liberal neighbor "I thought they earned a good wage somewhere around $60,000-$70,000 plus benefits, this is ridiculous, they make more than my son the doctor."

My Contribution   |October.04.2008 First let me say as an IBEW member, I don't have a problem with the posting of the minutes, however, the names should have been removed. Lunch Bucket, you have your head up your --- if you think that only a small group of people are against this. I and many of my IBEW brothers who don't attend the meetings regularly don't agree, but it is too late to fix what you have already screwed up. I have talked to our VP several times and getting him to admit he is wrong has gone nowhere. When someone actually defends VPOA and IAFF pay, there is nothing that can be done. Trying to extend our contracts during negotiations, that was an asinine waste of time and only a moron would think the city would go for it. Am I mad at fire and police, since their screwed up contracts are threatening ours, absolutely. I don't know what group of people you are referring to, but I would like to because it seems the 20 plus IBEW members I know that agree with me aren't part of that group, and maybe we should be. This is not a battle with a clear cut winner, and until you start looking at this from a view that isn't us vs the city and the residents, you are already bound to fail. Your loss as I can make a lot more money if I leave the city, I live here, so I live with it, apparently you have a lot more to lose. The city can only cut so far but you guys think the sky is falling, get a clue. Police and fire have all the money, who do you think will have to pay, duh. Street Sweeper, I suppose since you are near the bottom of the pay scale for the city, your opinion of a very intelligent lady I have met isn't even worth discussing, now is it. Mentally unstable, whatever. It is interesting to note that the lower paid people I know in IBEW are the ones most supportive of this as they make the least and any losses will be felt by them maybe to a more severe degree and they are scared. It is hard to fight the "we must band together" rhetoric when the "mentally unstable" ones are the ones who disagree. The higher our intellect and understanding of the situation, the more "mentally unstable" we apparently are. Those lacking in that capacity are easily coerced and frightened into fighting the good fight, it isn't really their fault, they just don't know any better.

PSU Watch   |October.04.2008 Lunch Bucket, I hear you. And I don't fault you for wanting to be in on the negotiations to protect your jobs. But there's a difference between negotiating and putting your union name on the PR campaign that smeared our city manager and council and city in bogus ads, letters, media leaks and websites. There's a difference between being in on the negotiations and participating in an expensive legal action against the city that relied on the Infamously smelly Rose report and outright lies. The case was so flimsy, the judges opinion left no doubts whatsoever. That is what ****ed a lot of us citizens off, not your negotiating. And we just couldn't understand why you would join with Henke et al, who would (and has, even in court this summer!) throw IBEW under the bus if IAFF would benefit. And Sonic, I would pay fair salaries to all employees based on unbiased salary surveys. No one group should continue to benefit because they have more power.

Sonic Toad   |October.04.2008 Street Sweeper, The only reason IBEW gets attacked is because of their alignment with IAFF. If IBEW had gone the way of CAMP and stayed above the chaos I for one would be fully supportive of your union, and in fact I honestly feel that you all deserve raises considering how much you've given up over the years. Anybody else wish to chime in? I think there are many that would be supportive.

street sweeper   |October.04.2008 as a ibew member who goes to meetings I can tell u that 2 members think shoemaker is totally doing the wrong thing. One lady named fiona attacks him because he will not lay down like camp. Her and this other guy are mentally unstable. If you dont think their way your stupid. I dont want to align with the Psu but they are the only ones not attacking our contract including this site.

Lunch Bucket   |October.04.2008 PSU Watch I was simply explaining why the minutes of our meetings were kept private. It also allows members to voice their opinions without retaliation. The reason why the coalition was formed was to pool our resources. In between Kemp and Tanner we had a temporary city manager Thompson appointed by city council that came at us aggressively threatening layoffs and deep wage cuts before we had an opportunity to speak with Tanner who was already hired . We felt it would be beneficial to be involved in all negotiations from that moment to have a better understanding of the citys position and ours.

PSU Watch   |October.04.2008 Oh Lunch Bucket, the na�vet� you show. You mean it wouldn't be good if the city's strategy was divulged to the unions during negotiations either, right? Then tell Henke to play that way, because he has put the screws on his union-bought councilmenbers for years to tell him what happens in closed session. That was one of his bennies of buying council seats. If you think it doesn't happen, wake up. Henke is the master of bad faith. Your new leader, btw. And speaking of bad faith, what about Henke leaking information and documents to the media during the last round of negotiations? But I guess for you all it's ok to leak documents if it supports your cause. If it doesn't, you cry foul. (And again, by not standing up against bad behavior like Henke's, as a member of his coalition, you are complicit.)

Lunch Bucket   |October.04.2008 Any time you enter in to negotiations especially when it involves giving up wages or language in that contract you would not want the city to see what our strategy is. Just like the city would not make it public knowledge what their strategy is. Archie if you are a member and went to the meetings you would realize nothing was being hidden from the membership. The secretary of our union asked all of us if you wanted the minutes she would be happy to email them to you if could not attend.

Archie   |October.04.2008 Go to the IBEW wesite ....ai see ONLY old minutes posted NO 2008 Who is hiding what Archie

Lunch Bucket   |October.04.2008 I have to make a correction. I meant to say we did not believe the city negotiated in good faith prior to the bankruptcy.

Lunch Bucket   |October.04.2008 As a fellow IBEW member I was upset to see our minutes posted on the V.I.B. I agree with Ken. There is a small group who is obsessed with police and fire and its this small group that does not want to come up with a solution. The IBEW joined the fight with police and fire with the nationals approval. IBEW members did not want the city to go bankrupt. Its not beneficial to the citizens and employees. We as a group did feel the city negotiated in good faith prior to the bankruptcy and is not a pay issue as much as it is job security. Camp laid back because they had to. The IBEW has given up wages every time the city has asked for it along with Camp with the exception being Camp would just adjust their salary with a survey. Its no secret who leaked the minutes and they should be ashamed. They have a right to express their opinion but to leak it to Marc who spun it like there is dissension among the ranks the same way the times herald spun his story about the GA. I can assure the membership is behind Frank and Ken and so is the national.

anon   |October.04.2008 Ken Suck it up and move on. Do you remember the Pentagon Papers--once their out their out. Is the privacy you are talking about refer to not wanting your own members to know what is really happening? It seems their is some internal discord that you were unable to stifle.This electronic age can raise havoc with so called secrets. The only reason you have this incestal relationship with the PSU is fears about Binding Arbitration. Have you ever thought that in most cases you aren't part of this problem

Truth Out   |October.04.2008 Get over it, Ken, and put your Big Boy panties on. You can't put a lid on the truth. It always comes out in one way or another. I for one am happy to read that there are IBEW members who obviously get it. It's too bad you an your "leaders" obviously didn't listen to them. Maybe you should think about it now, huh? And I've never gotten this "brothers and sisters" thing unions use. It's so fraternity-ish, and conjures up images of people afraid to step up and stand out because that would be labeled a "betrayal". But that's how people get manipulated, isn't it? Works well for "leadership" though. I don't care what organization I belong to, if the organization is doing something wrong, especially morally wrong (lying, taking advantage of others), I'll speak out. When we fail to do so, we become complicit in the organization's actions. So thanks to those IBEW members speaking out. And don't cave, Marc. Because IBEW leadership calling your action "poor" after them participating in Henke's lies this past summer just takes the cake.

Archie   |October.04.2008 As a IBEW member I said in the past big mistake to pool our funds...IBEW got 500,000$ From the National IBEW and several more donations from local chapters around the country....Should have never got involved at all....IBEW UNHAPPY ARCHIE

Sonic Toad   |October.04.2008 oops, IBEW has at least one person who isn't drinking the cool-aid. I truly wish the membership would speak up and tell the leadership what a big mistake they've made to join ranks with the IAFF just to pay a third of the court fees. If IBEW were Venture Captitalists they just made a horrible investment. CAMP made the smart choice and stayed above the fray. "As Mulder says "The Truth is Out There".

Michael Tatham   |October.04.2008 to Wearing My Waders- i do know waht i am talking about. as a former union business agent we were not allowed to compare the pay scales of other cities in solano county and contra costa for pay raies to vallejo because your pay was 10-15 % higher than they are. you do make a point that you don't receive social security

Pyriphlegethon   |October.04.2008 Fair is fair - get over in Ken! Marc, don't cave in! Vallejoans need to see the TRUTH and as long as the unions LIE (ROSE REPORT AND BS ADS IN THE TIMES HERALD) VIB needs to publish any and every speck of info that comes their way!

Ken Shoemaker   |October.04.2008 Mark, please remove the minutes from our May meeting from this web site. It was a poor decision on your part to post this information to the public. When our members speak at our meetings it is not for the public. If they choose to speak to you or anyone from your site that is their choice. If you want to speak to me or our leaders that is fine also. If one of my members gave this information to you, they need to know that they have violated their brothers and sisters privacy. Again, please remove the minutes from our meeting. Ken.........

Osbys Neighbor   |October.04.2008 I think it is easy to talk about all of the inequities in the Union contracts and how they need to be cut by 30%. However City Government is not like the auto industry where it can be sold, liquidated or outsourced to India. Unfortunately the City has to compete in an over inflated marketplace.Vallejo's problem is that both wages and benefits are above average. Realistically the City cannot dramatically cut both. The most practical thing to do is to tighten up the benefits and possibly reduce wages to the average in the comparision cities. For example --where ever possible make the benefits consistient across the various bargaining units. --employees and retirees should pay part of the cost of their health benefits --either eliminate Longevity pay or reduce the percent given.Ideally only use it where retention is a real issue. --eliminate Educational incentives. Make course or degree requirements part of the positions requirements. --roll back 3@50 to 2.7@55 or 2.5@65 --limit the amount of accured vacation and sick leave allowed. --comb the contract and get rid of all the benefits that were quietly added to enrich one group.

Big City   |October.03.2008 The concept of using salary surveys of surrounding, similar jurisdictions is one of the clever tools that have been used by ALL public safety organizations for years to inflate ALL their salaries and benefits to what have become scandalous levels. It creates, BY DESIGN, a phenomenon called "leap-frogging". One agency or another always ends up in the lower part of the survey. Then, they get boosted to someplace above median. This puts other agencies in the lower part of the survey. So, then they get boosted because they're now "low". The process repeats itself ad-infinitum. It's almost like a situation of guaranteed, continual increases since there will always be some agencies on the bottom that "justify" an increase. It makes me laugh when I hear public safety folks point to the fact that their salaries must be kept high to encourage employee retention. The biggest impediment to retention of experienced employees in public safety organizations is the 3%@50 retirement formula. However, I've never heard a single rank-and-file public safety employee complain about that fact. Not even a little. I wonder why if they're so concerned about experienced employee retention and so concerned about its effect on public safety? As I've mentioned previously, beyond the necessary MAJOR reductions in salary and benefits, public safety organizations need to be subjected to INTENSIVE, COMPREHENSIVE efficiency studies conducted by efficiency experts AND UN-INFLUENCED BY DEMAGOGIC EXHORTATIONS BY PUBLIC SAFETY PERSONNEL. Public safety has become WAY TOO EXPENSIVE, even with potential 30% reductions, to allow ANY inefficiencies to persist. Believe me, there are MASSIVE inefficiencies that have become institutionalized by years of concerted effort by public safety employees and their organizations. You see, inefficiency ALWAYS works to their benefit. It creates more "slop" for them to "feast" from. It needs to be rooted out relentlessly. Hopefully, the dire straits financial situation will be the catalyst for this to finally occur. As I've also said before, "necessity is the mother of invention".

Wearing My Waders   |October.03.2008 Big City, Thank you for clarifying. If we cut police 20%, fire 30% due to their 10% over average guarantee and knock out all of the extra incentive pays, then reduce the overtime to a maximum allowed and cut minimum staffing and the excessive sick leave accrual, that alone will save a fortune. 30%, well, since they the average fireman makes double his standard pay and police make an average much greater than base pay, sorry, I never calculated that out, I imagine the total savings are going to be incredible. Every time we opened a substation, we greated more supervisors adding to the police budget. We have highly compensated captains on every shift in the fire dept.. My point with the example of water operators, IBEW will be hurt by this, they always are and have always given something when the city cryed broke. Reasonably, the city has always tried to build up some extra money in the general fund, but the cuts that IBEW and Camp took were across the board, enterprise funds and general fund. And always that little bit of extra funding went to pay public safety. Those operators are going to be making less regardless. This will hurt recruitment even more. Your point on fire dept. recruitment is well made. In the auto industry, the employees on the assmbly line were making $25 an hour, but their benefits were $45 an hour, that is almost 200%, normally it shouldn't exceed 25% to 50% depending on the profit margin. I noticed that car prices haven't come down. Yes, the auto unions ended up destroying a good thing. We are also fully in agreement about tax hikes, I won't support one, we pay a lot already and aren't getting anything for it. Bottom line, we have to start with public safety and until that is done, IBEW and Camp are really small potatoes. I really don't think 30% is an unreasonable figure to attain, nor will it be too difficult unless you belong to VPOA or IAFF. It will be a hard pill for them to swallow. They boosted their wages in a relatively short period of time so it might not be too painful for some, a nightmare for others. Too bad about that town in Connecticutt, what kind of moron would sign a BAD contract allowing overtime to be considered as a basis for retirement, oh yeah, I almost forgot where I lived for a second...

Big City   |October.03.2008 "Wearing My Waders"----- Sorry, the way I figure it, it's going to take about a 30% cut in wages and benefits to get the city back on anything that even resembles an "even keel". In fact, I don't even think that 30% is going to get it done for the long term; 30% will end up being an "interim adjustment". Of course, the 30% is an OVERALL figure; it doesn't have to be across the board. It may well be that some areas will have to take a larger cut and others less. As to your mention of the difficulty the city faces in recruiting for certain positions, that's a very valid reason to increase salaries for those positions. The example of the water treatment plant operators is one that the city should have adjusted a long time ago if they're having recruitment problems. That would have been easy, too, since they're paid out of enterprise funds where revenue adjustments are generally possible. It seems like the city has had no problems greatly increasing the salaries and benefits of general fund positions (e.g. public safety), but they've been stingy with respect to enterprise fund positions. I'll bet the city hasn't had any trouble recruiting for fire department non EMT positions, if any fire positions. Where else can a high school graduate get a $100,000+ per year (salary + benefits) STARTING compensation job where the employer pays for all training and even pays full salary while the employees are in training? That's why many cities have to "manage" the recruitment process for fire personnel lest they are deluged with applicants to process. Some cities actually have had a LOTTERY SYSTEM for folks to obtain just an application form for fire department positions. This is one of the "disconnects" between supply and demand for fire personnel. There's no lack of supply but the salaries paid are in no way influenced by that fact. It seems that prior to folks' getting the jobs, they are a "dime a dozen". However, after they get the jobs, they are irreplaceable. Can massive cuts in wages and benefits actually occur? Ask the folks in the auto manufacturing industry. Until fairly recently many received total compensation in the $70 per hour range. Suddenly, they're LESS THAN HALF that. And, guess what? The industry has no problem, at all, recruiting for those few positions that come open. You see, folks in the automotive industry "killed the goose that was laying the golden egg". Once that happened, "all the king's horses and all the king's men couldn't put humpty together again". That's what's happening with public safety now. Vallejo, long known as one of the most notorious and extreme cases of public safety cost largess, is, expectedly, in the forefront of the "realignment". But, Vallejo is just the "tip of the iceberg"; an ignominious vanguard. One other thing to keep in mind: the current state of the economy WITH MUCH MORE TO UNFOLD hasn't even really gotten into the "mix of things" as far as Vallejo's (and other cities') financial circumstances are concerned. You're going to see massive property tax defaults and property value reassessments for property purchased in the last 5 years, or so. Those increased property tax levies over the last 5 years as properties changed hands has fueled the ability of cities like Vallejo to expand general fund costs. Now, that's going into REVERSAL. The recession is going to greatly reduce sales taxes, too, the city's other major source of general fund revenue. Plus, the banking crisis is going to greatly increase the city's borrowing costs. And, as we arrive at this major budget- challenging situation, the city's cash reserves are all but depleted, mostly as a result of public safety spending largess. A PERFECT STORM, so-to-speak. How about the city increasing revenue (i.e. raise taxes)? Do you suppose in tough economic times that are going to persist AND LIKELY GET WORSE for years to come AND the electorate now knowing the situation with respect to public safety compensation levels that the Vallejo electorate is going to go for a tax hike of any kind? If so, dream on! And, always remember 1+1=2 and NEVER 3.

anon   |October.03.2008 Police and Fire are pushing another city over the edge. http://www.connpost.com/ci_10618879?source=most_emailed

An Angry Citizen   |October.03.2008 GoodFaith, the Judge WILL HAVE TO throw out all contracts if if he agrees to throw out any, he cannot just single out 2. Any wage adjustments or changes to any benefits can only occur if there are no contracts to be contested by binding arbitration if the contract still exists. He may just put everything on hold 'till they expire in 2010. If that happens, binding arbitration MUST go. The ship hasn't sunk, but, many compartments are flooded. We'll see if anyone drowns. I certainly wouldn't take a job with the city in this uncertain environment. I lost 10k in back pay when one of my employers when bankrupt years ago, I wouldn't expose myself to that again.

Wearing My Waders   |October.03.2008 The Crap is getting a little deep... Michael Tatham, there are a few that are paid higher, there are some that are average, and there are many that are below. You are making a blanket statement and obviously don't know the facts. Since you post here fairly often I will only say that you received this comparison information from a very unreliable source. The average IBEW employee, remember I said average, would need a raise to make them average. If you are just looking at per hour statistics, you have completely dropped the ball, many cities pay most if not all of the employee's contribution, and many don't pay social security, either. Perhaps the other cities need to give pay cuts so that our employees can be average. I guarantee that most will be ameniable to that. Good luck with that... As to Big City, before I assume you are making a blanket statement, I must tell you that a 30% cut in IBEW, Camp, or Management cannot happen, that severe of a cut and many would simply quit. Good luck finding applicants because few jobs in the city require no experience or education. An example, our Associate Civil Engineer's make approximately 100k a year (actually take home is 91k due to pers 9% contribution), subtract 30%, yeah, good luck with that. Why has the city advertised for grade 3 and 4 water treatment operators since I started paying attention to the city's website many years ago, it is because NO ONE applys. If you pay attention to the council meetings, they were given a 10% raise a couple of years ago but it didn't quite bring them up to the average of the comparison cities. Yes, many, many years ago it was the city's unwritten policy to pay 10% above average but that has not been the case for way over a decade, unless you're a fireman... They do like to hire trainees though, cause they seem to advertise and hire a lot, unless every year isn't a lot, they must be leaving for the the higher paying cities and districts. Walmart may have better retention.

On Fire   |October.03.2008 IBEW member, I suppose I could turn your statement around and I could say that I don't like people from out of town (union leaders and most of the employees) making decisions about how much I as a taxpayer, should suffer because those same employees don't think they should have to sit down at the table and come up with a livable contract. I don't see the contracts being thrown out in it's entirety if this type of agreement can be done between the City and it's employees. Fighting and continuing to call the Dept. Heads and Policy Makers names, saying that they are untrustworthy to the public, doesn't help your case. When the union brain trusts (oxymoron if I ever saw one) decided to put out the website and the subsequent emails, you had already drew the line in the sand. The only way to deal with the bad feelings you set up with management is to tell your union leaders to negotiate a reasonable contract. Which means cuts, but there is only one other alternative, and that's to let the judge decide.

Big City   |October.03.2008 "IBEW Member"---- I don't know that the City of Vallejo WANTS to throw out ALL the union contracts. However, the City of Vallejo NEEDS to DRASTICALLY REDUCE its expenses. That could mean the unions ACCEPTING a 30%+ CUT in wages AND BENEFITS or it could mean mean "throwing out" the union contracts and "getting there" that way. One way or another, it's got to happen. Made as simple as possible, somehow, a lot of folks have gotten the idea that 1 + 1 can be made to equal 3. That's NEVER been possible in the past, is not possible now, and will NEVER be possible in the future. Never. As far as folks that "don't live here" are concerned, I think you'll find that the majority of Vallejo's employees don't live in Vallejo, ESPECIALLY the public safety folks. Vallejo is far too much of a "blue collar" community for their tastes and with their incomes (thanks to the citizens of Vallejo), they can live a lot better and more "upscale" lifestyle.

GoodFaith   |October.03.2008 IBEW Member, put down the blue Coolaid. That's classic Henke melodramatic, untruthful scare-tactic crap. Neither the city manager or council have ever said they want to throw out all union contracts. If you keep believing Henke's lies and following blindly, he'll lead you to the cliff's edge. Just negotiate fairly and in good faith with the city and I'm sure your contract will be fine. The key is to acknowledge that ALL employee salaries will need to be adjusted based on the changed economic conditions of the city, state and country. It's a new world, unfortunately and the bubble has burst.

ibew member   |October.03.2008 the fact is that the city wants to throw out ALL union contracts! If you live in this city as I do and you think that's a good thing then fine, hold your arse at peril to folks making decisions that don't live here.

Big City   |October.03.2008 "WHAT YOU SAY"----- Absolutely correct. Folks like miners and convenience store clerks with statistically more dangerous jobs don't get the lavish and elaborate "send offs" when they die in the "line of duty", either. Neither do most service people killed in foreign wars. Just as you point out, other government works killed doing their jobs receive virtually nothing in the way of a public "send off". Most people don't realize it but these lavish services for public safety folks are funded almost entirely by the public. The public safety personnel attending are virtually all "on the clock", either on regular shift OR, IN MANY CASES, ON PAID OVERTIME. All of the equipment, transportation, travel, and overnight costs are also borne by the public agency sending the personnel. I'll bet you could count the number of public safety personnel attending these services on their own time on the fingers of two hands and, likely, on the fingers of ONE hand.

Michael Tatham   |October.03.2008 what we are missing in the IBEW discussion is that their pay scale is still 10% higher than surrounding cities. thye too need a pay trimming, though unlike fire, and maybe then we can start staffing their positions properly

WHAT YOU SAY   |October.03.2008 The only reason the public safety unions took IBEW along to the "party" with them, is so that they can pay 1/3 of the legal fees... The funny thing is, IBEW jobs are probably rated more dangerous than VFD jobs, we are always hearing of electrians getting "fried." No one makes a big deal out of it, 1000 electrians dont come from all over the country to go to the funeral, they dont get their name on a plaque, the family grieves, but most likely the death wont even make the newspaper, sad but true...

captain   |October.02.2008 HMM Glad to hear that there are more Sheppard�s than sheep. Reading the minutes leads me to think two things: (1)IBEW is only in this to protect binding arbitration and (2) IBEW members (and I'm making a distinction between the two) aren't so concerned about protecting PS wages that are twice that of IBEW. I'm taking into account the unions proclamation that they protect the middle class but - VFD & VPD salaries are anything but middle class. PS also claims they can get jobs anywhere even when cities are struggling largely due to minimum staffing. They don't seem concerned about job cuts as long as they come from other city services. You must have read the following comments (as well as others that have been published): ��discussions happen every time and the IBEW follows in line with what the IAFF wants. So, there is grumbling but nothing that is going to go against the fire union.� Doesn't this "Beg the question": why is IBEW paying a third of legal fees to save these PS ingrates that make double what they do? I would also ask why you would want to help fight someone else�s fight when they've already thrown you under the bus. If you don't believe that statement you should read the judges ruling. Ask yourselves these questions: IS IBEW representing me? Is IAFF representing me? IS VPOA representing me? IS IBEW National representing me? - or are they representing IBEW national? Am I happy with my representation? Good Luck!

Hmm   |October.02.2008 Did you note in the IBEW minutes, 12 people voted for the entire membership, I guess important matters should not be scrutinized by the majority, nor should the majority be informed that such an important decision will be decided at the meeting... Sounds reminiscent of the court room scene at the end of the "Dukes Of Hazzard" movie...

Hmm   |October.02.2008 More than a few Captain... There are quite a few educated people in the IBEW, along with many sheep who don't make waves. Interestingly, many of those educated people people aren't in the general fund, either.

THIS IS NOT NEW   |October.02.2008 Every time contract renewal came up in the last 15 years the city, seeking a reserve for the general fund, would go to the unions and ask for reductions in raises and/or deferment, etc. The IAFF HAS already taken the lead roll to go to the IBEW for their support. These discussions happen every time and the IBEW follows in line with what the IAFF wants. So, there is grumbling but nothing that is going to go against the fire union.

Captain   |October.02.2008 I want to thank the source of the IBEW document. It's refreshing to know that their are at least a few city employees that "get the big picture". Thanks for that!

No Name   |October.02.2008 Ken,You and the rest of the IBEW board are NOT leaders, just one of many of Henke's little sheep. When IBEW employees have taken cuts, loose benefits and jobs, the IBEW employees will have you and the rest of the "IBEW union leaders" to thank. Wake up little man, and the rest of you henkettes and figure out that you are being used!

Vallejo Heights   |October.01.2008 Ah, cut and paste trips me up again! Anyway, go read the story -- the SLO city council was just forced to make a bunch of cuts to infrastructure maintenance projects because an arbitrator in June forced them to provide a 30 percent raise to sworn police officers and a 37 percent raise to other police department employees. Here's that link again: http://www.sanluisobispo.com/news/local/story/485435

Vallejo Heights   |October.01.2008 Check out this story from today's San Luis Obispo Tribune. They're learning about binding arbitration the hard way, too. http://www.sanluisobispo.com/news/local/story/485435 Here's an excerpt. It will sound familiar: Although the meeting was not intended to be a forum for discussing the city

On Fire   |October.01.2008 If the IBEW crew was paying attention, the early comments on VIB voiced concern that IBEW appeared to be the ones getting the short end of the stick as employees when it came to the comparison of PS employees. If they would stayed out of the fray, like CAMP did, they may have faired better when the final decisions are made. But I'm sure henke ran over and gave his "we are all in this together" speech and convinced the union leadership that they would all succeed in the budget battle, and "oh yeah, pass me over that check for one third of the legal fees". IBEW like the Trades, have always been used by the henkettes, only to be tossed aside when the money was passed out. I remember henke threatening the Trades that if they support Schivley, they (PSU'S)would never support any more of their (Trade's) endeavors. That was the last time the Trades stood their own ground and since then, they have been brought down in the public's eye because of their association with henke and riley. When will they learn? Just because it comes out of henke's mouth/mind, doesn't make it right. So apparently Ken is of the same mind as the union attorney, "cut, cut and cut some more till it hurts"! So Ken apparently feels that the public has not been hurting enough and that any further cuts should go to further penalize the public and not his union members. I would imagine that there are more IBEW employees living in Vallejo that the PS employees. So if "cutting till it hurts" comes about, he and the IBEW family members, along with the public, will suffer as well. Bet henke didn't tell you about that minor detail, did he?

captain   |October.01.2008 My (captain) response to schomaker "I believe the proposals offered by the labor groups would have kept us out of bankruptcy, and from many of the effects the city is now feeling. If you compare the proposals and the plan in effect today you will see that they are very similar. Add the cost of court fees and inflated bond rates due to the bankruptcy, and the proposals become a much better option in my opinion. "I believe the proposals offered by the labor groups would have kept us out of bankruptcy, and from many of the effects the city is now feeling" Didn't the judge already dispute this claim. The fact that I have to listen to this pathetic monologue is disturbing. I expect this self-centered commentary on topix, but the fact that union leaders are regurgitating this drivel is disgusting! "If you compare the proposals and the plan in effect today you will see that they are very similar. Add the cost of court fees and inflated bond rates due to the bankruptcy, and the proposals become a much better option in my opinion." Are you for real? Are you saying that "if you compare the proposals and the plan in effect today you will see that they are very similar."? Hey genius, why do you think the city filed for bankruptcy in the first place. Let me quote you, "if you compare the proposals and the plan in effect today you will see that they are very similar." --Duh, that�s why were here - bankruptcy! "Add the cost of court fees and inflated bond rates due to the bankruptcy, and the proposals become a much better option in my opinion." So -- you Jekyll & Hyde buffoons force the city of Vallejo into bankruptcy, much of the money you refer to is already spent, and now you want to state that instead of paying higher bond rates & court fees, they could of just given that money to you! Is that what you�re saying? I think it is - and it's pathetic! And of course you think the proposals that you put fourth "become a much better option in my (your) opinion." In my opinion, my little friend, your opinion is pure garbage. The judge agrees! If you don�t like what�s happening then break free from The PSU�s, or go submit your applications to the 1000�s of struggling construction companies/ businesses/cities - with the other 7% of the unemployed . I know many people that work for various bay area cities on the peninsula. Most work less than they did in the private sector while earning substantially more. .Many of them van-pool from the central valley and, I�m sure, they wouldn�t mind shortening their commute if positions in Vallejo become vacant. Did Hankie put you up to this? Are you the new mouthpiece for the PSU's. Hankie could care less about you guys. You know that don�t you.. By the way, the FD is one of the most inefficient organizations in the USA. Vallejo FD receives the second highest pay in the USA, and the FD in general has one of the highest applicant-to-job-opening-ratios on the planet. They can all be replaced fairly easily! DON�T LIKE WHAT I HAVE TO SAY - BRING IT ON!

admin   |September.30.2008 It's October 1 ~ Time for a new scream! Since we had a good thread going on here are the last 3 posts.. John K I knew that Ken Shoemaker was a non-qualifier when I saw his name at the bottom of an email SPAM barrage that criticized Vallejo's City Manager and praised the Rose Report. overpaid IBEW clearly failed to protect their membership. They were too eager to jump on the emotional "them vs us" ego bandwagon with Henke and Riley without the foresight to realize that the only way to avoid reopening the contracts was completely out of IBEW's control. It was a VPOA and an IAFF decision. IBEW was just there to make VPOA and IAFF look like they had a united union front of 'all' the workers, to make them look less greedy. IBEW had nothing to gain by being there, and plenty to lose (in shouldering legal costs that were not proportional to their share of the problem...they were not even the problem!) They could have said no, we won't play the game, and that would have encouraged IAFF and VPOA to reassess. I have heard that if the pendency plan is adopted as the 'permanent' plan by all unions, even allowing for a cost of living increase for the next 10 years, we don't need to bleed any more. I don't know if this is true, but the status quo for iaff and vpoa seems already more than reasonable... PSU Watch I don't hear of many people bashing IBEW. Ok, I might have vented against their unnecessary involvement here and there by not being very nice to that guy who follows Henke around (IS that Shoemaker? I don't know his name!) IBEW is made up of the City's workerbees. They don't sit around a firehouse playing video games and shopping at Safeway and demanding crazy salaries and benefits just for doing their jobs. IBEW jumped into Henke's game and tainted their union with his bullying, nasty, egotistical, greedy way of doing business. The PSUs used IBEW, and the only ones who benefitted by their involvement was the PSUs because they had to pay less legal and public relations spin fees throughout this whole process. IBEW just got the grief from citizens who were bewildered and felt betrayed by the nastiness suddenly coming from IBEW via the new triangle. I wish IBEW would just go their own way and let the PSUs go down their nasty path alone. It won't be a good place to be in the end anyway.

Write comment
Name:
Email:
Website:
Title:
	Please input the anti-spam code that you can read in the image.

Powered by !JoomlaComment 3.23

3.23 Copyright (C) 2007 Alain Georgette / Copyright (C) 2006 Frantisek Hliva. All rights reserved."