Mayor Jak is a smart guy!

[Drip_Torch]

I also don't understand why they needed a final adoption of a 5.5% increase when the CFO couldn't even ballpark the surplus that might be carried over from the last fiscal budget. Seems to me that the 2015 budget should have been reconciled right up to Dec leaving that to be the only month to close out the books for the fiscal year. It's February now and while there might be some final I's to dot and T's to cross for a final report, he should be able to say with certain confidence within a few K.

You caught the bit about the financials being audited and "could only speculate"? I don't mind telling you I found that to be a little odd. To the rest of it, I'm sort of this modern day, edm/rap tolerant, Joe Friday... "just the facts". I tend to blame the game more often than the player. I suspect councillor sentes sort of put him on the spot by beating him to the "move the staff recommendation" punch. That's basically what he said, but good for him for trying out a new phrase.

The missing rationale behind the 5.5% increase can be found in the cities submissions to Vince Ready, if you really want to take a look. Or, you could look up a few different court cases on the BC Court Services online. There's a few good snap shots available there.

Do you see why I choose to believe in the system yet? Whatever the heck they've got going on down there doesn't seem to be working.

[twobits]

The missing rationale behind the 5.5% increase can be found in the cities submissions to Vince Ready, if you really want to take a look. Or, you could look up a few different court cases on the BC Court Services online. There's a few good snap shots available there.

Do you see why I choose to believe in the system yet? Whatever the heck they've got going on down there doesn't seem to be working.

You have me at a disadvantage here cuz I'm not understanding your reference to Vince. Are you speaking of historical or current? Can't be the firefighters as Vince was not the mediator.

I also have not narrowed what your system is. You can be rather elusive at times. As to what is going on down there not working......all I can offer up is that we are currently a perfect example of democracy gone wrong. When the co owner of a used record store and a bartender are elected to manage a 100 million dollar business, something is terribly wrong.

[Drip_Torch]

Now you see why I can forgive misspoke...

Yes, you got me - David McPhillips, the ff's arbitration, sorry. I was going to supply you with a link. I managed to find it by going back from the deputy FC's civil claim notice, but I'm not landing on it tonight. I think it's in my notes here somewhere, or I can follow it up, but it sounds like you're familiar with it?

"The system". Myself, I'm sort of partial to one that works like this:

Municipalities and their councils are recognized as an order of government within their jurisdiction that:
- is democratically elected, autonomous, responsible and accountable,
- is established and continued by the will of the residents of their communities, and
- provides for the municipal purposes of their communities.

Check the bias at the door, public business is public business, objective over subjective, and deal in good faith.

Right now, I see a democratically elected, autonomous body that's seems to be open to providing for some purposes.

I get what you're saying, but there should be some level of professional expertise guiding the councillors within the corporation. I don't think they necessarily, need to know how to run a 100 million a year corporation. More important, in my mind, they need to know that a 100 million dollar a year corporation is being run within the principals of the community charter act.

Heart in the right place and whole lot of reading - that's all I ask out of someone making 20 to 80 a year. There are 6 digit professionals for the nitty-gritty.

[HighPitch]

Has there been any discussion in Penticton in bringing in the Auditor General for Local Government to review the City financial reporting or lack thereof as well as procurement policies and procedures. From what I have been told the City spent a large amount of money on a new accounting reporting system and yet still the same old rhetoric is being delivered by Council and Senior Staff.

[twobits]

Now you see why I can forgive misspoke...

Yes, you got me - David McPhillips, the ff's arbitration, sorry. I was going to supply you with a link. I managed to find it by going back from the deputy FC's civil claim notice, but I'm not landing on it tonight. I think it's in my notes here somewhere, or I can follow it up, but it sounds like you're familiar with it?

I have not read the actual submission but think I understand enough of it's substance to form an opinion. If I understand you, and again I am not sure that I do, it sounds like you might be suggesting that the 5.5% might be a contingency for losing the FF battle. From what I understand, that contingency is already covered. I need clarification from yourself.
Myself, I am sympathetic with the City's position on this. I am really tired of everyone seeking "parity" with what another group have negotiated in a different geographic region. In the FF argument, there is a total disconnect between everything from cost of living to job demands of high rises, to most importantly, the per capita ability of the taxpayer to afford. It's like the BCTF demanding wage parity with Alberta teachers who had pumped salaries from oil royalties. We were expected to meet that bar just cuz it was only fair since they do the same job? With the current Alberta economy, and the next increase their teachers get, one can be guaranteed that the BCTF will not be bringing up their wage increase as one to match.

I get what you're saying, but there should be some level of professional expertise guiding the councillors within the corporation. I don't think they necessarily, need to know how to run a 100 million a year corporation. More important, in my mind, they need to know that a 100 million dollar a year corporation is being run within the principals of the community charter act.

Heart in the right place and whole lot of reading - that's all I ask out of someone making 20 to 80 a year. There are 6 digit professionals for the nitty-gritty.

I get what you are saying also. A council of 7 MBA's or CA's would not be representative. Heart in the right place means a great deal too if only to provide conscience. Incompetence however is not a trait that should be part of either group and unfortunately we have three sitting members of council that are totally incompetent and elected only because of uninformed populist notions of change required.
They are so incompetent that they lack the ability to understand what the 6 digit bureaucrats are trying to explain to them in even the simplest of terms. Two of them have mastered Roberts Rules and the jargon well enough to fake it. I can also forgive misspeak, but there is no help for Max.

[spokenut]

If Mayor Jak were a smart guy he could prove it and lead this council to do things the right way.
1. Control spending. By cutting out frivolous lawsuits and not wasting money on bloated, short sighted civic projects.
2. Hiring competent people to key management positions. A city of 30,000+ should have an accredited, experienced city manager. All managers and staff at city hall should be hired based on merit. A city beautiful as Penticton would have a vast talent pool to choose from.
3. Ensuring the city gets its fair share of property tax revenue and business fees from commercial operations within the ALR.
4. Getting down to brass tacks and fixing the city's infrastructure while keeping the city naturally clean and beautiful.

[Drip_Torch]

I have not read the actual submission but think I understand enough of it's substance to form an opinion. If I understand you, and again I am not sure that I do, it sounds like you might be suggesting that the 5.5% might be a contingency for losing the FF battle. From what I understand, that contingency is already covered. I need clarification from yourself.

I have no information to suggest the contingency for the ff civil suit is covered, or not; by a contingency, over and above, the 5.1 mil sitting in surplus. Actually, what I was alluding to is the overall economic health of the community. The city’s submission to the arbitrator offered a frank and concise financial snap shot. One that gave me pause to reflect on the situation this city is in.

Much of it is obvious; we’re older, we’ve got a hole in our demographics, our participation rate is a little lower, our unemployment is a little higher, our wages a little lower, many of our neighbours are on fixed incomes, either through retirement, or disability and the list goes on…

There’s also the issues we don’t really consider too often in their entirety. Things like the pool tiles and other infrastructure maintenance items that are catching up. Every time city hall band-aided those tiles, with the etching process, it cost us about the same as a 1% tax increase will bring in. The full 5.5% represents roughly the same dough as the final pool tile repair bill. Now I’m not suggesting that’s how it works and I’ve told you many times – I’m not a numbers person, but that doesn’t mean I can’t see the writing on the wall.

Beyond that, there’s the debt this city is carrying and it’s not insignificant. There’s the incentives to business and industry, to try and keep the doors open and a few people working, in a town where not everyone has disposable income, and for some, the viable business season is only marginally longer than the tourism season. Despite this the number of self-employed entrepreneurs lags behind the provincial average.

I’m not saying the city’s finances are bleak. (take a look around you – this is not what bleak looks like.)

I’m saying that clearly the city is facing some challenges and they’re going to have to keep on top of them. I think intuitively, we all know there are some bigger bumps in the road ahead. I personally feel that not only is the status quo unachievable, it’s undesirable, as well. I suspect we’re going to have to get a little creative and, with another round of monetary easing about to be kicked off in Ottawa, I feel it’s important that the city has the means to capitalize on the opportunities that may come their way.

Myself, I am sympathetic with the City's position on this. I am really tired of everyone seeking "parity" with what another group have negotiated in a different geographic region. In the FF argument, there is a total disconnect between everything from cost of living to job demands of high rises, to most importantly, the per capita ability of the taxpayer to afford.

Well, since you mentioned it...

I think you know I have a general interest in fire issues and could probably fill a thread on my own with this topic. The short version – I’m not at all sympathetic with the city’s or SILGA’s position on this. I would argue that it defies both, modern Keynesian economics and basic Cartesian logic to be going down this route. If the administrators and politicians behind the SILGA resolution really felt this strongly about their position why are they not attempting to walk down everyone else collecting a city cheque – including themselves? For example, what’s Penticton’s Managers worth compared to Vancouvers? I mean, we’re not just factoring in the population, or geospatial differences anymore, but we’re going to consider the economic disparities between the two regions – as well. (yeah, that’s not going to happen and if it did, we’d be talking about the really fun stuff in no time.) Nope, in this regard I believe the principle of judicial deference should reign supreme, which is to say, the arbitrator’s decision should have been the end of it.

At the end of the day, Penticton Fire is structured and maintained at the pleasure of Council, to the benefit of the property owners and residents. It’s the responsibility of Council to properly fund the fire department – not the firefighters. The notion that local government is ham-strung by ff wages is absurd – council isn’t even required to keep a fire department. If it does – the lights in the firehall cost X, a firetruck costs Y, a tank full of gas in the truck costs Z, and a fair firefighters wage is either negotiated, or arbitrated.

I know on this point you think I’m singing for the praise of the IAFF, but I’m not. If you told me you were going to sue the local “Safeplace” food store over the price of a head of cauliflower cause: “there’s a total disconnect between el nino and crop yields, and more importantly they hadn’t considered the per capita ability of people to afford it” – I’d tell you that’s not likely to succeed, either. Only when it involves professional’s wages and their right to negotiate in good faith, it becomes an attack on peoples dignity.

… but hey, tell you what though…, the day I see the mayors and managers walk into Inspector Hewco’s office saying, “Yo Dawg, ‘bout doze pensions, esplain the sunshine tax ting to da troop, cuz we’z not laying down da cake n’more.” - I’ll reconsider my position.

[twobits]

Well, since you mentioned it...

I think you know I have a general interest in fire issues and could probably fill a thread on my own with this topic. The short version – I’m not at all sympathetic with the city’s or SILGA’s position on this. I would argue that it defies both, modern Keynesian economics and basic Cartesian logic to be going down this route. If the administrators and politicians behind the SILGA resolution really felt this strongly about their position why are they not attempting to walk down everyone else collecting a city cheque – including themselves? For example, what’s Penticton’s Managers worth compared to Vancouvers? I mean, we’re not just factoring in the population, or geospatial differences anymore, but we’re going to consider the economic disparities between the two regions – as well. (yeah, that’s not going to happen and if it did, we’d be talking about the really fun stuff in no time.) Nope, in this regard I believe the principle of judicial deference should reign supreme, which is to say, the arbitrator’s decision should have been the end of it.

Sorry, but I can't hoe that row with you. There has to be a connect to a communities actual need and ability to pay. One size does not fit all.
And despite your usual well placed points, the cauliflower analogy was rather weak. You should also do a cross comparison of wages for City managers. You will find that equivalent positions in Vancouver pay much more in Salary, and they should.
Collective bargaining will always fail when one party is stuck on wage parity with a group elsewhere. And then the Aribitrator steps in only to follow historical precedence of matching parity. That is the cycle and mindset that needs some adjustment. If CUPE can understand this and settle it's various bargaining units differently than their piers, why should the Fire Fighters also not be capable of the same divergence?
I would even suggest that if our 80 to 110k per yr Fire Fighter"s salaries were frozen for 10 yrs, there would still be no lack of very qualified applicants to fill every opening. Sometimes people just want to live in and have a job in a very specific area and are willing to sacrifice something to achieve that. I see nothing wrong with leveraging that as the flip side to that is the leverage belongs to the Fire Fighter when they are negotiating wages in Fort St J.

[Drip_Torch]

You know we’re likely going to be raising the ire of the mods with this discourse– right?

Okay, so we don’t seem to hoe the same row, but let’s see if we can’t pluck some of the weeds out of your garden. Who knows we might still be cultivating the same crop.

From open sources… The city manager’s salary, in 2011 was $160,665, slightly less (about 12 G) than Barrack Obama’s Chief of Staff in the White House, and about half of what the city manager in Vancouver made. At least one article online suggests that salary climbed to about 167,000 by 2013 and if that’s true, then suffice to say, it’s a little more than the zero percent that was deemed to be suitable for everyone else. Let’s put the city mangers aside because I think it’s completely unrealistic to attempt to build a comparison out of something that doesn’t seem to be even remotely grounded in reality.

Moving on to the issue of “parity”; it seems to me that you, and by extension the city, are able to argue from both sides of the parity fence. In an earlier post you brought up the IBEW and CUPE collective agreements and asserted that the IAFF binding arbitration award should be on par with the collective agreements put in place by the aforementioned. I would point out that IBEW and CUPE have collective agreements in place, and the IAFF binding arbitration award resulted in a collective agreement that expired on Dec 31, 2015.

The argument seems to be that the ff’s shouldn’t be compared with other peer groups and held within the provincial standard that 98-99 percent of the collective agreements in British Columbia are in; but instead, should have been awarded increases less than the provincial standards, in line with groups that really offer no valid comparison.

I think this loses sight of the fact that binding arbitration is not good faith negotiation and that the arbitrator is bound by legislation (Fire and Police Collective Bargaining Act) in how they approach the awards. Specifically, the Arbitrator must have regard to “terms and conditions of employment for employees doing similar work”. In my view, CUPE and IBEW employees do not perform similar work.

Another condition set out in the Act stipulates the arbitration must give regard to: “the interest and welfare of the community served by the employer and the employees as well as any factors affecting the community”. One of the many factors called to support the city's position; "Income for individuals and households in Penticton are dramatically lower than in the rest of BC". I imagine an independent arbitrator would loathe to create a situation that exacerbates this circumstance. In my view, the arbitrator did strike a balance on this note. The increases awarded do not seem excessive and I take some comfort in knowing that a good portion of this money is likely to stay within the community. Whereas, the legal fees paid to Gall, Legge, Grant & Munroe, to argue against this award, were sent to 1199 Hastings Street in Vancouver.

All those that would abandon "the system" of respectful, collaborative, collective bargaining, and independent third party binding arbitration; in favour of sending our tax dollars to high priced law firms in Vancouver, please raise your hands and do the twinkly fingers thing.

Can you not see how the city’s approach to contract negotiations with the IAFF could be prone to abuse? I’ll be honest with you, in my view it doesn’t seem completely dissimilar to individuals that purchase newest "ithingy" and then claim their fortis power bill is creating a hardship.

The bottom line in this post: What’s more important to you – seeing the firefighters salary increases maintained at a level less than the provincial standard, or seeing that the overall burden the taxpayer’s must cope with in maintaining a fire department doesn’t become too much? If you weight the later over the former than you might be surprised to learn we’re on the same side.

viewtopic.php?f=23&t=65890

[twobits]

Drip, I am just going to take a pass on a response. While I can respect your position, I don't see how we will ever agree. We would be destined for an exchange that we could not conclude and nobody else would be interested in.

[Drip_Torch]

Fair enough Two Bits, fundamentally, I suspect this is where we stand diametrically opposed:

Sometimes people just want to live in and have a job in a very specific area and are willing to sacrifice something to achieve that. I see nothing wrong with leveraging that

AKA: The sunshine tax. Neither one of us is likely to be influenced by the other on this point.

We would be destined for an exchange that we could not conclude and nobody else would be interested in.

Yeah, true that. It seems people are far more interested in discussing the "who" and would prefer to clutch the well worn memes. eg: "Penticton is primarily a tourist town." Lol, even though I'm batting about a 101% better than the economic development peeps in this town, ( I didn't scare off 200 rate payers last year, and did influence at least 2 people to move here) I realize I'm not likely to change any of that.

Cheers to a good conversation. Now let's just stick a fork in it and do what we've always done, I'm sure the outcomes will change soon. In the meantime, where else in BC can you own a private beach and pay taxes on thousands, if not almost 10's of thousands of dollars worth of land?

[Rosemary1]

Glad I didn't vote for the 'smart guy'.

[onestop67]

Glad I didn't vote for the 'smart guy'.

Well, you didn't vote for him, but the majority did.

I initially thought he would be good. Younger blood, something this city needs.

Now, looking at his decisions about serious fiscal matters, I think he is a moron. He's making decisions like any young kid would. I want the new Iphone, but I can't pay for it...maybe dad will. If not, I'll just FINANCE it...

[XT225]

I never voted for him. I think that he means well, for the most part but is in way over his head. We would have been far better off with Vass in the chair. Spending would not be out of control like it is now at the very least.

[fall]

Vass also has some real businesses experience, the kind you don't get from a cheap tacky t shirt store.