News

Labor talks collapse as City Council agrees to cut over 70 positions

Palo Alto sees biggest budget reduction in decades

Palo Alto's fiscal year 2021 budget is a $41.8 million reduction from the current year, including $7.3 million from public safety. Photo by Veronica Weber.

Palo Alto concluded one of its most brutal budget seasons in recent memory on Monday night, when the City Council approved over $40 million in cuts and agreed to eliminate more than 70 City Hall positions.

Responding to plummeting revenues as a result of the economic shutdown, the council concluded a process that began in early May and that left just about everyone disappointed in one way or another.

"This is not a budget that makes anybody happy," Councilman Eric Filseth said near the conclusion of the meeting. "Everyone's been hurt by this."

The budget represents a $41.8 million reduction from the current year, which includes $4.9 million in cuts from community services and libraries, $7.3 million from public safety and $3.26 million from planning and transportation, including the elimination of the city's shuttle program. The general fund includes $197 million in expenditures and reduces staffing levels by 74 full-time positions.

The budget leaves the city with 960 employees on the payroll in the coming year, dropping the staffing level to under 1,000 for the first time in at least two decades, according to city staff.

What's local journalism worth to you?

Support Palo Alto Online for as little as $5/month.

Learn more

"This is a tough budget, there's no question about it," Vice Mayor Tom DuBois said. "I think we defunded every department this year … It's not something any of us wanted to do."

That said, the city's public safety departments won't see most of their cuts just yet. Even though the budget reduces the staffing levels in the police and fire departments by a total of 32 positions, some of these cuts won't kick in until the end of the year because of the concessions that Palo Alto's police and fire unions had agreed to accept. All sworn personnel will forego the 3% cost-of-living adjustments they are entitled to in their contracts. There will also be a special overtime rate for police dispatchers that will reduce costs, as well as a flexible staffing model in the Fire Department.

These cost reductions will allow the Police and Fire departments to defer the budget cuts until September and the end of the year, respectively. They create what staff is calling an "attrition ramp" by allowing — and proactively encouraging — the two departments to reduce staffing levels through retirements of veterans rather than layoffs of recently recruited staff members.

The city's labor negotiators had far less success in its dealings with the roughly 600 employees represented by Service Employees International Union, Local 521. The two sides had failed to reach a deal for cost reductions, which means that the union will suffer the bulk of layoffs but will retain the 3% raises that its workers are set to receive in December under its contract.

Margaret Adkins, SEIU chapter chair, said the union had offered $3 million in savings but the city rejected its offer. She did not specify on Monday night how the money would be saved but lamented the council's failure to reach a compromise.

Stay informed

Get daily headlines sent straight to your inbox.

Sign up

"After wasting thousands of dollars on many hours of concession discussions and an outside attorney, I don't understand how the council can say, 'Thank you but no thank you,' to our offer of $3 million-plus in concessions, which is about the same amount that the management group is considering," Adkins said.

The city's failure to get concessions from the SEIU employees also cut into management's negotiation with the roughly 200 employees in the "management and professionals" group, the only labor group that is not represented by a union. Normally, these employees see similar salary adjustments to those negotiated by the SEIU. Now, with the SEIU negotiations failing to bear fruit, the management group is backing off its earlier offer to accept 15% in salary savings, which would be realized by 26 days of furloughs. This will now be reduced to 13 days, according to Kiely Nose, the city's chief financial officer.

"Without any sort of agreement with our largest labor workforce, implementing something like that seemed impractical and infeasible," Nose said, referring to the reduced concessions.

Hours at local libraries, including the Mitchell Park Library, will be reduced under the fiscal year 2021 budget that the City Council approved on June 22. Embarcadero Media file photo.

The council voted 5-2, with council members Lydia Kou and Greg Tanaka dissenting, to approve the budget for fiscal year 2021, which begins on July 1. In doing so, it concluded an exercise that City Manager Ed Shikada described as managing "a multi-point balancing act of bad choices." This includes reducing productions at the Children's Theatre and exhibitions at the Palo Alto Art Center, cutting hours at libraries, paring back on park maintenance and decreasing capital spending.

Some residents argued that the city should find further savings in the Police Department. Rohin Ghosh criticized the council for making only "delicate" cuts to the police and said the city should do more to address "police militarization."

"It's honestly ridiculous what the city is doing with the budget this year," Ghosh said. "There are places we can find funding for programs that actually benefit the community."

Others suggested that the city reduce its capital budget to preserve community services. Jeremy Erman noted the fact that the city is budgeting $400,000 to replace the seats in the Lucie Stern Theatre even as it plans to cut $700,000 in the Children's Theatre budget. The seats are still functional, he said, and they've been getting much less use than expected in recent months because of social-distancing mandates.

But after more than a month of public hearings, which totaled more than 30 hours, the council refrained from making any last-minute changes to the budget. Kou and Tanaka have complained about the cuts to community services and argued throughout the budget process that the city should save money by delaying major capital projects, such as the proposed bike bridge over U.S. Highway 101 and the reconstruction of the Mitchell Park fire station.

Tanaka reiterated on Monday his prior arguments the city has too many managers and too many employees devoted to areas like "public relations" and recruiting. He also lamented the city's failure to negotiate salary reductions with its largest labor union.

"We're giving raises. It's just mind-boggling," Tanaka said.

Palo Alto's elected leaders cut the city's shuttle program in the fiscal year 2021 budget, but could restore it in the future under a $744,000 fund for COVID-19 related expenditures. Embarcadero Media file photo by Veronica Weber.

The council also left open the possibility of restoring some of the positions that are being cut later in the year. The budget includes a $744,000 fund for COVID-19 related expenditures, money that the city can tap into later to restore shuttle services, boost funding for recreation programs and pay for any unexpected services associated with the pandemic or the economic recovery.

Mayor Adrian Fine was one of several council members who thanked the city's labor force, particularly those workers who are facing layoffs.

"None of us wanted to see this happen, but we're dealing with some really hard situations," Fine said.

Craving a new voice in Peninsula dining?

Sign up for the Peninsula Foodist newsletter.

Sign up now

Follow Palo Alto Online and the Palo Alto Weekly on Twitter @paloaltoweekly, Facebook and on Instagram @paloaltoonline for breaking news, local events, photos, videos and more.

Labor talks collapse as City Council agrees to cut over 70 positions

Palo Alto sees biggest budget reduction in decades

by / Palo Alto Weekly

Uploaded: Tue, Jun 23, 2020, 1:49 am

Palo Alto concluded one of its most brutal budget seasons in recent memory on Monday night, when the City Council approved over $40 million in cuts and agreed to eliminate more than 70 City Hall positions.

Responding to plummeting revenues as a result of the economic shutdown, the council concluded a process that began in early May and that left just about everyone disappointed in one way or another.

"This is not a budget that makes anybody happy," Councilman Eric Filseth said near the conclusion of the meeting. "Everyone's been hurt by this."

The budget represents a $41.8 million reduction from the current year, which includes $4.9 million in cuts from community services and libraries, $7.3 million from public safety and $3.26 million from planning and transportation, including the elimination of the city's shuttle program. The general fund includes $197 million in expenditures and reduces staffing levels by 74 full-time positions.

The budget leaves the city with 960 employees on the payroll in the coming year, dropping the staffing level to under 1,000 for the first time in at least two decades, according to city staff.

"This is a tough budget, there's no question about it," Vice Mayor Tom DuBois said. "I think we defunded every department this year … It's not something any of us wanted to do."

That said, the city's public safety departments won't see most of their cuts just yet. Even though the budget reduces the staffing levels in the police and fire departments by a total of 32 positions, some of these cuts won't kick in until the end of the year because of the concessions that Palo Alto's police and fire unions had agreed to accept. All sworn personnel will forego the 3% cost-of-living adjustments they are entitled to in their contracts. There will also be a special overtime rate for police dispatchers that will reduce costs, as well as a flexible staffing model in the Fire Department.

These cost reductions will allow the Police and Fire departments to defer the budget cuts until September and the end of the year, respectively. They create what staff is calling an "attrition ramp" by allowing — and proactively encouraging — the two departments to reduce staffing levels through retirements of veterans rather than layoffs of recently recruited staff members.

The city's labor negotiators had far less success in its dealings with the roughly 600 employees represented by Service Employees International Union, Local 521. The two sides had failed to reach a deal for cost reductions, which means that the union will suffer the bulk of layoffs but will retain the 3% raises that its workers are set to receive in December under its contract.

Margaret Adkins, SEIU chapter chair, said the union had offered $3 million in savings but the city rejected its offer. She did not specify on Monday night how the money would be saved but lamented the council's failure to reach a compromise.

"After wasting thousands of dollars on many hours of concession discussions and an outside attorney, I don't understand how the council can say, 'Thank you but no thank you,' to our offer of $3 million-plus in concessions, which is about the same amount that the management group is considering," Adkins said.

The city's failure to get concessions from the SEIU employees also cut into management's negotiation with the roughly 200 employees in the "management and professionals" group, the only labor group that is not represented by a union. Normally, these employees see similar salary adjustments to those negotiated by the SEIU. Now, with the SEIU negotiations failing to bear fruit, the management group is backing off its earlier offer to accept 15% in salary savings, which would be realized by 26 days of furloughs. This will now be reduced to 13 days, according to Kiely Nose, the city's chief financial officer.

"Without any sort of agreement with our largest labor workforce, implementing something like that seemed impractical and infeasible," Nose said, referring to the reduced concessions.

The council voted 5-2, with council members Lydia Kou and Greg Tanaka dissenting, to approve the budget for fiscal year 2021, which begins on July 1. In doing so, it concluded an exercise that City Manager Ed Shikada described as managing "a multi-point balancing act of bad choices." This includes reducing productions at the Children's Theatre and exhibitions at the Palo Alto Art Center, cutting hours at libraries, paring back on park maintenance and decreasing capital spending.

Some residents argued that the city should find further savings in the Police Department. Rohin Ghosh criticized the council for making only "delicate" cuts to the police and said the city should do more to address "police militarization."

"It's honestly ridiculous what the city is doing with the budget this year," Ghosh said. "There are places we can find funding for programs that actually benefit the community."

Others suggested that the city reduce its capital budget to preserve community services. Jeremy Erman noted the fact that the city is budgeting $400,000 to replace the seats in the Lucie Stern Theatre even as it plans to cut $700,000 in the Children's Theatre budget. The seats are still functional, he said, and they've been getting much less use than expected in recent months because of social-distancing mandates.

But after more than a month of public hearings, which totaled more than 30 hours, the council refrained from making any last-minute changes to the budget. Kou and Tanaka have complained about the cuts to community services and argued throughout the budget process that the city should save money by delaying major capital projects, such as the proposed bike bridge over U.S. Highway 101 and the reconstruction of the Mitchell Park fire station.

Tanaka reiterated on Monday his prior arguments the city has too many managers and too many employees devoted to areas like "public relations" and recruiting. He also lamented the city's failure to negotiate salary reductions with its largest labor union.

"We're giving raises. It's just mind-boggling," Tanaka said.

The council also left open the possibility of restoring some of the positions that are being cut later in the year. The budget includes a $744,000 fund for COVID-19 related expenditures, money that the city can tap into later to restore shuttle services, boost funding for recreation programs and pay for any unexpected services associated with the pandemic or the economic recovery.

Mayor Adrian Fine was one of several council members who thanked the city's labor force, particularly those workers who are facing layoffs.

"None of us wanted to see this happen, but we're dealing with some really hard situations," Fine said.

Comments

TuppenceT
Adobe-Meadow
on Jun 23, 2020 at 2:02 am
TuppenceT, Adobe-Meadow
on Jun 23, 2020 at 2:02 am
61 people like this

Lydia Kou said that both the City’s survey and her own survey showed that residents prioritize services over capital projects but council chose monuments over people. Thank you Lydia for caring about the community.


Online Name
Embarcadero Oaks/Leland
on Jun 23, 2020 at 6:20 am
Online Name, Embarcadero Oaks/Leland
on Jun 23, 2020 at 6:20 am
53 people like this

The council cut community services but neither the bloated city manager's office or the boated pr/communications/ department? Shame on them,

The guest opinion by Winkler and the blog by Diamond questions whether the the city is working for the staff rather than us nailed it then and were unfortunately ignored in the budget discussions. Gotta keep THEIR gravy train going.


Resident
Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Jun 23, 2020 at 7:35 am
Resident, Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Jun 23, 2020 at 7:35 am
34 people like this

As a result and consequence of these measures, we must be careful to have no virtue signalling expensive alterations to City codes or practices.

Now is not the time to alter or promote the removal of gas appliances or promote EV cars.

Now is not the time to alter the residential requirement to access of Foothills Park.

Now is not the time to do anything to reduce any more quality of life for residents. Put us first and foremost, our needs and our infrastructure.


Budget Massacre
Downtown North
on Jun 23, 2020 at 8:02 am
Budget Massacre, Downtown North
on Jun 23, 2020 at 8:02 am
62 people like this

This Council and City Manager just cut 40 librarians (which means substantially reduced hours) and gutted our beloved Children’s Theatre, among other beautiful things.

Meanwhile, the bloated City Managers Office stands as is (see below), as do the big ticket capital projects everyone was begging you to pause. Wow.

This City Manager needs to go, as does the bulk of the City Council. Please remember this, and don’t fall for the oily excuses, when elections roll around.

Thank you Tanaka and Kou. Not just for your “no” votes, but for listening throughout the process, and trying to give your city the process it deserved.

City Manager - $356,000
Assistant to the City Manager - $310,000
Assistant City Manager - $256,000
Deputy City Manager - $214,000
Chief Communications Office - $206,000
Communications Manager - $121,000
Executive Assistant to the City Manager - $102,000
2 Admin Assistants - $178,000
Management Analyst - $85,000


there was another way
Old Palo Alto
on Jun 23, 2020 at 8:11 am
there was another way , Old Palo Alto
on Jun 23, 2020 at 8:11 am
58 people like this

There was a better way to do this budget and former Mayor Pat Burt laid it out for the City Manager and the Council in his op/ed: Web Link

Instead, the council chose to follow Staff's recommendations which fail to prioritize residents and cut services. As one speaker explained last night - the service cuts disproportionately impact our most vulnerable residents. Why?!

And why was the agenda so long last night with so many items on consent?! The council is taking a vacation in the middle of a pandemic and during a budget crisis that is worse than any in recent memory. Where on earth are the council members going? There is nothing more important right now than figuring out how to deal with this fiscal emergency and hurrying up the process and agreeing to whatever Staff says just to get it done so council could go on break is inexcusable.

Is the City being run by Staff or the Council?


Aesculus CA
Ventura
on Jun 23, 2020 at 8:53 am
Aesculus CA, Ventura
on Jun 23, 2020 at 8:53 am
19 people like this

I disagree with the comments above related to "virtue signalling" when we desperately need to make significant changes to address climate change and the threat of sea level rise.

Reducing fossil fuel usage is essential to our planet's future to sustain life!


Online Name
Embarcadero Oaks/Leland
on Jun 23, 2020 at 9:39 am
Online Name, Embarcadero Oaks/Leland
on Jun 23, 2020 at 9:39 am
20 people like this

If you want to address climate change etc., your efforts would be better spent campaigning against Trump and the GOP and their continued gutting of environmental protections, pulling out of the Kyoto accords, etc.


Do Better
Greenmeadow
on Jun 23, 2020 at 10:48 am
Do Better, Greenmeadow
on Jun 23, 2020 at 10:48 am
16 people like this

Am I reading correctly that they aren’t actually making cuts to the police until later in the year? But programs like libraries and children’s programs are being cut down next month? A shuttle service happening right now and librarians having jobs right now is more important than some police officers getting paid a bunch to be a part of an oppressive system. Obviously it’s okay overall to cut money from lots of places but the police brutality protests are happening NOW and it’s ridiculous to make budget cuts to that department later than other departments. This is just another example of cities caring more about police than their citizens. And I’m sure there are ways to reduce salaries a little bit of some city council staff instead of making cuts to hurt more vulnerable people. This is just overall pretty disappointing to see.


Oh well..
Old Palo Alto
on Jun 23, 2020 at 11:37 am
Oh well.., Old Palo Alto
on Jun 23, 2020 at 11:37 am
14 people like this

Eliminate the City Manager job and his staff and problem solved.


merry
Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Jun 23, 2020 at 11:43 am
merry, Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Jun 23, 2020 at 11:43 am
17 people like this

Why, exactly, was the city magager(and all the assistants)
Budget not cut?


commonsense
South of Midtown
on Jun 23, 2020 at 12:16 pm
commonsense, South of Midtown
on Jun 23, 2020 at 12:16 pm
7 people like this

Brilliant - cut the planning department so permitting takes longer which will slow the significant revenue the city gets from permits. And leave all the PR folks to the tune of, what, $500k per year plus forever pension obligations...


Heidi Schwenk
Leland Manor/Garland Drive
on Jun 23, 2020 at 12:29 pm
Heidi Schwenk, Leland Manor/Garland Drive
on Jun 23, 2020 at 12:29 pm
Like this comment

To every Palo Altoian,
What’s next? How can the City Council be called upon to continue revising the budget to meet the social and community needs, reduce salaries of council, eliminate unnecessary PR or other unnecessary personnel from City Payroll, reduce pensions, etc? It seems that with many people responding to this article, there needs to be a movement to organize and not let the summer time off of the council get in the way of progress. Besides, the City Manager and Council did say they would address the issues the community has with the current Police Dept use of brutality, etc.
Who will the leaders be to continue representing the community’s demands?


JEANNE VALLCO JEANNE
another community
on Jun 23, 2020 at 12:31 pm
JEANNE VALLCO JEANNE, another community
on Jun 23, 2020 at 12:31 pm
21 people like this

“a multi-point balancing act of bad choices”

I could not describe Palo Alto city government any better. And they said it themselves.

With the exception of Lydia Kou, Palo Alto’s leadership is a full display of incompetence, greed, and utter disdain for families, children, and community. A disgrace.


ALB
College Terrace
on Jun 23, 2020 at 12:35 pm
ALB, College Terrace
on Jun 23, 2020 at 12:35 pm
25 people like this

I felt like I was watching a tragic play last night regarding the council's lack of courage, save for Lydia Kou and Greg Tanaka's votes, concerning the budget. First there was a long chorus of sixteen year olds all with the same message that they be allowed to vote at their age. The majority announced themselves as "Rising Paly Seniors." It sounded so self congratulatory. When I grew up in Palo Alto we were taught to not tell others about our 'greatness.' It was for others to complement us on accomplishments. What are these teenagers? Bread?
The meeting was a charade orchestrated by the city manager to drain the council with the over thirty items on the consent calendar. Why did some of the council members refer to their vacations? We are in a PANDEMIC and it is their duty to serve the community. In this case
deferring nonessential Capital Improvement Projects so that safety services are kept to the standard necessary to protect citizens. Pat Burt stated this concept perfectly. The meeting was a farce.


Dt north
Downtown North
on Jun 23, 2020 at 12:43 pm
Dt north, Downtown North
on Jun 23, 2020 at 12:43 pm
11 people like this

Curious how the state got their union to take a cut in pay to help the overall budget cuts. City of Palo Alto has failed once again. We need to do better !!!


fred
University South
on Jun 23, 2020 at 12:52 pm
fred, University South
on Jun 23, 2020 at 12:52 pm
1 person likes this

Somebody should fact check the comments. There are some legitimate points of view expressed, but the comments are filled with inaccuracies. I guess this will all be aired out in the November election. We'll see how the challengers do against Kou, Fine, and Tanaka.


Deference to Staff Instead of Providing Policy Direction
Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Jun 23, 2020 at 1:02 pm
Deference to Staff Instead of Providing Policy Direction, Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Jun 23, 2020 at 1:02 pm
40 people like this

It is tiresome to listen to Fine and Cormack pander and defer to staff at every meeting. Why don't they challenge staff? Be creative and support your colleagues when they try to provide policy direction to staff on the budget instead of stubbornly standing by staff's every proposal. Offer alternatives. Listen to constituents. I know this is harder, but it's what you were elected to do. I thought the Guest Opinion regarding alternative cuts offered good options. Web Link Why were these ideas not publicly discussed in greater depth? It is your job to direct staff, not to defer to them. It is your job to represent your constituents.


Anonymous
Duveneck/St. Francis
on Jun 23, 2020 at 1:23 pm
Anonymous, Duveneck/St. Francis
on Jun 23, 2020 at 1:23 pm
9 people like this

Thank you for this article! We need to know the details of what’s going on in our City and it’s budget.
Btw, how many in private sector get a 3% “cost of living raise!?”
Note: not all of us are VC types out here in the private sector and we don’t get those raises. For just a minor note.
I would think reversing the ugly 1M fairly recent public art purchase or allocation would be a smart start (on wall going from nonexistent garage to nonexisten police station)?


Anonymous
Duveneck/St. Francis
on Jun 23, 2020 at 1:24 pm
Anonymous, Duveneck/St. Francis
on Jun 23, 2020 at 1:24 pm
6 people like this

Thank you for this article! We need to know the details of what’s going on in our City and it’s budget.
Btw, how many in private sector get a 3% “cost of living raise!?”
Note: not all of us are VC types out here in the private sector making zillions - and we don’t get those raises. For just a minor note.
I would think reversing the ugly 1M fairly recent public art purchase or allocation would be a smart start (on wall going from nonexistent garage to nonexisten police station)?


Really Disappointed
Community Center
on Jun 23, 2020 at 2:08 pm
Really Disappointed, Community Center
on Jun 23, 2020 at 2:08 pm
13 people like this

I am really disappointed in the lack of a labor concessions agreement. Still getting a 3% cost of living adjustment?! No concessions?! What were the proposed terms?


Boomer
Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Jun 23, 2020 at 3:33 pm
Boomer, Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Jun 23, 2020 at 3:33 pm
31 people like this

@ALB Same! I too hate all children. In the good old days we were taught to suck it up and not speak out about injustices. Clearly, silence is the only honorable course of action. I do want to correct you on one thing: "rising senior" refers to grade level - a junior in 2019-20 becoming a senior in 2020-21 is a rising senior. Otherwise, you are right on the money with you comment that teenagers are unintelligent, terrible people and their opinions are obviously unimportant. I, like you, just hope teenagers learn to sit idly by and let us boomers make the decisions.


ALB
College Terrace
on Jun 23, 2020 at 5:26 pm
ALB, College Terrace
on Jun 23, 2020 at 5:26 pm
6 people like this

So Boomer you are right in my not knowing that this expression 'rising senior' relates to the grade level. My sister had informed me of this earlier today. I do not hate children or teenagers. After living through the assassinations of JFK, MLK and RFK you do not have to 'tell' me what I think. My late father who sat on the ninth circuit was called by Judge Thelton Henderson, "The Jackie Robinson of the Federal Bench." We were always a political family and against the Vietnam war. My father gave out, with his colleague Judge Zirpolli ,more C.O.s than any other judges in the USA. Nixon hated my father and kept a file on him. Regarding voting at sixteen I believe that these young people had a right to voice their opinion as per the Constitution. I was a precinct captain for Eugene McCarthy at age seventeen. So instead of talking the talk everybody needs to walk the walk and support the candidates you feel represent your values.




DTNResident
Downtown North
on Jun 23, 2020 at 8:11 pm
DTNResident, Downtown North
on Jun 23, 2020 at 8:11 pm
6 people like this

For those of you who don't understand politics, there's only one way on to a city council position: MONEY. There are three groups that give the bulk of the reelection money to any candidate: 1. Developers. 2. Contractors. 3. Unions.

Developers are sitting this out as they are probably not going to build anything in the near term, so that leaves contractors and unions to provide the reelection money or labor. So the unions will get their raises and the contractors will get their projects.

You'll notice who is almost completely unimportant in all of this: YOU. No one cares what you want, because with enough union labor and contractor money, they don't need your vote. They can buy enough advertising to get ten of your uninformed neighbors to make up for your refusal to vote for them.

So keep arguing about what you "want" or what is "for the good of the city" because none of that matters.


Jim
Community Center
on Jun 24, 2020 at 9:17 am
Jim, Community Center
on Jun 24, 2020 at 9:17 am
4 people like this

The city approached SEIU asking for 3 million in savings. SEIU met with its members and put together a proposal that would save 3.5 million utilizing furloughs and other measures. They gave them more than they asked for. In exchange, the union asked that the employees have the ability to determine when furlough days were used. The city wanted managers to dictate employees schedules. The union also didn't want furloughs to impact employees retirements. The city refused to accept those two simple terms. Finally after the union offeried 3.5 million, the city asked for more savings. The union wanted to help, but the city manager's office wants to eliminate jobs. They spent thousands of dollars bringing in a union busting attorney who never even bothered to read the contract and made multiple demands that were in violation of the contract.

SEIU represents the lowest paid of city employees and the city asked them to sacrifice the most or lose their jobs. No working person can view the city's actions and think of them as acceptable. The City Manager's office had an agenda from the get go and the council bent over backwards to give him everything he wanted.

Re: Anonymous. Have you ever considered unionizing?


Anon
Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Jun 24, 2020 at 10:09 am
Anon, Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Jun 24, 2020 at 10:09 am
2 people like this

Posted by Jim, a resident of Community Center

>> The city approached SEIU asking for 3 million in savings. SEIU met with its members and put together a proposal that would save 3.5 million utilizing furloughs and other measures.

It would be interesting to hear a parallel discussion from the public safety union.


Frederick M. Chancellor, Jr.
Duveneck/St. Francis
on Jun 24, 2020 at 4:11 pm
Frederick M. Chancellor, Jr., Duveneck/St. Francis
on Jun 24, 2020 at 4:11 pm
2 people like this

As we criticize the budget actions, I believe it would be helpful to be provided a truly informative job description for each of the following: Assistant to the City Mgr., Assistant City Mgr., Deputy City Mgr., Chief Communications Officer, Communications Mgr., Executive Assistant to the City Mgr., Management Analyst. It is difficult to determine how much redundancy there may be and the value of the position without adequate information.

Thank


Frankie
another community
on Jun 25, 2020 at 2:51 pm
Frankie , another community
on Jun 25, 2020 at 2:51 pm
2 people like this

Once more the bloated and ever growing City Managers office doesn’t lose one position. Unbelievable!


Don't miss out on the discussion!
Sign up to be notified of new comments on this topic.

Post a comment

Posting an item on Town Square is simple and requires no registration. Just complete this form and hit "submit" and your topic will appear online. Please be respectful and truthful in your postings so Town Square will continue to be a thoughtful gathering place for sharing community information and opinion. All postings are subject to our TERMS OF USE, and may be deleted if deemed inappropriate by our staff.

We prefer that you use your real name, but you may use any "member" name you wish.

Not sure?