Saturday, May 17, 2014

So much for "civility" -- council majority attacks Muir for merely suggesting a modicum of fiscal caution

Looks like that whole "civility" thing ended as soon as unanimity for rubber-stamping Gus Vina's agenda stopped.

First, let's acknowledge that Council Member Mark Muir's request for a hiring freeze and analysis of staffing levels is belated, possibly politically motivated, and inconsistent with his prior votes to go along with expanding Vina's bureaucracy (though he does have the legitimate point that the sudden decision to spend $10 million on Pacific View makes a significant change in the city's financial health).

That said, the substance of Muir's proposal is quite sensible. We still have no plan for paying for road maintenance and unfunded pension liabilities, plus the new debt service and operating costs for the Hall Park and Pacific View, so why not pause any new hires until somebody can explain where all the money is supposed to come from?

The response from the council majority was shrill.

Tony Kranz:
“I will be governing, and not playing politics,” Councilman Tony Kranz said as he described why he was voting against the proposal put forward by fellow Councilman Mark Muir.
Lisa Shaffer's e-mail newsletter:
Seriously, Mr. Muir? Deputy Mayor Muir proposed an agenda item related to the budget and staffing. He asked that we consider it first before looking at the overall operating budget. The agenda report said that he felt "it would be prudent for the city to implement a temporary hiring freeze" until the financial plan for Pacific View is determined. He further proposed that positions approved by the Council since January 2013 and any future positions should be reviewed "to determine if the position is meeting our community and councils [sic] needs and expectations." The timing of the item, coming just as we begin our budget discussions, seemed a bit odd to me. The budget process is how we determine funding strategies and staffing levels. So why, at the start of the process, less than a month from the scheduled adoption of a budget on which he will be voting, would he make this proposal?
Wouldn't the start of the process be the appropriate time to make such a suggestion, unless the budget had already been informally agreed to in backroom deals, and the public process was merely theater?

Teresa Barth's weekly e-mail newsletter:
The proposed FY14/15 Operating Budget includes funding for all operating costs, all proposed increases and fully funds the operating reserves and budget stabilization reserves. Resulting in an ending fund balance of $7.2M which will be available for additional capital improvement projects and/or bond debt payments.

Additionally, since 2012 operational efficiencies resulted in an annual savings of $1M in payroll and operating expenses. Reforms enacted in 2011 have already reduced pension obligations.

So what was Muir's proposal really all about? Just petty politics or a serious effort to sabotage the purchase of the Pacific View? Based on previous actions, I think the later.

Councilmembers Muir and Gaspar continue to engage in these fiscal calamity scare tactics even though the facts simply do not support their allegations. I believe they will continue with their efforts at the May 21 meeting when we discuss financing options for the purchase.
While we haven't seen the budget details yet, here are a few questions citizens might want to ask of Mayor Barth:

1) Despite Vina's claimed $1 million in "operational efficiencies," isn't it true that staffing costs actually increased during the time in question, and will continue to increase every year?

2) Isn't it true that Vina's budget continues to underfund road maintenance and allow road conditions to decay just as they did under the Stocks council?

3) Isn't it true that Vina's budget continues to underfund pension liabilities just as budgets did under the Stocks council?

4) That $7.2 million fund balance is not recurring revenue, but the last cash left in the bank from prior city councils. Vina's six-year financial plan, unlike prior budgets, appears to allocate no revenues for the next five years to capital improvement. Do you really think it's prudent management to have your only plan for future capital improvement be to spend Encinitas' last reserves?

And finally, how the heck is asking for a temporary hiring freeze and staffing analysis "a serious effort to sabotage the purchase of the Pacific View?"  Let's tone down the overheated rhetoric.

53 comments:

  1. I thought that the proposal was very logical. I own a business and would never think of hiring more employees, if I was uncertain of my business finances. If the city's finances are in order, why would they even propose a tax hike.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Excuse me, Mrs. Barth, but wasn't overspending on the PV purchase a completely 'political' act? And at this point in your tenure it seems as if you invented petty politics.

      And Mr. Kranz wouldn't know how to govern a carberator in his driveway much less his 'leading' the voters of Encinitas. As for Shaffer, please resign. You are miserable.

      Delete
    2. City government is not a business, that's always a bogus comparison. There's a reason it's called "Playing Politics", and now you're seeing it go down at City Hall.

      Will Muir run for mayor from his safe seat? My bet is a yes, I can't see Gaspar risking it. So stay tuned, because this is about politics right now, and obviously finances come 2nd.

      Delete
    3. Shaffer thinks the citizens should pay for her brilliance - she is a 15 watt bulb in a halogen world. Idiot academic lost outside the Ivory Tower

      Delete
    4. Anon 9:33, I think that every agency has to consider the bottom line. I have worked at a university and they are supposed to be dealing with education and ideas, and they make money decisions about jobs on a continuous basis. I have no idea what most of the people at the city actually do, but I don't appreciate getting billed for their jobs when we as customers may not have ever wanted the services they charge us for. From where I sit, Gus Vina treats himself as the customer and send us the bill since he likes to hire people to either provide him insulation from the public or to make him look important. He is the biggest waste of money we have ever had in this city. I wish he would move on to another city to bankrupt!

      Delete
  2. Why is it so important to hire staff before we determine our projects and finances?

    It also seems that by not hiring more staff would allow for more money to be directed to building Pacific View. Let's take all those new hires and make that part of our payment plan for Pacific View.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Shaffer, Kranz, Barth... See no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil.
    All 5 have their heads buried in the sand. Meeting after meeting Muir pushes for more fire fighters and more ff salary , where's the hiring freeze there??
    Shaffer has never meet a fee she can't question increasing.
    Barth is simply out of her league , her poor poor pitiful me the gang of sausage is picking on me doesn't play at all now that she's the big cheese. Exposing her inability to lead.
    Tony " I'm going to govern " Kranz, hey Tony... Governing is more than rubber stamping everything the city manager and the loonies want.
    Gaspar was elected wearing a Wonder Woman outfit... I keep waiting for WW but only get Valley Girl. She's in way over her head... Do I see her adjusting an ear piece?? Someone telling her what to say and do?? A puppet ??
    All in all, these. 5 will go down as one of the worst councils in city history. 3 govt life time teat suckers, one trophy wife and a 5th with deep local roots , deep but not wide.
    But all are thankful if the staff and the wonderful job they do .... Even though that's what they get PAID to do.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The gang of idiots.

      Delete
    2. 11:09 PM

      You mean the people on this blog?

      Delete
  4. He didn't want a freeze.

    He wanted to score election points.

    By calling out the PV purchase as a reason for the proposed freeze, he made a case that PV forces reductions in service levels. He knows in advance that the majority who voted for PV won't reinforce that perception. Further, he made it retro-active--affecting positions that have already been filled (with his vote) under union contracts. That's a poison pill.

    Pure political theater. He wants the appearance of someone with fiscal responsibility, but without the substance.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Amen, well said. Muir does nothing the whole time he's on council, but is now trying to act the part of a fiscal conservative.

      Sorry, I'm not buying it. WC is right, it's probably a good question and later on a good tactic to put in a hiring freeze, but there's way more too it than that. If you follow politics in this town, you've seen these moves before.

      Nothing happens in a vacuum. He's trying to take the high ground with an election coming up. For me, it's a case of can a leopard change his spots, and my guess with Muir is no. That's not why he's there, he's there to represent his interest, the FF crowd, and the Stocks/Bond power group, along with David Mayer.

      However, it should be interesting political theater. God forbid we should have some direction on this council. Right now the ship is circling as the rudder is hard over...

      -Mr Green Jeans

      Delete
    2. I don't care if Muir's motives were 100% political. It is a good idea to have hiring freeze until the finances are clarified. What is wrong with that?
      It is sad that may have taken politics for the good idea to be put on the table. Too bad common sense and fiscal responsibility aren't enough for the idea to have been suggested long ago.
      Kranz has no idea what it means to govern. That was nothing more than a political statement, too. Nice sound bite. Too bad it was as empty as his head.

      Delete
    3. What's wrong is Muir is yanking your chain, it's not real, it's all a pose. He'll screw you down the line while waltzing away with his pension.....

      Delete
  5. This is the lamest council I think I have ever seen. All 5 of them need to be replaced by people who are not afraid to stand up for the citizens they represent. All they do is grandstand for themselves (individually).

    Muir is a joke. He wants to initiate a hiring freeze and in the same meeting hires more fire fighters. I swear I was watching a tv show from another planet. Muir knew exactly what his intentions were and that was to try and stop the purchase of PV. He did not convince me otherwise.

    Wonder Woman just follows Muir, who follows Stocks. She needs to go.

    Granny Barth is a poor leader for the city. Glad she is on her way out.

    Shaffer I have no words for other than stupid, stupid, stupid.

    Kranz is completely out of touch and has not governed well. He plays politics his way. Right, Kranz?

    This whole council is a big disappointment. As long as they let Vina keep the lead, we are doomed.

    Great legacy, NOT!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Great review. All these clowns need to get the boot.

      Delete
  6. I was taken aback by Barth's snark attack, less by Shaffer's defensiveness and her perpetual insecurity. What is wrong with a temporary hiring freeze? Appropriately it would be at the beginning of budget discussions, not in the middle or end, in order to guide the decisions. Both seem to have missed the word "temporary." The freeze could always be dropped. I imagine that Vina didn't want to use the phrase "hiring freeze" use, just as he didn't want "forensic audit" used.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Yes, Council's unanimous support of Gus Vina and Glenn Sabine, Barth, Kranz and Shaffer's not following through with promises of more transparency, cannot be "ducked."

    Now that Teresa Barth has announced she will not run again, she appears to have given up all pretense at civility. Why was that so important to her, to begin with? The lawyer who said her harassment complaint could go nowhere did it for two reasons: 1) She is not a City employee as an elected official 2) Her complaints of workplace maltreatment only reached the level of lack of civility, not harassment.

    Every position an elected official or a candidate takes, every decision has political implications. Politics is about the shifting of power and control. There is a kind of politics in any relationship.

    I don't care what Mark Muir's motivations were or are. His proposal, on the surface, was a good one, and was endorsed by Bob Bonde, the only public speaker for the operating expenses agenda item, speaking on behalf of the Encinitas Taxpayers Association. A hiring freeze WOULD be prudent. Gus Vina's and Finance Director Tim Nash's economics are not prudent. And why weren't CIP projects heard before operating expenses, so we (the city) could decide if it's prudent to hire more employees in light of capital improvement project priorities?

    "$7.2M which will be available for additional capital improvement projects and/or bond debt payments." That quote, from Bath's newsletter doesn't make sense. How much, yearly, after the purchase of Pacific View, at $10 Million, will our total payments be toward debt service fees? Does this financing scheme suggest that every capital improvement project will require another lease revenue bond? Other than Pacific View, what would the possible sources of lease revenue be?

    Just because Barth and Vina claim: "The proposed FY14/15 Operating Budget includes funding for all operating costs, all proposed increases and fully funds the operating reserves and budget stabilization reserves. Resulting in an ending fund balance of $7.2M which will be available for additional capital improvement projects and/or bond debt payments," doesn't make that statement true.

    I thought I heard, in last Wednesday's budget discussion that we have $20 Million in reserves? How can we have $20 Million in reserves, in fact, and only have $7.25 for debt service and all CIP projects? How can we continue to maintain our (biased, as Standard & Poors is notoriously connected to the banking industry, which promotes loans, especially to governmental entities/public agencies) credit rating? In 2012, when the City got another bogus lease revenue bond, to fund Hall Property Park and Moonlight Beach improvement, also raiding other City funds for $11 Million plus, Vina assured Stocks, Muir, Gaspar, Bond and Barth that Encinitas could afford to borrow up to $8 Million more, and still be in good shape relative to debt ratio? What has changed since then, except that we are going to add another $10 Million.

    I want the City to purchase PV as much or more than anyone. It's still not too late for the City to stand up to Baird and the Board of Trustees, and demand better terms of payment. Why won't Barth and her new majority consider that possibility?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Barth is an incompetent ticket puncher - she never could aspire to anything else due to the Peter Principle.

      Delete
    2. With respect to Encinitas' alleged reserves, here is a quote from a past San Diego UT article, when Stocks was mayor: http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2012/May/04/escondido-encinitas-have-reserves/

      "The report focused on governments that amassed large reserves even in hard times. It singled out cities with the highest fund balances. A chart showed cities with lesser balances, but there was no discussion of them." [That chart showing cities with lesser balances was subsequently removed, because of the bullying influence of Stocks.]

      Below is another quote from the May 4, 2012 blog following the "explanation" piece that followed, the original article by Watchdog Ricky Young. Here's the link to the initiating April 28, 2012 Watchdog Article, to which Stocks objected, and to which the U-T had posted the subsequent "explanation." http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2012/Apr/28/certain-government-reserve-funds-overflow/

      Ricky Young · Watchdog Editor at U-T San Diego

      "Thanks, Mayor Stocks, for your note.

      You are correct, those reserves are not "restricted." However, they are listed as "committed" fund balances on the city's comprehensive annual financial statement: http://bit.ly/KAnabt

      We did not include committed funds, again, because the S&P [Standard and Poor's, which is notorious for giving inaccurate ratings to public agencies/governmental entities, as it is pro-banking] methodology gave credit for the most liquid kinds of reserves. Clearly, that methodology had its limits, which is why we ran this explanation.
      May 7, 2012 at 11:41am

      Lynn
      Ricky Young, thank you very much for what you have shared. Again, I dispute that what Watchdog has written is a correction. Stocks is again using doublespeak to falsely state: ". . .in reality none of that money is "restricted" in any way." As you clearly point out, Encinitas fund balances are COMMITTED. To me, if ALL of the so-called "reserves" were counted as such, then almost everything outside of operating expenses would be counted toward reserves? As I said, earlier, I'm no expert in accounting, but it's unfortunate when those who do have more expertise use their understanding to massage the data and twist the statistics to confuse and misrepresent the actual facts.

      Here's part of an e-mail I sent to Stocks and all of Council:

      The balance sheet for June 2011 [http://media.utsandiego.com/news/documents/2012/05/07/encinitas.pdf] lists both restricted and committed funds in the General Fund. These are NOT considered (as part of more fluid reserves compared by the UT chart) according to the S&P Methodology, which was used to compare all the fund balances in cities in San Diego County in terms of more liquid reserves, as a percentage of each city's budget.

      Thanks again, for your attention to this confusion and misrepresentation

      Delete
    3. Lyn makes these incompetent quasi-politicians quake in their boots. Their greatest nemesis - an informed citizen!

      Delete
  8. If Muir was remotely interested in a temporary hiring freeze, it should have been done long ago. The public suggested this some time ago and it fell on deaf ears. The council looked the other way and kept approving expenditures and hiring more staff. Sorry, but Muir was derelict in his duties as was the other council members.

    It appears to me that Vina (probably on purpose) does not give council the necessary paper work too far in advance so that they can study and try to rationalize what they have been given. Everything is last minute, rush, rush, hurry up because there is always a deadline. Council gets nervous and goes along with the Vina mode of operation.

    Again, Vina in charge of council, rather than council in charge of Vina.

    We have a big problem.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The council collectively are idiots, incapable of governing or even knowing what the issues should be. We are screwed! Deincorporate!

      Delete
    2. That is never going to happen, so the more you post it, the stupider you look.

      Delete
    3. How does one "look" stupider on a blog when you can't physically see that person. Have to wonder who is the stupid one.

      Delete
    4. Voters can do whatever they want, if the desire is great enough.

      Delete
  9. What's on the budget agenda for next Wednesday -
    New debt of $13 million --- where $10 million will be for Pacific View and $3 million to build the lavish Moonlight Beach Marine Safety Center and called the lifeguard tower in the staff report.
    The Marine Safety Center (formerly the lifeguard tower) will double in size from 1100 sq. ft. to 2200 sq. ft. and will have on the first floor --
    A room of 150 sq. ft. for the public entrance and a sheriff's desk
    A room of 250 sq. ft. for first aid
    A room of 200 sq. ft. for lockers
    A room of 110 sq. ft. for drying area
    A room of 120 sq. ft. for showers
    A room of 50 sq. ft. for a kitchenette

    The second floor will have -
    A room of 370 sq. ft. for staff/communications area
    A room of 220 sq. ft. as an observation room
    and a mid-observation desk

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Does it have an express lane to Vons?

      Delete
    2. How many more lives will be saved by building a new lifeguard tower??? None.

      Delete
  10. Best decision this council could of ever made and they took a pass at it and called it a political ploy. WTF, they want to spend money they don't have, raise taxes on all of us and hire additional employees.

    A. I want Pacific View
    B. I don't want my taxes raised
    C. I'm willing to not hire new employees to make A and B happen

    It's really that simple!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Get a clue! The possibility of your taxes being raised died weeks ago.

      Delete
    2. People are charged "hidden taxes." We are forced to pay more and more for permits when we want to repair our roofs, or put in new windows, or remodel in any way.

      Business licensing fees have gone up. All fees are going up, including for classes at the Community Center. For surf classes at Encinitas beaches, or yoga classes at the park, fees have to be paid per pupil, per day, to the City. These will be increasing.

      Will the new traffic mitigation fees also apply to remodels? Lisa Shaffer is proposing that fee should be substantially increased. Will someone who remodels over a certain portion of his home have to pay the hugely increased traffic mitigation fee?

      Delete
    3. Taxes are taxes, fees are fees. Presumably, 10:54 meant taxes because that was the word used.

      Delete
    4. 11:37 AM
      Taxes can be fees and fees can be taxes. All hidden in the city presentation.

      Delete
    5. Well, fees aren't going to go down when revenues are probably down. Not saying it's right, but why would you be surprised.

      Delete
  11. These clowns are actually making Muir look sensible. Amazing!

    ReplyDelete
  12. Muir has no sense in my humble opinion. He is as meek as a mouse with a ravenous appetite. He and GASbag have no clout at all. We need to step back and take a look at the big picture says GASbag. She is now in her 4th year on council. Apparently, she has been in fantasyland. O MA GOD. I WANT TO SEE THE BIG PICTURE. What a bag of wind.

    ReplyDelete
  13. I think that the title of the piece points out the state of our council as a whole when Barth's proudest achievement as mayor is to create civility. Well, that one didn't hold up so that leaves the of achievement of..??????

    ReplyDelete
  14. Let your voice be heard to the city council. No additional $3 million dollars borrowed to build the lifeguard tower that will be a "showcase building" on the beach.
    It will cost taxpayers $733, 643 per year for Vina's projected annual debt payment for buying Pacific View and building a new larger fancier lifeguard tower.
    Vina's organization changes of new positions or increased salaries for some employees is projected at an annual average of $475,000.

    Sad - don't expect this council to put on their high boots and discuss how they're sinking the city.

    ReplyDelete
  15. I didn't vote for Muir, but I disagree that someone who wants to freeze hiring is playing politics. There were times early in Encinitas city history when there was a moratorium on raises and new positions--back before we are broke like we are now.

    Barth, Shaffer and Kranz should stop their game of follow the Vina and take charge of their responsibilities. He wants to grow his staff to an insane size to inflate himself and enhance his own power. That is what this is really about.

    ReplyDelete
  16. The sad part is they all follow Vina. That is why we are where we are. Until we get rid of the problem (Vina) you will see no change except more spending and hiring more staff because the people they have now are just so over worked and can't get it all done. Hire, hire, hire, hire.

    Shame on Muir. Proposes a hiring freeze and in the same meeting hires more staff. Tells you that his brain has been fried a long time ago.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Given your deep, professional knowledge of city management in general, our specifics in Encinitas, and Vina's record here under different councils, what would you do differently from what he and those councils have done?

    Please give specifics coming from your one-on-one meetings with Vina, other management staff and various council members.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'm smart enough not to be pulled into your little challenge. Unless you give specifics yourself, there is no discussion. You must be a city employee or one of $tock$ puppets. Try your bait on someone else.

      Delete
    2. 11:51's point is it's very easy to superficially condemn this, that and the other thing or person, which is what many who comment on this blog do.

      Go deep. Meet one-on-one with Vina, department directors, council members. Raise your points, find the facts, get prepared, then offer your better ideas. Without doing that, you don't know what you're talking about.

      Any fool can blather off the top of his head. Take 1:29 for example. Didn't do his homework, just blowing hot air.

      Delete
    3. 11:31 PM
      What in the world are you talking about? Vina and his cabal cabinet and the council know loud and clear the better ideas but council decided to ignore public input.

      Delete
    4. Not to mention, people have met ad nauseum with department heads and council, to no avail. Do you really think the public hasn't tried? Please...11:31 has either been living under a rock, works for the city, or is someone's puppet.

      Delete
    5. And 11:51, probably talking to him/herself at 11:31 pm.

      Delete
    6. 11:31 To assume that no one has met with Vina, a council person, or a member of the city staff is just that.... "assuming". You are totally incorrect, so please don't post things that are not factual because you are just blowing hot air.

      Delete
  18. Look at Vina's record in Sac. He kept putting off giving the council there his budget until the end when he snuck out like a criminal, leaving the city with a huge debt. What is he doing that is different here? No wonder his council gave him a vote of no confidence. How often does that happen?

    ReplyDelete
  19. I hope Muir runs for Mayor. He has my vote!

    ReplyDelete
  20. Many would vote for anyone who would fire Vina! Alex, are you listening? That is a better platform than your other one or may at least provide more depth.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Why do we need another idiot mayor? Let's get someone in there that can make the hard decisions. All the mayor does is slam the gavel, cut ribbons, and put together a meeting agenda. For crap sakes, my grand kids were doing all that before the age of 7.

    Barth still can't figure out how to run a meeting. I'll send my grand kids in to help you out Granny Barth.

    Muir as mayor? I am still laughing.

    GASbag as mayor? Even more laughable.

    ReplyDelete
  22. What on earth will Barth crow about accomplishing, now that she's led the charge to no longer get along?

    ReplyDelete