CCMIN100102 - Laserfiche WebLink

Ms. Dennis indicated she had been through several contract negotiations when employees were asked to "tighten their belts" and they came through for the City. She wanted the opportunity to approve this contract. She felt that many city employees would be earning a great deal more if they were working in the private sector. During the boom times, the City did lose some employees because of the promise of things like stock options. It is more risky in the private sector. The public agencies take a more steady increase and so it can be more fiscally responsible and plan to spend the funds in an appropriate way. That means that many employees who work here basically take compensation in the future as part of their retirement plan. She felt this was an excellent package and she was pleased to support it because the employees deserve it. She was not concerned that there would be costs the City could not handle. She believed that if everyone works together, there is nothing the City cannot handle She acknowledged that there are many unusual events and discussions at the state level, but Pleasanton has been able to avoid many of those problems. She is confident cities will continue to stick together and work through the League of California Cities. She supported the staff recommendation. In terms of the public access to information, she did not like to see the politicization of employee compensation. The employees are not the issue and she did not want them to bear the brunt of what other people do. Council should be supportive of them and treat them fairly. Closed sessions are always noticed on the public agenda and people can address Council with their concerns and questions, even though they cannot he in the closed sessions. She felt the public has more access than they realize. Most people have not had a problem with the compensation of public employees because they have had no problem with the performance of the staff. Mr. Campbell thanked Ms. McKeehan for the historical perspective of the compensation. It is interesting the increases have been about 5% over the last thirty years. He supported the staff recommendation because he believed it was not only important to recruit the best employees, but to also be able to retain the best workers. If a city cannot retain the workers it has trained, then the operating costs will increase due to have to constantly recruit and retrain employees. He believed the eight-year agreement makes complete financial sense. He felt the City was being very financially responsible by being a leader in this kind of agreement. He hoped Council would approve the contract. One thing that bothered him was a statement that Council was threatening democracy because of negotiating in closed session. By law that is what has to be done. He acknowledged it would be wise to post salaries on the internet, but Council has done nothing to threaten democracy. This has been a good discussion, but it is time to move forward. This is a halfa percent increase over the course of twenty years. Revenues will increase along with revenues. Item 6a(1) It was moved by Mr. Campbell, seconded by Ms. Micheiotti, to adopt Resolution No. 02-111, a resolution of intention to approve an amendment to the Contract with the California Public Employees Retirement Systems for 2.7% at 55 for miscellaneous (non- sworn) members; and to introduce Ordinance No. 1871, to be read by title only and waiving further reading thereof, authorizing an amendment to the contract between the City Council of Pleasanton and the Board of Administration of the California Public Employees' Retirement System. Pleasanton City Council 18 10/01/02 Minutes