This is an excellent MOU and there is a superb staff report that describes the process and the MOU in detail.

Web Link

Well done city staff!!

I assume Peter Carpenter is kidding. The new APOA contract has eliminated the 70th percentile salary requirement not as a service to taxpayers, but because with the new salaries, it's way, way above the 70th percentile. I believe these are now the highest police officer salaries in the bay area.

Please read the staff report and the MOU and see how significant savings have been made regarding pensions and benefits. And management has clearly obtained significant new rights that were not clear in the old MOU including:
the right:
• To set standards and levels of service;
• To determine the procedures and standards of selection for employment;
• To assign work to and direct its employees;
• To determine the methods and means to relieve its employees from duty because of lack
of funds or other lawful reasons;
• To determine the methods, means and numbers and kinds of personnel by which Town
operations are to be conducted, including the right to contract or subcontract bargaining
unit work provided that the Town will meet and confer in advance;
• To determine methods of financing;
• To determine size and composition of the work force and allocate and assign work by
which the Town operations are to be conducted;
• To determine and change the number of locations, relocations, and types of operations,
processes and materials to be used in carrying out all Town functions;
• To make all decisions relating to merit, necessity or organization of Town service;
4• To discharge, suspend, demote, reprimand, or otherwise discipline employees for just
cause in accordance with applicable laws;
• To establish employees performance standards including, but not limited to, quality and
standards, and to require compliance therewith;
• To take necessary actions to carry out its mission in emergencies; and
• To exercise complete control and discretion over its organization and the technology of
performing its work.

What Peter is missing here, either intentionally or not, is that this is a huge gift to the APOA masquerading as concessions BECAUSE NO OTHER CITY IN THE BAY AREA HAS OFFERED SALARY ADJUSTMENTS TO MAKE UP FOR PENSION CONCESSIONS. The calls where made. The homework has been done. There are no concessions if money is being taken from one pocket and being put into another.

Joker - Have you read the staff report and the MOU?

Note:
FISCAL IMPACT
In addition to the 7.6% of salary direct savings articulated above, with future actuarial analysis
and time, the Town will realize significant savings in the following areas:
• Reduced Pension Obligations through the creation of a 2nd Tier Pension System;
• Reduced OPEB Obligations through the elimination of Retiree Healthcare Premium
Costs;
• Reduced Active Employee Healthcare Costs through a reduced formulary and costsharing; and
• Reduced Salary Escalation through controlled salary adjustments.

Yup, I read it. I agree, as you quote, there are SELECTIVE SAVINGS IN CERTAIN AREAS but OVERALL this is at best a wash since the salary increase to make up for the selective savings is at least one to one.

But let' stick with this basic fact: NO OTHER CITY IN THE BAY AREA HAS OFFERED SALARY ADJUSTMENTS TO MAKE UP FOR PENSION CONCESSIONS.

Joker asserts " at best a wash since the salary increase to make up for the selective savings is at least one to one."

Vs staff report which states:
"Through negotiations this successor MOU returns the 7% obligation back to the
employee (both sworn and civilian) over the three-year contract in exchange for a 5% salary
adjustment.
In this manner, the employee is held relatively whole during the exchange and the Town
receives the direct benefit of a reduction in its pension obligations by $56,115 or 2.6% of
salaries ($2,194,104)"

I prefers facts to assertions.

Selective facts can be very problematic. There is absolutely no analysis in this proposed MOU of the long-term impact to Atherton of keeping the salary at an artificially high rate, e.g. actuarial studies of the ten or twenty-year cash flow impact from successive raises on top of what is already too high. This is just another example of kicking the can down the road, while a current politico (Rodericks) trying to look good.

But let' stick with this basic fact (and Peter prefers them): NO OTHER CITY IN THE BAY AREA HAS OFFERED SALARY ADJUSTMENTS TO MAKE UP FOR PENSION CONCESSIONS.

"this basic fact (and Peter prefers them): NO OTHER CITY IN THE BAY AREA HAS OFFERED SALARY ADJUSTMENTS TO MAKE UP FOR PENSION CONCESSIONS."

Please document this assertion - until you do it is NOT a fact.

As you know it's impossible to prove a negative. But, you can certainly offer a counter-example of a city that gave their police officers a 1:1 salary increase to make up for pension concessions. You won't be able to.

Joker - you have stated a bounded negative which therefore can be proved. Just post all the agreements for all the Bay Area police agencies which you reviewed to come to your conclusion.

Palo Alto did not offset pension contributions with salary when they changed this provision just a year ago. More examples coming. Paying the employee portion of the employees' pension was the real joke on the Atherton residents. Finally in the end the employees are getting higher pensions as their salaries are higher so the Town just keeps on paying and paying! And what about the current employees getting their healthcare for life. What a deal!

Joker - you have stated a bounded negative which therefore can be proved. Just post all the agreements for all the Bay Area police agencies which you reviewed to come to your conclusion.

NONE of the agencies that were used in the 70th percentile calculation have given salary increases to compensate for pension reform, which Atherton is now proposing dollar for dollar.

Menlo Park, Palo Alto, Redwood City, Los Altos, Los Gatos, San Mateo County Sheriff, Belmont, Brisbane, San Bruno, Hillsborough.

Not all of these agencies have implemented pension reform. Menlo Park, Palo Alto, Brisbane, Los Altos, Los Gatos, all have, and none have given salary concessions to offset. Nor have San Jose or Oakland.

As "What A Joke" (capitals, not I) pointed out, the irony of this foolish plan is that it will increase pensions since they are based on highest year salary.

"San Jose's police union Wednesday announced the officers have emphatically rejected a 3-percent raise offer and demanded the city double it to end the ongoing pay feud they blame for thinning the department's ranks."

Peter Carpenter, long an advocate for outsourcing the Atherton police department, when confronted with the facts he demanded, is now basically borrowing from the APOA playbook of propaganda. Atherton now pays cops more than ANY of the cities I listed above. Peter is implying if this fat contract were not awarded, they would demand more? Just refuse. They can't go to a city paying more.

" Peter is implying if this fat contract were not awarded, they would demand more?"

Joker - You just cannot read. I made NO implication. I prefer facts- like the FACT that San Jose's police union Wednesday announced the officers have emphatically rejected a 3-percent raise offer and demanded the city double it to end the ongoing pay feud they blame for thinning the department's ranks. This directly contradicts your repeated assertion that "NO OTHER CITY IN THE BAY AREA HAS OFFERED SALARY ADJUSTMENTS TO MAKE UP FOR PENSION CONCESSIONS."

By the way - it is ok to use your real name when you post here.