This is what I've been waiting for (The Next Mayor)

Anyone and everyone who is interested in the mayor's race absolutely MUST read this fantastic article by the Daily News's Mark McDonald.

Finally, finally, finally, someone has taken the time to do a thoughtful piece about the city's impending fiscal crisis - a crisis that threatens not only all of the lofty plans and programs being put forward by the current candidates, but also a number of the functions that the city already performs.

You'll remember that I've been calling on people - journalists covering the race and the tuned-in electorate who are attending the forums - to pepper the candidates with questions about how they'll deal with this situation every time they see them.

Any time a candidate proposes to hire more police officers, or put surveillance cameras up or plant 50,000 trees, the questions should NOT be "how are you going to pay for that?" The question should be, "what are you going to do to make the city's fiscal situation more sustainable?" Their answers should immediately be followed up with the following quotes (dutifully gotten by Mr. McDonald) from the city worker union leaders with whom the candidates will have to negotiate a solution:

But Robert Eddis, FOP Lodge 5 president, said defined-contribution plans are a nonstarter.

"I won't even discuss that," he said.

Thomas Paine Cronin, president of AFSCME District Council 47, the city's white-collar union, said a defined-contribution plan "would amount to a cut in benefits. I don't approve of it and would fight it."

Pete Matthews, president of AFSCME District Council 33, the blue-collar union - and the city's largest union, representing about 10,000 city employees - said the idea of pooling health-care plans "is just election-year rhetoric, because in the end it would mean less benefits for my members."

He also opposes defined-contribution plans and joint control of the health-and-welfare fund.

Brian McBride, president of Local 22 of the International Firefighters Association, said, "We gave up wage increases in the past so that we could have better pensions and health care. We will strongly oppose any move to a defined-contribution plan or joint control of our health plan."

Take these quotes, print them out, carry them with you and every time you see a candidate, I implore you to use them to go all "Tim Russert" on their ass and follow up a question about the health and pension benefit crisis with the quotes. It's important to remember that while there are obvious financial solutions to the problem - defined contribution, joint management of health care - there are political considerations as well. We, as a city, might have to prepare for a pretty long strike before an agreement is reached and the next mayor better prepare to be a one-term mayor if we can't handle that strike.

And again, if you need more information about this impending fiscal crisis - a crisis that'll make the near financial collapse of 1990 look like the time you accidentally missed a credit card payment due date by a couple days, read PICA's reports here or here.

I also have to point out that the Daily News is now allowing people to comment directly to their articles. There seems to be an awful lot of vitriol directed towards the city workers who receive these benefits. I really don't see how that helps the situation but if people want to use that forum to blow off some steam, I won't quibble. You can use this post as a forum for those kinds of comments but I think we'd all be better served if we tried to discuss some real solutions to the problem. Judging from the statements given by the candidates about this crisis, those guys could use all the help they can get.

Comments (4)

Dave

A good reason not to vote for candidates with lots of union endorsements...

Posted by Dave | March 22, 2007 1:06 PM

BTW, the quotes should probably be read off before asking the question, since follow-ups generally aren't allowed at forums.

As far as unions workers, I don't think I'd turn down grossly overinflated benefits either, if I could get them. Many union workers are actually in favor of decreasing benefits, since they realize that the city's future fiscal viability depends on it. Many also realize that it's unfair for taxpayers who don't get nearly that level of benefits to pay for those kinds of benefits for others.

Regardless, union leaders need to be more reasonable in their negotiations.

Posted by Dave | March 22, 2007 1:14 PM

Karen:

Thanks, Dan, for keeping the focus on this issue.

Councilman Kenney in a YPP post stated that, at some point, the city decided to pay the minimum into the pension fund allowed by federal (or was it state?) law governing pension funds.

Kenney did not indicate at what point the city started paying the minimum allowable by law.

I tried to get an answer from him both on YPP blog and at a ward meeting this week, but was not successful. Does anyone know when the city decided to make minimum payments into the pension fund?

Posted by Karen | March 22, 2007 9:11 PM

the number of non-union votes:

All of this really comes down to whether there are enough reliable non-union taxpayer votes in this city to elect a mayor and at least a handfull of city councilpeople who can do what needs to be done to move this city foward. After the vote we just saw in council where mayor street was overrode while actually trying to retain some control on this issue, having a mayor looking our for the bottom line may not be enough.

Posted by the number of non-union votes | March 23, 2007 10:40 AM

Comments (4)

Post a comment