Proponents of an extension to the 1 percent sales tax called Measure T on the 2008 ballot have some serious public-relations obstacles ahead.
Behind-the-scenes work has started to develop a ballot measure for the November election. If voters pass another measure, it would extend the tax – in 2007 touted as a mechanism to boost city services, but in 2012 a mere attempt to maintain the status quo – which is set to expire a year from April.
Advocates of an extension, largely comprised of city employees, will face a much different ballgame this time around in comparison with the 2007 campaign that won over 66 percent of Hollister voters and garnered support from an array of local organizations, including this editorial board. It was a different economy. They had a different message, one focused largely on improving public-safety service levels. And they didn’t have a history on which voters could weigh their intentions and sincerity.
With that history, almost akin to a disappointing term in office, city leaders and unions have done more to hurt their message – a plea that the extra $3.5 million annually, unadjusted for inflation, is worth the investment for the next five or 10 years – than they have to help it.
Right after they gained approval from the all-too-trusting voters, city administration and the bargaining units promptly rushed through a series of deals for lucrative pay raises – retroactive, current and future compensation hikes.
Then just last year as the city and bargaining units saw a Measure T extension on the horizon, their latest compensation packages approved in December included a special nugget slipped in with a wink and nod – employees’ retirement pay would be derived by using each worker’s top-paying year in a crucial formula combining that figure with years of service. It changed the dollar amount from the prior agreement that called for using an average of the employee’s three top-paying years. It is subtle, but sure to sting taxpayers’ wallets down the road.
Up until approval on those same contracts, from the start of Measure T until late last year, the city also had been funding the entire employee’s contribution – that’s right, employee, not employer – toward every worker’s CalPERS retirement fund.
The public wasn’t supposed to be in on the gestures – standard for a city keen on convoluting such contracts and other budget-related matters – but Free Lance columnist Marty Richman examined the contracts and revealed the provisions in December.
That is not to say city officials have avoided reductions altogether. They have done what is necessary – pretty much the bare minimum – as their last-remaining parachute outside of the Measure T extension is a general fund reserve free-falling toward ground zero. A glaring example of the reductions came at the fire department in the fall of 2010, when it basically nixed out its overtime budget of around $500,000.
The vast, speedy reduction, of course, begged the questions: Why was the department racking up so much overtime before, and who was being held accountable for the outrageous taxpayer liability? The department racked up all of the overtime costs because the money was there, so they could, and nobody was held accountable until the well dried up.
City leaders don’t seem to understand that voters are more watchful and more careful with their money than they were in 2007. They have an uphill battle with the tepid economy alone, but now a reputation scarred by past discretions.
