It’s alarming that City Council members reversed their stance
from a week ago
– when they seemed ready to vote 3-1 in favor of laying off some
or all of the city workers remaining on the city’s layoff list –
yet provided no real solutions to the budget quandary. Only Mayor
Tony Bruscia stood his ground and made the unpopular vote to lay
off the employees Tuesday.
It’s alarming that City Council members reversed their stance from a week ago – when they seemed ready to vote 3-1 in favor of laying off some or all of the city workers remaining on the city’s layoff list – yet provided no real solutions to the budget quandary. Only Mayor Tony Bruscia stood his ground and made the unpopular vote to lay off the employees Tuesday.
The city’s 4-1 vote to save employees listed on a potential money-saving layoff list is good for the 12 people who could have lost their jobs, but may be bad news for Hollister’s future.
That’s especially true if City Council members, like Councilwoman Pauline Valdivia, are banking on an economic upturn that doesn’t come to fruition. Valdivia told the Free Lance during an interview prior to Tuesday’s vote she sees saving the jobs as “low-risk” because she believes the economy will improve. Valdivia, who voted to save the jobs on Monday, also did not recuse herself even though her daughter’s job was one of those before the Council. It’s a clear conflict of interest to vote on a matter that directly impacts the livelihood of a member of her family.
The council approved saving the jobs and accepting the additional $534,000 budget burden that comes with them. They hope to continue negotiating with the union to cut costs, and the local union head said the employees want to help the city out of its budget problems. The city should make it clear concessions are necessary or the layoff issue will have to be revisited.
No one wants to see these 12 employees thrown to the wolves, but the impending $4 to $5 million city deficit must take precedent over saving the relatively few jobs, no matter how unpopular it may be.
Currently, the city of Hollister struggles with a police force the police chief says is too small and an under-staffed fire department. And in late 2005, the building moratorium will be lifted, which will undoubtedly result in a growth boom and greater demand for services the city already struggles to provide.
Granted, laying off the 12 employees, many of which have worked for the city for years, would be a tough political pill to swallow. But City Council members should put the interests of the community before the individual when considering how to reduce expenditures without limiting services.
Worst of all, the move does nothing to improve the city’s money problems in the future. A recent review of an independent budget study paid for by the city and the employees’ union shows the city’s financial projections into the future are worse than they appeared when the study was released. Although the new study showed general fund reserves were higher than former city manager Dale Shaddox’s $6.5 million estimate, the report’s $8 million general fund estimate was still short an additional $400,000. Likewise, the study failed to account for employee overtime – another $500,000 by 2009.
City Council members need to make the tough decisions and stick with them regardless of repercussions or political fallout as they balance the budget. Taking the path of least resistance does little, if anything, to help the people of Hollister relying on Council leadership to steer us through this difficult time. At best, it only delays the inevitable cuts for another year.
To respond to this editorial or comment on this issue, please send or bring letters to Editor, Hollister Free Lance, 350 Sixth St., Hollister, Calif. 95023 or fax to 637-4104 or e-mail to
ed****@fr***********.com
