City’s pruning may begin at the top
Article History
There are updates to this article.

SAN FRANCISCO (Map, News) - City employees earning more than $150,000 a year could be jobless by July under a proposal aimed at trimming The City’s projected $338 million budget deficit.

There are 596 city employees earning more than $150,000, according to the City Controller’s Office, spread out in various city departments, including the City Attorney, District Attorney, Public Defender, Muni, Police and Department of Public Health.

Board of Supervisors President Aaron Peskin said Tuesday that The City has to act as soon as possible to find a solution to its deficit and wants to cut positions starting “at the top.”

Peskin is having legislation drafted that “would eliminate all positions with base salaries over $150,000 that are legally allowable to eliminate.”

“The question is do you cut from the bottom from people who actually are the custodians, the janitors, the recreation supervisors and the gardeners? Or do you cut the supervisors?” Peskin said. “If the supervisors don’t have anyone to manage, that doesn’t make sense.”

If all the positions are eliminated — which is not legally possible because the city charter, adminstrative codes or state laws require certain positions — The City would save $104 million. Employees could be laid off as early as July 1, the start of the next fiscal year, if the legislation is approved by the Board of Supervisors.

Tim Paulson, executive director of the San Francisco Labor Council, said, “We do not support any legislation that pits workers against each other.”

Mayor Gavin Newsom’s spokesman Nathan Ballard criticized the proposal as a “hamfisted approach” that would “eliminate many of our doctors and nurses, the police command staff, and our prosecutors and public defenders.” He said Newsom’s “strategy is infinitely more sensible.”

Last week, Newsom ordered all city departments to cut salary budgets by at least 8 percent, proposing layoffs and the elimination of empty positions. By law, the mayor must submit a balanced city budget by June 1 to the Board of Supervisors for review and approval. Peskin said that The City should not wait until June 1.

“With very passing day, the projected deficit for next year continues to balloon,” Peskin said. “And there are steps that we can take now without waiting for the budget deliberations.”

Supervisor Sean Elsbernd also requested Tuesday an examinition into how much The City could save by not paying so-called nonessential city employees, including members of the board, between the Christmas and New Year’s Eve holiday.

jsabatini@examiner.com


Name
Comments

characters left


Comments from Examiner Readers

5:15 PM MST on Tue., Jul. 15, 2008 re: "City’s set-asides a ballot target"

Examiner Reader said:
"Supervisor Chris Daly has asked the city attorney to draft an amendment to a charter amendment that would provide voters with the opportunity to eliminate all The City’s set-asides." If this guy is "for it" then I would vote against it.

2 agree | 1 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree

2:45 PM MST on Mon., Jul. 14, 2008 re: "City’s set-asides a ballot target"

San Francisco Paul said:
Daly finally has a good idea to get rid of set-asides in the budget but then proposes a new one? Typical!

1 agree | 1 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
10:51 AM MST on Mon., Jul. 14, 2008 re: "City’s set-asides a ballot target"

Examiner Reader said:
“If [Newsom] is serious about taking on set-asides, then he will join me in the effort. If he isn’t, then he should back off,” Daly said. Conversely, if Daly was serious about taking on set-asides, he wouldn't be proposing one.

4 agree | 1 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
9:27 AM MST on Mon., Jul. 14, 2008 re: "City’s set-asides a ballot target"

Examiner Reader said:
Ahh of course it makes perfect sense, keep voting on set asides until Daly gets it the way he wants. It is human nature, unless of course you remember that he won re-election by like 1,200 votes a few percentage points and now runs all of the city. Yes makes perfect sense to me. But hey how about this idea how about fixing the crime in District 6 so that people are not killed on the average of 1 every 3 months. I totally agree that affordable housing is important but the city is out of control I never hear Supervisor Daly talk it. Providing Affordable Housing will not stop crime.

6 agree | 2 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
12:50 PM MST on Thu., Jul. 10, 2008 re: "Management hires outpacing others"

Examiner Reader said:
Keepa' your hands off the campaign funds! One of the biggest problems in politics today is the extraordinary amounts of private money which slush around in the public political process; as we continue to hear how there's no influence peddling going on.

1 agree | 1 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
10:21 AM MST on Thu., Jul. 10, 2008 re: "Use of public finance dollars raises concerns"

Examiner Reader said:
Public financing guarantees no such insulation from those who would put "political ambition or the special corporate interests needed to fund those ambitions." To navigate the City's political machine takes either a lot of money or a lot of free time -- just to get to the point of being considered for office. Because of term limits, most of our politicians must look ahead 8 years toward their next job. Public financing of elections does nothing to prevent that.

4 agree | 3 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
9:43 AM MST on Thu., Jul. 10, 2008 re: "Use of public finance dollars raises concerns"

Examiner Reader said:
San Francisco does not have the highest taxes by any measure. The Mayor is using the City's budget as a personal slush fund, as a trampoline for his political ambitions to the extent that he is not delivering services. Public financing is critical to the prospect of electing a Mayor who will put the needs of San Franciscans first, before those of political ambition or the special corporate interests needed to fund those ambitions.

3 agree | 2 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
10:25 PM MST on Fri., Jun. 27, 2008 re: "Management hires outpacing others"

Examiner Reader said:
Perhaps this is one of the reasons the city can't adequately fund MUNI?

3 agree | 3 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
6:22 AM MST on Tue., Jun. 24, 2008 re: "City’s pruning may begin at the top"

Examiner Reader said:
property owners have been receiving less service from fewer service personal as a result of this. so if EVERY property owner were to write return to sender on their tax bills and refused to pay it until the citys gets their S&%t together THAT WOULD SEND A CLEAR MESSAGE THAT WERE TIRED OF LIP SERVICE FROM MANAGEMENT OUTPACING. California has the highest taxes and the poorest conditions

14 agree | 3 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
6:11 AM MST on Tue., Jun. 24, 2008 re: "Management hires outpacing others"

Examiner Reader said:
To many chiefs and not enought indians ! Take for example the city of san carlos has only corrupt and incompetent people from building department idiots to a mayor that was guilty of money theft. save the tax payers the cost of these fools and turn back control of the city to the COUNTY !!!!

32 agree | 2 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
5:32 PM MST on Fri., Jun. 6, 2008 re: "Budget takes aim at $100K salaries"

Examiner Reader said:
How about getting rid of the whole Bored of Supervisors, that would save over $5M right off the bat, and then $100's of Millions because they won't be there to keep spending tax payers hard earned dollars.

4 agree | 4 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
2:07 PM MST on Fri., Jun. 6, 2008 re: "Budget takes aim at $100K salaries"

Gretchen said:
We have eleven Supervisors - way too many for a city the size of SF. I remember when they worked part time and made $20K a year. Now they make what? Close to $100K? And they now have assistants. It's time - past time - to rethink the role of the Board of Supervisors. I recommend that there be a maximum of seven Supervisors and that they be broken into two groups - four Supervisors that are from districts and three supervisors that are elected at large and represent the whole city. Reducing the number of Supervisors from eleven to seven would eliminate four positions and eliminate the expense of their salaries, would eliminate their staff, would eliminate the cost of their offices and infrastructure. Easily a $1,000,000 savings per year.

6 agree | 5 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
9:52 PM MST on Thu., Mar. 27, 2008 re: "OT costing city millions"

Examiner Reader said:
Some people are forced to work overtime while other people can't find good work. Can't laws and policies be adjusted to make bringing in new people (full-time, part-time, job-sharing, temporary, etc.) cost less than mandating overtime?

4 agree | 4 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
2:11 PM MST on Wed., Mar. 26, 2008 re: "City’s pruning may begin at the top"

Examiner Reader said:
Do the Stupervisors make over $150K? If not maybe they can lower the limit and get rid of themselves.

9 agree | 5 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
9:09 AM MST on Wed., Mar. 26, 2008 re: "City’s pruning may begin at the top"

Examiner Reader said:
I believe this when its actually implemented. Between employee uninons and civil service status, it makes it difficult to terminate anyone at city hall.

5 agree | 4 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
10:54 AM MST on Sat., Mar. 22, 2008 re: "Budget deficit balloons $100 million in latest projections"

Examiner Reader said:
Why doesnt the mayor ask his good friends the Gettys to help him close the deficit? Or better yet all of the wealthy eliteists in this city who help push the liberal programs that get us into this mess.Dont put measures on the ballot unless you can provide the funds to pay for them. Lets stop the madness and start running our govt more like a business and not a non profit org!

7 agree | 6 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
 
 

(page generated in 0.14 seconds)