• Home
• ABOUT
• CONTACT
• POLLS
• AD INFO
  • STATS
• BUSINESS DIRECTORY
  • SUBMIT BUSINESS LISTING
• SHOP

Contra Costa Supervisors thumb nose at Grand Jury Report

The Contra Costa County Supervisors (BOS) revved up its dissembling machine last week and thumbed its collective nose at the recent Grand Jury Report (GJR) that recommended seven action items. In its “Supervisors Chip Away at County’s Mountain of Debt,” the GJR outlined 31 matters of fact, seven modest recommendations, and concluded that:

“This is the fifth consecutive year that the Grand Jury has been one of the voices forcefully bringing this matter to the attention of the Supervisors and the public. The Supervisors consistently approved labor contracts covering the remaining 86% of the workforce that obligate the County to expenses that are not sustainable, and budgets that do not provide funds to pay down this obligation over time.

“The pattern has continued this year. Supervisors have said that they have learned their lesson, that they will do better, and that they are on the road to fiscal sanity. Their record says otherwise. In the past few months, three labor contracts have come up for approval, and in each case, the Supervisors as a group have failed to take any meaningful steps to address out-of-control health benefit costs, attributable largely to the generous union agreements.

“The Supervisors have been unable to maintain a united front because some supervisors have gone outside the “meet and confer” process, communicating directly with union leaders about matters that are being negotiated by the County’s negotiating team.”

In its June 24 response to the GJR, the BOS essentially agreed in principle to most of the findings of fact, then summarily rejected key recommendations.

The BOS claims it has implemented GJR recommendation (#1) to establish and promulgate its labor negotiation policy to its negotiation team, but rejected the recommendation (#2) that individual Supervisors should stop negotiating with labor leaders behind the backs of the body; nor would it agree to approve “fiscally prudent” labor contracts (#3)!

County leaders shined off the recommendation (#4) that a health benefit plan be developed and implemented—in German this is pronounced “Yah-Yah-Yah”—and rejected the recommendation (#5) that while OK for future non-union retirees, existing retirees ought not enroll in Medicare Part B but have the County pay for this til death do us part.

The BOS waved their hands dismissively and spoke German again to GJR recommendation (#6) to stick to the plan to reduce or contain OPEB costs (see #3 above), then rejected outright the recommendation (#7) to increase the 40% target level to 85%. The BOS claims that:

“Over time, the combination of current resource redirection, new tiers for new hires, and a budget for health care costs will fully fund the County’s liability.”

Excuse me? What manner of Supervisor speak is this?

These guys can’t even set a date certain for the blessed $20 million payment to the irrevocable OPEB trust account scheduled for sometime — somewhere in the 08-09 budget. Not to mention at least FIVE BIG IFs. According to Dan Borenstein’s research presented to the Contra Costa Taxpayers:

Even IF the BOS makes good on its promise to prefund $20 million; Even IF it ever gets around to adding a $588 million chunk by 2022-23; Even IF it can pay $100 million dollars a year thereafter; Even IF the County implements the proposed benefits changes to unrepresented workers, the County would still be $54 million short of 40-percent funding and still leave a 60 percent or $1.042 Billion balance due. Furthermore, even IF the BOS added the same benefits changes to unionized employees, the County would still owe $705 million after 30 years.

Sadly, this is what the BOS means by “fully” fund.

According to the Grand Jury, “It is imperative that the Supervisors take additional meaningful steps to get the County on a fiscally sound footing. The next key step involves establishing and holding tough negotiating positions with the unions that represent County employees. To do so will require a majority of supervisors who take seriously their duties to all, not just some, County taxpayers.”

Comments