voiceofsandiego.org: Slop... When Sanders Liked Bankruptcy
an independent nonprofit |
Support This Service

When Sanders Liked Bankruptcy

Published: Friday, January 11, 2008 10:03 AM PST



A reader responding to my last post wonders where I got the idea that Sanders himself was proud of championing the bankruptcy option as a candidate for mayor.

Here's the reader comment:

You wrote: "When Sanders himself was running for mayor, he may not have said that the only way out of the fiscal crisis was through bankruptcy. But he certainly was proud to be among those who saw it as an option." I don't know what you mean by "proud" here, but as I recall Sanders pretty much ruled out bankruptcy, along with a tax increase. At the VERY most he said it was not anything he planned and would only be a last resort, but I don't think he even said that. You have lexis nexis, look it up and give us some quotes, especially late in the campaign. I doubt you on this.

A doubter!

Ask and you shall receive.

First off, I got the notion Sanders was "proud" to tout bankruptcy as an option from my vivid memory of the now-mayor at a debate. When the issue of bankruptcy came up, Sanders claimed he was the first candidate to come up with the idea to threaten city employee unions with bankruptcy to lure them to renegotiate their contracts.

That Sanders was the first to tout bankruptcy came as a surprise particularly to lawyer Pat Shea, who had been running on a platform wholly constructed around the idea of taking the city through bankruptcy.

In my own archives there are plenty of quotes, but let's go to the paper of record, the Union-Tribune first.

From reporter Philip J. LaVelle in the Oct. 8, 2005 Union-Tribune (emphasis added):

Last week, Frye criticized Sanders for proposing layoffs.

Her plan also calls for asking voters to give the next mayor exclusive power to negotiate concessions from labor unions and take the city into bankruptcy if talks fail. Sanders' plan threatens hundreds of layoffs if unions refuse to make concessions on benefits. He also holds out the possibility of bankruptcy.



Next, LaVelle again the very next day:

Predictably, the candidates have bashed each other. Frye, a City Council member, says Sanders' plan is "piecemeal" and dishonest with voters. Sanders, a former San Diego police chief, calls hers "a sham."

Both plans have evolved over time: Sanders added a threat to lay off hundreds of city workers 11 days ago; Frye wedged layoffs into her plan Friday.

The plans bear some resemblance to each other. Each uses bankruptcy as a negotiating weapon to force labor unions to make concessions, including pension benefit rollbacks.

There are uncertainties in Sanders' plan.

It is not clear how quickly the pension deficit can be closed. It also is not clear how much more city workers would pay for health insurance or at what level the city's health-care payments would be capped.

Laying off 10 percent of the work force may not be up to him: The next mayor will have "strong mayor" powers, but the City Council will have power to overturn a mayor's budget. The mayor also would need council backing to take the city into bankruptcy. Sanders' plan does not say what he would do if the council says no.



LaVelle never actually quotes Sanders' position on bankruptcy in the stories I could find. So I'll turn to our archives.

When comparing Sanders' plan to Councilwoman Donna Frye's plan we quoted Sanders in this story as such:

Yet Sanders' second highest financial priority is to "renegotiate employment contracts."

"I have said from day one that I would use the threat of bankruptcy and that the unions will respond to that threat and come back to the negotiating table," Sanders said.


I and others were intrigued with Sanders' position. At what point would he know whether to act on that threat, or was he just bluffing?

On Friday, Nov. 4 -- just days before the election -- Sanders answered that:

"If they do not come back to the table and we have to conclude labor negotiations without an agreement to put us on a sound basis, then we would know that by May and that may be when the bankruptcy option has to be triggered," Sanders said at the press conference.


Well, May came and went and the employees didn't concede a thing. But Sanders and his team heard that the municipal credit rating agencies did not want to hear talk of bankruptcy any longer so they were not going to bring it up again.

And they didn't.

So yeah, as I wrote last night, candidate Sanders never said bankruptcy was the only option. But it certainly was an arrow in his quiver -- one he got rid of as fast as he could after getting the gig.

I got plenty of tidbits out of last night that I'm dying to get down. So stay tuned.

-- SCOTT LEWIS




10 Comments so far on this story...

Sanders might have been thinking about the possibility of bankruptcy before he was co-opted by our La-La Land approach to local government. He learned that its easier to happy talk local voters, who don't pay much attention to downtown politics anyway, than to slog though hard negotiations with local labor unions and actually try to solve the city's fiscal problems. The problems we face will continue to threaten the city with bankruptcy long after Jerry Sanders has left office. Sanders is more intersted in making points with the downtown old boys system to glean campaign contributions than he is with actually solving problems.

Posted by Watcher | reply to this comment
January 11, 2008 10:20 am

Bankruptcy is not a viable option because the City Charter Section 76 permits, even requires if needed, a pension tax levy without popular vote. The politicians have avoided this clause like the plague, and never allude to it. However, since the Courts have supported the employee pension contracts, the Mayor must either raise taxes to fund the pension, (which he has pledged not to do to be elected), or tighten the budgetary screws with higher fees. Naturally, the Electorate is averse to taxes but loves the freebies. The days are long past when the people can get their 'good and plenty' for dirt cheap. Only in the city of San Diego is trash collection free. Time to pay up in full for delivered goods and services, folks. Simple but not easy: the truth never is.

Posted by Richard M.Dell'Orfano | reply to this comment
January 11, 2008 11:06 am

Maybe after two years of no results and the elements of Sanders' plan either tossed aside, modified, proven ineffective, or forgotton, maybe it's time to try Frye's plan. Nah, let's give him another five years of "just be patient... wait and see... results take time... oops, these plans were flawed to begin with... oh well I'm termed out and looking at contributions for my Senate run". Does that sound like Golding or Sanders?

Posted by Another Watcher | reply to this comment
January 11, 2008 11:11 am

Being proud of a stance, like bankruptcy, and using that stance as a negotiating tool are very different. I think that is all people are saying. Nobody denies Mayor Sanders allowed for the possibility of bankruptcy, but to say he was proud of it, almost sounds like you are saying he was a champion for it, as Pat Shea and Mike Aguirre have been.

Posted by Recall is still correct | reply to this comment
January 11, 2008 11:17 am

2. Richard M.Dell'Orfano wrote on January 11, 2008 1:06 PM: "Bankruptcy is not a viable option because the City Charter Section 76 permits, even requires if needed, a pension tax levy without popular vote. ...... WOW, Richard, tell me, when was the last time a self serving welfare queen oppose a tax....?? .. FOR THE RECORD, the City CANNOT impose a tax on the residents without a 2/3's majority VOTE, it does not matter what City Charter Section 76 says. State law preempts the City Charter and is superior to it, and state law REQUIRES a vote before taxes can be raised. That blows out your stupid "we can't file BK" lie.

Posted by Billy Bob Henry | reply to this comment
January 11, 2008 1:02 pm

4. Recall is still correct wrote on January 11, 2008 1:17 PM: sounds like you are saying he was a champion for it, as Pat Shea and Mike Aguirre have been.....Pat and Mike are not CHAMPIONS of BK, they know it is the ONLY way out of a 3 billion dollar pension/healthcare scam that fewer than 15,000 benefit from- out of a City of 1.3 million, and the residents are not sugar daddies.

Posted by Billy Bob Henry | reply to this comment
January 11, 2008 1:06 pm

Sanders is an empty suit and does not have the knowledge or experience to understand the complexities of taking a municipality through a bankruptcy. I sure hope he continues to do nothing until the end of his term...otherwise we'll be in even more trouble than we already are.

Posted by Dukestir Wilkes | reply to this comment
January 11, 2008 2:01 pm

Scott, I don't know where my post went, but you've responded to it. What you have shown, with certainty, is that you overstated Sanders position on bankruptcy, and I understated it. Although I think it's fair to say you did more overstating than I did understating. I have no doubt whatsoever you agree with me on this. Carry on.

Posted by A Reader | reply to this comment
January 11, 2008 8:21 pm

Jerry Sanders reminds me of Wimpy in the old Popeye cartoons. Bursting out of an old suit that's too small for his girth, he always said "I would gladly pay you next Tuesday for a hamburger today". Mayor Sanders seems to be eager to get back into the Wall Street bond markets in order to borrow his way out of the city's fiscal mess and leave the problems up to his successors.

Posted by Old Timer | reply to this comment
January 12, 2008 9:38 am

As a 28 year veteran of the SDPD, I say bring it on Jerry. As you know, vested benefits are INDIVIDUAL rights and cannot be negotiated away by an association, union or third party. I have earned my retirement benefits and would never consider conceding them. And, as you well know, bankrupcy will not absolve the city of paying existing vested benefits anyway. Tell the truth to the people and give up the political hyperbole.

Posted by Steve | reply to this comment
January 24, 2008 10:23 pm


Reader feedback
  • Users may post more than one comment, but should not pose as multiple users. Multiple posts from the same IP address but with a different user name on each will be reviewed to determine whether abuse has occurred.
  • Posts with overly personal attacks or unsubstantiated allegations may be edited or deleted.
  • Please be patient with the posts -- there may be a delay before they appear on the site -- and make sure to enter the code in the "image verification" box.
Post a comment
Name:
Email:
Comments:
Current Word Count: Verification Code
b12dec0

Scott Lewis on Politics

The Scott Lewis on Politics blog, abbreviated cleverly as SLOP, is a collection of observations, insights and the occasional scoop on public affairs in San Diego. Please feel free to e-mail Scott at scott.lewis@voiceofsandiego.org.


Listen to voiceofsandiego.org's radio program on AM 600 KOGO: Latest Episode (November 8): Scott Lewis and Michael Zucchet talk about the city's budget

Subscribe to the Podcast Feed



MOST POPULAR STORIES:



MOST POPULAR STORIES:


Copyright © 2009 voiceofsandiego.org. All Rights Reserved.