| Orange County, CA | November 2, 2004 Election |
 |
Labor Dispute with Police Officers UnionBy Larry R. CrandallCandidate for Member, City Council; City of Fountain Valley |
This information is provided by the candidate | |
When does an agreement mean both sides must hold up to their end of the agreement?The city of Fountain Valley has an excellent Police Department and is committed to public safety. At issue in current negotiations is that the officers do not want to pay a portion of their pension costs despite their agreement to do so in prior negotiations. Pursuant to state law, the city is required to bargain with the Fountain Valley Police Officers Association (FVPOA), the UNION, which results in a labor contract that each side then abides by for the term of the contract. About three (3) years ago, the FVPOA negotiated an enhancement to their retirement benefit, thereby increasing their retirement benefit by 50 percent. Officers can now retire as early as age 51 with 90 percent of their highest year's salary (depending upon years of service) AND full lifetime medical and dental benefits. Obviously, this increased the cost of retirement benefits dramatically, and the city and FVPOA agreed to share a portion of the increase. For the first three (3) years, the city paid the entire cost of this benefit. This year, the pension cost exceeded the maximum the city agreed to pay. Therefore, as AGREED TO IN THEIR CONTRACT, the officers for the first time are paying a portion of their retirement cost. The city pays 29 percent of each officer's salary toward the retirement cost. Officers contribute 5.62 percent of their salary for their portion of the retirement cost. Their contribution is on a 'pre-tax' basis, so the net amount they are paying is actually 3.5 percent of their salary or roughly $300 per month. This year the city's pension cost increased $1.1 million for public safety alone. The city has fulfilled its obligation and has asked the FVPOA to fulfill theirs. Although the previous labor contract has expired, we are required to maintain the status quo until a new contract can be negotiated. The city continued to negotiate in good faith until impasse was declared by the FVPOA. The Police Association states, "The city has taken an unreasonable stance by refusing to touch this reserve for the relatively small sum of $300,000 it would cost to settle our differences." The actual cost is $400,000 in 2004, and $600,000 in 2005, with the possibility of $600,000 in 2006, for a total of $1.6 million over the next three years. To commit reserve funds to the FVPOA's retirement benefits would require the City to divert funding from established obligations. The FVPOA assumed a small financial risk ($300 per month) to gain a large retirement benefit equal to 90 percent of their salary at age 51 AND full lifetime medical and dental benefits. Now the FVPOA wants taxpayers to assume the total cost of their increased retirement package. Public safety continues to be important to each of our citizens and has always been very high on my list of issues. To say that I have not supported our officers is just not the truth and the people who have advanced this issue are just wrong. We will get through this and move on to other issues in our wonderful city. Meantime, please listen, get all the information and talk to those who know the truth. |
Candidate Page
|| Feedback to Candidate
|| This Contest
November 2004 Home (Ballot Lookup)
|| About Smart Voter
ca/or Created from information supplied by the candidate: October 19, 2004 15:50
Smart Voter <http://www.smartvoter.org/>
Copyright © League of Women Voters of California Education Fund.
The League of Women Voters neither supports nor opposes candidates for public office or political parties.