San Diego OpEd

Mayor of San Diego: The Hiring Decision

Let's Get It Right This Time
By Mark S. Burgess
Posted on Mon, Oct 31st, 2005
Last updated Fri, Nov 4th, 2005

Next Tuesday, November 8^th, citizens of the city of San Diego registered to vote go to the polls to choose between Jerry Sanders and Donna Frye to be Mayor, by voter acclamation from the last election, preferably a strong Mayor, our Chief Executive. Citizens in the other 12 incorporated cities and the unincorporated areas of the county get to watch. Like I imagine many of them along with city citizens who’ve been watching, reading and listening to the election coverage, I think the choice is relatively clear.

How did San Diego get in the mess that resulted in the resignation of a newly elected mayor and made the city the butt of jokes across the country? The executives of the city made decisions based on the team of staffers and support committees tasked by those mangers to inform them. No one person created the problem, so those who pin the problem on Donna Frye as one of those executives make an error that leads to more errors. Are there people that should suffer the consequences? Of course. First, the citizens of the city drive on bad roads that aren't getting repaired and lots of proposals are circulating to charge the citizens here either by taking away services or passing new taxes, plus having to spend time reading and trying to decide who to vote into office as mayor when we'd just done that to elect the now resigned mayor. We made a bad decision and now we're trying again to get it right. Voters, where the buck really stops, have to hire the right person for that job.

We need someone who knows how to be a good executive. What does that take? According to management guru, Peter Drucker:

"Executive ability seems to have little correlation with intelligence, imagination, or brilliance. The good executive:

1. practices conservation of time,
2. has his eye fixed on new development,
3. builds on the strength of his colleagues and
4. starves the problems and feeds the opportunities.”

Leave aside political points of view for the moment and imagine you are the hiring manager for the city. You've got a big mess you need solved. You know that one person can't do it all. Former President Jimmy Carter is one of the smartest people the country has ever had as President, nuclear engineer, self-made man. But he was a lousy executive. When the natural gas bill hit Congress, his orientation was to handle all the details himself and he lost track of the progress of the bill. At the last minute, he sent his VP to the hill to make emergency appeals. Right action, wrong timing. He wasn't acting as an Executive. When we elected Bill Clinton the first time with such a clear majority, Washington DC was abuzz with optimism about all the things he would accomplish, Fleetwood Mac rockin' through the inauguration with "Don't stop thinkin' about tomorrow..." Then his entire term seemed to go south as he frittered away all that political capital in the mire of the gays in the military issue. He couldn't he get anything done, get the focus onto the rest of his agenda let alone do what he'd promised the gay community. Real smart man, whatever you think of his morals, but not performing at that time as a good executive.

In the debate between Frye and Sanders this week, one of Frye's criticisms was to take Sanders to task for his promise to go to Sacramento and DC to get money for the city. She seemed to think it was a good thing that she would be hunkered down in the mayor's office working.

Sometimes, in the process of election campaigning, the rhetoric on both sides focuses too much on what plans the one person will do whose name is on the ballot. We are not a pure democracy - despite the horrific number of propositions the voters have to manage when our elected legislature can't get the job done we hire them for. We practice representative democracy. Nobody is a monarch. We have a city council and others we hire to work together to represent us. The person we elect as Mayor is one of the many people we hope will represent us while we dig ditches, build houses, bag groceries, raise children, take inventories and do the other work we contribute to our community. We need representatives that can get the job done and senior executives that know how to get people to work together.

Jerry Sanders has demonstrated his experience as an Executive. He's stepped into a number of CEO positions and proven his metal as an organizer of human capital to get something done. What we don't need is an idealogue like Frye in office when we so desperately need a good Executive. During the debate, Sanders showed a command of the numbers involved in our crisis. His delivery was cool and reasoned. He showed respect for Frye even when compelled to rebut something Frye said. A number of times, Frye chose not to come back with facts or a position, but to take pot shots at Sanders.

Think about what city workers might be thinking, the line managers that Sanders mentioned. Here are good people who need to be released to do a good job. Fantastically, Frye criticized Sanders for talking about empowering those people. Mayors don't fix roads, spot waste water treatment problems and stand in the field making things happen. Good Mayors lead. They handle the problems that a water department empoyee can't, like recruit funds from coffers outside the city. They fiind good people for senior positions, empower them to make decisions because no effective Mayor makes all the decisions. To do so dooms their administration to a choked bottle neck of action.

A summary of each candidate's plan appears below as taken from their respective web sites. Examine these from the point of view of the hiring manager: not the person that will do the work, but the person that will hire the person who will cause the work to happen. It's not hard to see why the Sanders campaign would put effort into a focus on the benefits that Frye signed up for. As an employee of the city, given a legitimate opportunity to take care of herself, it's not hard to see why Frye would spend $20,000 of her own money to advance her retirement. But as a sitting decisionmaker, Frye had an obligation to dig deeper, to have her staffers dig deeper into something that, as a surf shop owner, she would not have the opportunity to do. Look at your own retirement program where you work, do you have the chance to buy years of service? Her claim that it was an innocent mistake belies her lack of executive ability. Donna Frye has managed a family, a surf shop and has been in the city council. Continuous service, but not as a Chief Executive.

Sanders is the Executive we need to hire.

A Word about the Tourism Fee

All of that said, the fact that during the debate both candidates said they would oppose raising the Transit Occupancy Tax was dissappointing. First, the Transit Occupancy fee isn't a tax. A tax is a higher sales tax you citizens of the city pay when you buy something. At least Sanders is not proposing, out of the gate, to tax the citizens of the city further. That Frye wants to add to the cost of what you who live in one of the most expensive cities in the country must pay adds insult to injury. We've pitched the position before, when the powers that be presented a proposition to raise the TOT not as a way to bring new money into the county by promoting this great place but as the Emergency Services Initiative. It failed because that was a bad reason, not because the raise was a bad move. Ask around, this is a place people want to come! If we can remind them as they plan a vacation, they're more likely to come. And they drive on the bad roads and will have pay the new fees at the beach. Yet, we have one of the lowest "tourist fees" in the country. Do the math, higher TOT, better promotion, more tourist dollars directly and indirectly into the city. Why would we choose to tax ourselves further when there are large numbers of people who can bring new money in? Even the groups who opposed the last proposition are now proposing to charge a tax/fee of their own to those tourists. Let's not leave a bunch of money off the table. We have a good product that should earn its way.

A Word about the Propositions

The fact that we have this growing number of propositions every election means our legislature isn't working. Gov. Schwarzenegger promised to get that body unlocked from its quagmire and these propositions are needed to do that. We hired him to study the situation and make things happen. He deserves our support to get that done. Have you noticed the focus on unions in both the city and state campaigns? Unions exist typically because management let things get out of hand. Now the pendulum has swung the other way. Union members fund a powerful lobby without a clear decision point to give or withhold money. Our rich state has one of the worst performaing school systems in the country. Again, in your workplace, what would it be like if the managers couldn't fire the people that make your job harder because those people had tenure.

Donna Frye's Plan Summary (www.donnafryeformayor.com):

1. Give the Mayor the exclusive right to negotiate the plan in cooperation with the City Attorney.
2. Present a comprehensive plan for voter approval no later than November 2006
3. Immediately STOP paying the benefits for current employees deemed illegal by the City Attorney
4. Adjust pension benefits for current city employees to affordable levels
5. Establish an annual cap on General Fund labor-related expenditures
6. Place the San Diego City Employee Retirement System (SDCERS) under receivership and/or appoint seven new SDCERS trustees
7. Pass the SDCERS administration to CALPERS

8. Institute honest accounting, auditing and financial reporting
9. Support the City Attorney in efforts to resolve all legal disputes and negotiate immediate settlement with the SEC and others
10. Address overcharging the public for sewer/water bills
11. Propose having an elected City Auditor/ Comptroller
12. Require a vote by the public to increase retirement benefits
13. Compel the unions to come back to the table to renegotiate benefits
14. Prevent selling off public land
15. Stop the issuance of Pension Obligation Bonds
16. Protect our children from being burdened with more debt
17. ENSURE THAT THE VOTERS HAVE THE FINAL SAY BY HOLDING A VOTE ON THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN BY NOVEMBER 2006 OR EARLIER.

1. Support court determination of the legality of benefits approved in 1996 and 2002
2. Pledges that benefits ruled illegal by the courts must be terminated.

3. Use the threat of bankruptcy as leverage to bring public employee unions back to the negotiating table.

4. A ballot initiative to secure unilateral power to declare bankruptcy cannot happen without consent from the city council to place it on the ballot, which is unlikely
5. Build consensus within troubled organizations to build faster and more certain support for a credible threat of bankruptcy to employee unions without the delay or cost of an election at some indeterminate future date.
6. Projection of at least $40 million in General Fund Revenue growth for the current year.
7. Contingency of laying-off up to 10% of General Fund-supported city employees, scaled back if public employee unions return to the bargaining table and make additional concessions.
8. A freeze on salaries for all city employees as a component of future employee contracts until the city's financial stability is restored.

9. Close down the existing pension plan for future employees and ask voters to approve a Charter change authorizing an affordable plan that combines a less costly 'safety net" defined benefit plan with a new defined contribution plan similar to those offered in the private sector.

10. Voters will be asked to establish a requirement that city-funded pension benefits cannot be increased without approval from a majority of the electorate.
11. Support efforts to invalidate discounted years-of-service purchases by elected officials and senior managers.

12. Bring the retirement age for city employees closer to national standards by raising it from age 55 to age 60 for general members, and from age 50 to 55 for safety members.
13. Expand the basis for calculations of retirement compensation from final year of service to an average of the final three years of service.
14. Phase-in an increase in employee pension contributions to the 50% level mandated by the Charter.
15. Require employees to pick up a significantly larger share of their healthcare costs.

16. Cap city contributions for future retiree healthcare.
17. Eliminate for new employees the option of purchasing "phantom years" of service.

18. A mandatory work furlough for city personnel.

19. Employee Hiring Freezes, which will save a minimum of $5 million.
20. In addition to the contingency of laying-off 10% of city employees, the Sanders Plan eliminates approximately 100 senior managers and includes significant middle management reductions

21. Seek voter approval of a Charter change to permit contracting out of appropriate city services that can be performed more economically and efficiently by the private sector, together with tough safeguards to ensure fairness and transparency in the contracting-out process.
22. Restructure Real Estate Assets to ensure effective management of city holdings and identify non-essential property that should be liquidated, along with a policy for utilizing one-time land sale revenues for one-time capital or other non-recurring expenditures.
23. Renegotiate existing leases and develop new ones for under-utilized property.
24. Re-direct $13 million per year of Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) revenues for their original intent to support infrastructure programs within CDBG-eligible communities.
25. Require an Ethical and Legal Standards Pledge from all city employees, appointees and elected officials.
26. Give "whistleblower" protection to all employees and appointees through appointment of an Internal Affairs Officer.
27. Establishes performance measures/report cards for all city services, and a comprehensive customer service program.

More by this author.

Share this article

Subscribe to OpEd

 · 

Comments

Posted by A Frye Supporter	Sun, Nov 6th, 2005
Executives build and destroy companies in the name of profit, often heedless of those whose livelihoods depend upon them. Executives are responsible to shareholders, not citizens. Most businesses operate as amoral entities rather than as responsible members of the community. San Diego has been run as a business, by amoral businessmen, for too long. The metaphor of government as business and its elected representatives as executives is fundamentally flawed. A truly healthy city is one that operates in the interests of all its citizens, not simply the most wealthy. If you believe in open, accountable government, or if you care about government that respects the rights of people over the rights of business, or if you're simply tired of the old money and the old rules and the old century, then cast of the yoke of the old guard and make a stand for democracy, progressive values, and San Diego. Vote for Donna Frye.

Posted by Mark Burgess	Mon, Nov 7th, 2005
Dear Frye Supporter, First, shareholders ARE citizens. Second, to slam the people who bring you food, clothing, transportation and the money in your pocket as "amoral" must mean that you'd prefer a socialist state where the government controls everything. Companies create the GNP, not governments. Third, it's precisely because government isn't run with business acumen that we get into messes like the current one. It's Donna's inexperience as a business person at the level she wishes to govern that's the scariest. Listen to the rhetoric regarding her own purchase of "phantom" years of retirement..."I didn't know". That should scare you a lot. As a surf shop owner it's one thing to prfess ignorance of a system you're supposedly responsible for like the shop payroll. It's another case entirely when you're applying for the job of CEO of the city. Open and accountable government is good...we agree on that, at least. Mark

Posted by anon	Mon, Nov 21st, 2005
I don't think you should be able to post a rebuttal to a comment made about your opinion. Everyone is entitled to their own...which is why you have the page in the first place, right?

Posted by Mark Burgess	Mon, Nov 21st, 2005
Dear Anon, Actually, the reason this page exists is to stimulate interest in and discussion about San Diego. The old model, the newspaper model, didn't have that ability except spread over lots of time and only with editorial boards that permitted multiple "Letters to the Editor" from the same person. The effect of a discussion wasn't available, really. It was an outbound format whereas we look for the articles on this site to be kickoff points for all the interesting ideas, opinions and events happening to San Diegans. Afterall, you're message is a perfect example...unless you meant for the question you posed to be rhetorical. - Mark

Posted by Radiskumar Srip	Thu, Nov 24th, 2005
non comment

Posted by commodian	Sat, Feb 25th, 2006
I'd like to make a re-butt-al.

(1)sandiego.com, Inc. invites comments in which readers can respond freely and anonymously if they wish. Comments submitted by readers will be rejected that are deemed by the editors to be damaging to the future of this web site.
(2)Comparison is made from the IP Address identity of the computer placing the posts. Some networks share these addresses between users.