Retrospective-1998
Edited by Sara Epstein
“This is indicative of something much greater that’s wrong with the system. Elected officials are beholden to the people who get them elected. The public doesn’t have a lobbyist. The public has no voice.”-Councilman Joel Wachs-1998
(This one falls under the heading: “The More Things Change, the More They Remain the sam” or “Where is Joel Wachs when You Need Him?”. With all of the current controversy over the LADWP rate increases, high salaries and perks for management, consider this story from the June 4, 1998 LA Times.)
●●●
Pay Raises Approved for DWP Amid Cuts
By Beth Shuster
Acting behind closed doors, the Los Angeles City Council agreed Wednesday to a series of salary boosts for some Department of Water and Power employees at a time when the city’s utility is downsizing to prepare for the open energy market.
The council essentially agreed to allow employees making $90,000 and below to earn overtime pay, a benefit that was eliminated four years ago. In addition, the council agreed to give $10,000 bonuses to some union employees not targeted for layoffs. Together, the two moves could cost the city $3.9 million.
Emerging from the closed session, Councilman Joel Wachs blasted his colleagues for making concessions to the employee unions, saying the council is “beholden” to organized labor. The bonuses are expected to cost about $2.5 million.
“This sends the absolute wrong message,” Wachs said. “It’s the ultimate peace at any price posture.”
Other lawmakers, who declined to discuss negotiations publicly, said the actions taken Wednesday were more indicative of a council willing to allow the general manager to run his department.
“People made a decision to follow the requests of a general manager who said he needs these things,” said one council member. “The reality is that you have a guy who actually knows what he’s doing.”
DWP General Manager S. David Freeman said he was pleased by the council’s actions. “They call me ‘Landslide Dave,’ ” Freeman said, smiling.
Freeman has said the municipal utility needs to pay down a $4-billion debt, in part by reducing the DWP’s work force by 2,000 employees. To that end, the council has approved severance packages worth about $360 million, including incentives to entice employees to quit or retire.
Still negotiating details of those packages, Freeman returned to the council Wednesday seeking the overtime change, $10,000 bonuses and a provision allowing employees who leave the department during the layoffs to return to city employment in two years.
Council members Wachs, Mike Feuer and Nate Holden, however, voted against those items.
Feuer said the overtime change was “outrageous.”
“We’re talking about professionals who need to work until the job gets done,” Feuer said. “I just feel it’s outrageous for an employee who’s earning $80,000 to also earn overtime.”
While some lawmakers conceded that the overtime change, which could cost the city $1.4 million, is not the best reform possible, they said these items are part of an overall package that they supported.
Wachs, however, saw it quite differently.
“This is indicative of something much greater that’s wrong with the system,” Wachs said. “Elected officials are beholden to the people who get them elected. The public doesn’t have a lobbyist. The public has no voice.”
*
Wachs said the change in overtime, which he had fought to eliminate in 1994, was a stunning move by the council.
A 1994 report by City Administrative Officer Keith Comrie found that overtime payments to highly paid DWP employees were six times greater than in other civilian city departments. Of the 477 DWP employees earning at least $70,000, nearly all–468–received overtime payments averaging $4,532 a year.
The council had set a cap at $70,000 so that all employees making less than that amount could earn overtime, which is equivalent to time and a half.
While union negotiations typically are conducted behind closed doors, Wachs said the council hid behind that rule in discussing and approving the changes.
“I know state law permits you to go into executive session but it doesn’t require you to,” Wachs said. “This is a classic kind of thing.”
Other council members criticized Wachs for releasing the details of the closed session, saying negotiations should be conducted in private. Further, they said that if the council is beholden to the unions, the downsizing would never have occurred.
●●●
This was 1998. The following year, voters overwhelmingly approved a new City Charter that mandated the creation of neighborhood councils … whose charge, some believed, was to change the way City Hall does business.
Now, 10 years later, nothing has changed. Which prompts some questions: Are neighborhood councils up to changing things? Why do we keep electing people who keep serving up the same political slop? What are you going to do about it? (Story idea prompted by Jack Humphreville. Former Councilman Joel Wachs introduced the neighborhood council concept to Los Angeles in 1992 … at that time called the Family of Neighborhoods. Beth Shuster story published first in the LA Times on June 4, 1998. Story line here.) ◘
CityWatch
Vol 6 Issue 66
Pub: August 15, 2008
|
