Sean Svendsen took the morning off work the
other day to address the Marin Board of Supervisors.
The Ross resident waited for his turn at the
public’s microphone to ask the board a question about the county’s legal
rationalization that it had substantially complied with state law when it
approved worker pay and benefit increases.
“None of us private citizens get to use this
‘substantial compliance’ argument for anything that the county orders. If we
are building a house, we have to follow the building codes.”
He was one of the speakers who questioned the
county’s response to a grand jury report that said the county may have violated
state law in approving worker pension enhancements without first making
information about the projected costs of those contracts available to the
public.
State law, on the books since 2001, says
public agencies have to make those projected costs available to the public in
ample time before voting to ratify the new contracts.
At best, the county has usually given the
public two or three days and a rough estimate of the cost. State law says
details should be made public at least two weeks before approval. Projected
pension costs of changes were usually left unaddressed.
At the time, some of the pension changes, such
as reducing the retirement age, were approved as cost-saving measures. Instead,
they significantly drove up the county’s pension costs and debt.
The legal advice the current board got
questioned whether the state law actually required the county to comply. It
also said the county had the detailed reports on the costs available, but the
public never asked for the documents.
Even though the county had never informed the
public the information was public and available, it had substantially complied
with the state requirements, the county’s lawyer advised supervisors.
Svendsen is right; the county should be
following the letter of the law, just as it expects residents and businesses to
do.
If a taxpayer pays his or her property tax
bill on April 11, when it is due on April 10, does the county waive the 10
percent fine because it was close enough? Not likely.
The Board of Supervisors overreached for an
excuse. The county’s response to the grand jury should have been that mistakes
were made and they won’t be repeated.
Unraveling a decade’s worth of raises, pay
changes and pension benefits would not only be impractical, but unfair to
workers and retirees.
Who knows whether disclosure would have made a
difference in the board’s decision?
Rather than trying to dismantle the grand jury
report, county supervisors should own up and promise to follow a state law that,
likely, neither staff nor board members were aware of.
“We will follow every statutory required
procedure,” promised County Administrator Matthew Hymel, looking forward.
Many other Marin agencies fell far short of
complying with state law.
County supervisors have already publicly
promised that information about contracts will be available well before they
vote to approve them.
Other public boards need to make the same
promise.
Taxpayers are not actively involved in
negotiations, but they deserve to know, in clear public-friendly details, the
short- and long-term costs before the contracts are approved.
Taxpayers have learned, by way of recent tax
increases, cutbacks in public services, layoffs and growing public debt, about
the costs of pay and pension promises made in the past.
Thanks to the grand jury, both taxpayers and
their public boards have learned that the public deserves to be advised of the
facts and figures of those contracts, before they are endorsed.
July
11, 2015
Marin
Independent Journal
No comments:
Post a Comment