voiceofsandiego.org: Slop... Yay DROP!

Though it's been discussed relatively little, one of the most interesting bits of news that Mayor Jerry Sanders announced last month in his State of the City address was that he would seek to end the controversial DROP retirement program for all current city employees.

DROP allows police officers and other city employees to "retire" from city service and begin collecting their vested pension benefits. But they can still work for the city for up to five years. All the while, their pensions are deposited into an account that accrues a very good annual return. Then, when they retire, they can choose to cash that money out all at once or keep it invested in the program and take regular payouts.

It's been a controversial issue for several years.

Mayor: Just DROP it.

Former Mayor Dick Murphy successfully negotiated an end to the benefit for new employees. But that only affects new workers and hundreds of current city employees are still in line to take advantage of DROP.

That is, unless Sanders is serious.

The city's employee unions consider DROP one of many vested retirement benefits -- which, as we all know from City Attorney Mike Aguirre's efforts to roll back supposedly illegal benefits, are difficult if not impossible to roll back.

I had caught up with police officer and union leader Mark Sullivan after the speech and he said then the mayor was going to have a fight on his hands.

I also asked the mayor's spokesman Fred Sainz how the mayor determined DROP could be dropped legally. Did the mayor get advice from City Attorney Mike Aguirre?

Sainz said no -- confirming once again the dysfunction of this little City Hall relationship.

"We have not nor will we consult with the city attorney on labor negotiations," Sainz said.

So how had they come to the decision to fight DROP and do it right?

They just believe it is legal to get rid of it, Sainz said.

I've been meaning to follow up on this for weeks and I will keep an eye on it. There are dozens of implications of the mayor's move and it could prove to be a bitter fight if he pursues elimination of DROP. It will also be interesting politically. The mayor's chief rival in his re-election campaign is businessman Steve Francis, who has lambasted the mayor for not paying police better wages. Francis, though, has also lambasted the mayor for not reforming the pension system. How Francis comes down on this might be a big deal as the police union decides who to endorse in the campaign.

Keep an eye out for all that. But for now a friend alerted me to this interesting news out of Tuesday's election in San Francisco.

-- SCOTT LEWIS

Stand by for the mass exodus of SDPD police officers if Mayor Sanders is allowed to drop the DROP. There will be no reason for tenured police personnel under age 50 to stay with SDPD. The Sheriff's Department is still trying to hire SDPD away, and with their hiring bonus $, there will be no reason to stay. Does it really make sense to take away benefits from officers who are already leaving in droves? How will that help stop the terrible attrition problem when there will no longer be an incentive to stay past age 50? It looks like Mayor Sanders want police and other city unions to go to impasse on negotions during another year of high profile conventions (BioTech to name one!).

Posted by Buster | reply to this comment
February 7, 2008 10:55 am

Sanders should be ashamed of himself. He was there at the beginning of DROP and he knows it works. several cities adopted DROP and San Diego studied it carefully before starting the program because it was a proven win for the employee and the city and still is. Never thought I'd see Sanders stab a fellow officer.

Posted by sdpd ret. | reply to this comment
February 7, 2008 11:02 am

Never thought I would say it, but I'm voting for Steve Francis in the next election. Sanders has gone batty.

Posted by Cheeky | reply to this comment
February 7, 2008 12:49 pm

Cheeky, Steve Francis is worse. He will only hire hourly workers with no benefits. Do you want an hourly police officer? Fireman? I sure don't.

Posted by Fran | reply to this comment
February 7, 2008 12:55 pm

Hey Fran, Fireman is a sexist term. The City employs Firefighters. On the subject at hand, Sanders and his gnomes are all nuts if they think they they can just eliminate drop. Next thing is he will probably say that he will eliminate CERS. Maybe Sanders should give back his retirement. Does anyone know what kind of retirement Sanders has from the City?

Posted by Panchy | reply to this comment
February 7, 2008 2:07 pm

DROP is one of the biggest scams the welfare queens have going. The ONLY people who win, are the welfare queens sucking our city dry. We are on the verge of bankruptcy and these losers are still trying to shake down the taxpayers to line their own greedy pockets. As for PD leaving, not happening anymore, and the Sheriff's office and the county are in as MUCH pension debt as the City is, they have bought pension obligation bonds, driving up the already astronomical pension costs and at the same time passing the debt on to the children and grand children. Only in CA can you have HS educated cops, FF and prison guards making up to $200K per year and still have their greedy hand in the cookie jar. It disgusts me. BTW-SF is the nuttiest city in the nation-we should do the OPPOSITE of anything they do.

Posted by Billy Bob Henry | reply to this comment
February 7, 2008 2:59 pm

Come on Scott. You know full well Sanders cannot take DROP away like Sainz is trying to make it sound. The DROP is a vested benefit and as such cannot be "taken away". The case law does not support Sanders in any way shape or form. Sanders, Aguirre and idiots like BBH and company would be better served to get off this train and wake up. Spending all of the money and effort on futile attempts at eliminating vested benefits is nothing more than political grandstanding at its worst. Sanders attempt at sending non-safety city employees into a "Defined Contribution" retirement plan over the current "Defined Benefit" is a Carl De Miao contrived plan. Studies show there will be no savings and in the long run cost more. Sanders knows this too... this is politics pure and simple.

Posted by Sparky | reply to this comment
February 7, 2008 3:53 pm

The only sucking noise is the City Attorney spending millions on his personal agenda. With all those highly qualified DCA's why is every thing out sourced. Oops for got Sanders wants that.Sanders knows Sparky is right. Now that I think about it we don't need a C.A. Sanders can just hire a law firm as needed which will be often apparently.

Posted by citizen | reply to this comment
February 7, 2008 5:01 pm

I support the people in blue joining the DROP when they are qualified per the current rules. This is a huge benefit to the city, as well. For the Fire Fighters and others making a top dollar salary, they are the ones that chose to work the overtime, so they should be paid. The truth is, the city could hire the required number of employees instead of paying a few the overtime, constantly. We need to blame our city leaders, no wait, Mayor Sanders, for lousy leadership. Istead of fixing issues, he blames city employees and rewards them by taking away their pay and benefits to balance the budget. I say it's time we fix the problem ourselves and FIRE Mayor Sanders.......

Posted by My Johnny Vegas Itches | reply to this comment
February 7, 2008 6:09 pm

10. My Johnny Vegas Itches wrote on February 7, 2008 6:09 PM:........LOL...... You guys are killing me! But for those that said DROP is vested, not true. Like healthcare for retired workers, DROP is not a vested right, and yes, it can be terminated.

Posted by Billy Bob Henry, aka Johnny Ve | reply to this comment
February 7, 2008 9:37 pm

Seriously, we need to stop the gravy train for overpaid over benefited gov leeches. Here welfare queens, read this, it proves eup verything I have said....Government Employees Pull Far Ahead of Private Sector Employees in Pay, Fringes By Don Bauder...Posted February 4, 2008... State and local government workers now rake in an average $39.50 an hour in wages and fringes, compared with a mere $26.09 an hour in the private sector, according to 2007 numbers from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. The gap rose $1.02 an hour last year and $2.45 an hour over the last three years. The publication USA Today put together the figures from BLS data. Greatly because of global competition, companies have cut pension benefits and asked employees to pay a larger share of healthcare costs, but few governments have made similar moves. .... link

Posted by Billy Bob Henry | reply to this comment
February 7, 2008 9:37 pm

Jerry Sanders was a lousy police chief with no leadership ability. His lack of decision making was evident everyday. As Mayor, nothing has changed. He relies on others to do his critical decision making. Any decision that comes from his officer, including getting rid of DROP, shold be viewed with a wary eye. I suspect this all political posturing on his part.

Posted by Jim | reply to this comment
February 8, 2008 8:32 am

RE: #11 Billy Bob Henry, AKA Johnny Vegas; LOL...... You guys are killing me! But for those that said DROP is vested, not true. Like health-care for retired workers, DROP is not a vested right, and yes, it can be terminated." For a purported "educated" individual claiming to have earned a law degree, teaching credential and POST Certificate you are a very ignorant and uneducated person. Case Law as well as a Superior Court Judge say differently. DROP is in fact a vested benefit. Health Care for SDCERS vested members became a "Vested" benefit when the City withdrew from Social Security. You only solidify your image of an idiot BBH with your stupid remarks and assertions. My guess is you have no real job due to your inability to get along with others and live with your mom.

Posted by Sparky | reply to this comment
February 8, 2008 8:38 am

Sorry Sparky, there is NO case law that says DROP is a vested benefit, in fact the OPPOSITE is true-case law states that healthcare for retirees is NOT a vested right-and DROP is no different. Judge Barton is going to be overturned on appeal, so dont put too much stock in his opinions. Last, I never said I had a POST Certificate-I am an academy graduate-not the same thing Supercop (proving up my point that PD should have more than a GED to be hired).

Posted by Billy Bob Henry | reply to this comment
February 8, 2008 9:07 am

SillYBob is also a Real Estate Broker, Sparky, you forgot that one. And Silly, if you graduated from the police academy, you would have received a POST certificate. If you did not receive a POST certificate, then you did NOT graduate from the academy. If you went to an academy that did not offer a certificate, then all your stories about being soooo much smarter than the SDPD people in your "academy" are outright lies. It will be interesting to see you squirm out of this one. Oh yeah, you'll just ignore it.

Posted by D | reply to this comment
February 8, 2008 9:43 am

16. D wrote on February 8, 2008 9:43 AM: "SillYBob is also a Real Estate Broker, Sparky, you forgot that one. And Silly, if you graduated from the police academy, you would have received a POST certificate.... See, you hire the GED and HS educated and this is what you get. Listen Supercop #2, a POST certifcate is NOT the same as an academy graduation. I have an academy graduation paper that "certifies" I passed the academy, not a POST certificate. Another public employee tool.

Posted by Billy Bob Henry | reply to this comment
February 8, 2008 10:53 am

BBH if you spent all that time in their Academy, why didn't any agency hire you? You must have wanted a job having spent all that time. You would have been an ideal candidate. You saved them thousands by paying for your own education. Something else, wonder what it could have been, excluded you from being a viable candidate?

Posted by Wondering | reply to this comment
February 8, 2008 3:43 pm

Ok Billy Bob, Time to pony up. When and where did you attend a police academy?

Posted by sdcrimefighter | reply to this comment
February 8, 2008 7:18 pm

18. Wondering wrote on February 8, 2008 3:43 PM: "BBH if you spent all that time in their Academy, why didn't any agency hire you?.....You're obviously new here b/c I have gone over this numerous times. 1) I did the academy during summer between my 2 and 3 year of college. I had a teaching job 2 months after graduating college that paid more the a PD job (not anymore though). 2) the notion I could not get hired nonsense is freeloader wishful thinking. The fact is, the majority of my academy class PD employees were fully connected into their PD jobs by 1) Family, 2) Friends 3) Military workfare and 4) minority hiring under lawsuit consent decree (which shoots down the scam that PD and FD hire the best/brightest because if they DID there would be no need for a consent decree).

Posted by Billy Bob Henry | reply to this comment
February 8, 2008 8:15 pm

BBH, "D" is correct. If you successfully completed the police academy you would have received a POST certificate. The certificate would have allowed you, theoretically, to hire on to any police department in the state. I do believe Grossmont College offered/offers some kind of quasi-police academy that is not POST certified, and is classroom only. SDPD has never sent anyone there. If you claim to have gone to the academy with SDPD officers and graduated, yet received no POST certificate, then your story is proved to be untrue. Miramar College puts on the official police academy.

Posted by Supercop | reply to this comment
February 8, 2008 8:53 pm

BBH... to help you understand the law... Retirement Benefits (DROP is part of the "Retirement Benefit") are vested benefits under the law for public employees. The courts from your local Superior Court to the State Appeals Court have all held these benefits to be "Vested" to an employee who meets the requirements... Any employee of SDCRS who has worked and payed into the system is vested for the purpose of being entitled to the benefit... the employee becomes vested for the purpose of receiving the benefit after 10 years of service. DROP is a vested benefit BBH. Sanders, Aguirre and those wanting to continue with the politics are doing nothing more than creating public expectations and understandings that are false and not capable of reality. Makes for a good story though. BBH who signed your "Academy" certificate? Pinocchio?

Posted by Sparky | reply to this comment
February 9, 2008 2:13 pm

It takes a man of superior intellect to successfully complete a 6 month police academy in just one summer. Ha ha haha ha ha ha ha ... Silly's story unravels even further

Posted by D | reply to this comment
February 10, 2008 10:18 am

D-there is an old rule, better to keep mouth shut and be thought the fool, than to speak and remove all doubt-you have now removed all doubt. The Academy was not 6 months D, it was 18 weeks, or 640 hours as stated on the academy certificate-and yes, I did it during summer Einstein. Nice try though. A POST Basic certificate is NOT an academy certificate. An academy graduation and certification from POST does allow the grad to be fully sworn on completion to any PD in the state, but it is NOT a basic POST certificate-it is an academy certification-and the two are not the same, they are mutually exclusive. Hope this helps.

Posted by Billy Bob Henry | reply to this comment
February 10, 2008 9:01 pm

This is for all the so called cops here who do not know the difference between a Basic POST Academy and POST Basic Certificate, man I hate to be right all the time (basic course = Police Academy)......How do I obtain a POST Basic Certificate? Individuals may apply for the POST Basic certificate if: 1) the criteria for the certificate is met, and 2) the individual is employed by an agency participating in the POST program at the time of application. Individuals who believe they meet the Basic Certificate criteria, i.e., successful completion of a probationary period AND completion of a POST-certified Basic Course (or Basic Course Waiver), should request assistance and application forms from their agency.

Posted by Billy Bob Henry | reply to this comment
February 10, 2008 9:01 pm

SillyBob, nice try. You specifically claimed to have graduated the police academy with SDPD officers, and you claimed to have outperformed all of them. You made claims about who SDPD hired and why. For the last hundred years, SDPD has run its academy through Miramar College. The SDPD academy is NOT only 18 weeks long. You did not attend any police academy with the SDPD.

Posted by D | reply to this comment
February 11, 2008 1:29 pm

And furthermore, Silly, you obviously went to the POST website to find some facts to misrepresent. What I said stands: Had you completed a POST certified academy, you would have recieved a POST certificate (I never said "Basic certificate" now, did I?) called a "certificate of completion". With that POST certificate (of completion) you theoretically could've hired on to any agency in the state.

Posted by D | reply to this comment
February 11, 2008 2:35 pm

D-your hole just keeps getting deeper and deeper. You dont know when to stop running the mouth. You said you have a post certificatewhen you gaduate the academy-that is 100% false and I called you on your bogus claim, and I then backed it up. Listen ,you dont know jack about police training or work, so ive it a rest ok Sgt Friday.

Posted by Billy Bob Henry | reply to this comment
February 12, 2008 8:48 am

I was hired by SDPD in Feb 19--. I graduated the police academy in June 19--. I received a certificate that states "(name) has satisfactorily completed a certified law enforcement peace officer academy". The certificate is from POST and says the instructional program complies with the POST Basic Certificate requirements and meets state licensing mandates. One year later, upon completing the probationary period, I was awarded the POST Basic Certificate. If BBH is telling the truth, he should be able to produce the first document. Since he was unable to get hired by a law enforcement agency he will not have the Basic POST certificate.

Posted by Jim | reply to this comment
February 12, 2008 10:27 am

Jim just confirmed my point-BTW Jim, if you could get hired, I could get hired twice as fast-you forget, I am a college grad while you only have a GED.

Posted by Billy Bob Henry | reply to this comment
February 12, 2008 4:27 pm

I do not have a GED and why would you make such a claim without knowing anything about me. I graduated high school, spent 6 years in the military and have a college degree. I know I can never measure up to your standards....THANK GOD!!

Posted by Jim | reply to this comment
February 12, 2008 6:00 pm

Lil' Silly Billy..no one understands your stubbornness on this matter. IF you graduated from the academy, you would have received the POST certificate of completion. With that Certificate, you could get hired by any PD in the state. You insist you went to the academy with the SDPD, that you somehow completed it in 18 weeks as opposed to the 6 months SDPD goes through, and you now make nonsensical arguments about POST certificates. Silly, its OK to be a wannabe..its weird, but some guys are like that.

Posted by D | reply to this comment
February 12, 2008 6:19 pm

BBH pops off again with inflammatory ignorance. In post #22 I asked who signed your "Certificate of Completion" from the purported "Police Academy" you supposedly attended... was it Commandant Lassard??? Was your TO by chance Tackleberry??? (C Section?) Is it true Lieutenant Mauser is the one who inspired you to leave Law Enforcement and become an attorney because of your proclivity for fantasy and spinning a kernel of truth into a web of deceit? The signature on the bottom of that so called "Certificate of Completion"??? Dispel the myth... please Mr Legend??? By the way BBH; DROP is not going away for those hired before YOUR hero Mike finally got around to getting the change to the Charter to the City Council for approval.

Posted by Sparky | reply to this comment
February 12, 2008 8:55 pm

OK, that explains it, 6 years in the military...now we know how you got your job at PD. Also, I highly doubt you have a 4 year college degree.

Posted by Billy Bob Henry | reply to this comment
February 12, 2008 10:47 pm

DROP is like reitree health insurance, it is not a right or guaranteed, it will get axed. It is just another scam.

Posted by Billy Bob Henry | reply to this comment
February 13, 2008 8:25 am

Silly gets caught in an outright lie, and just tries to ignore it.

Posted by D | reply to this comment
February 13, 2008 3:52 pm

Nice try D, but it fails, like your 10 grade reading test at SDPD.

Posted by Billy Bob Henry | reply to this comment
February 13, 2008 7:42 pm

You mean my 10th grade reading test?

Posted by D | reply to this comment
February 14, 2008 11:07 am

A few of you are complaining that we're cutting out posts. Look, if you call each other names, it's going to be cut. Words like "moron" and "idiot" are easy indicators. It's not productive.

Posted by Scott Lewis | reply to this comment
February 14, 2008 3:15 pm

Scott words like "welfare queens" and SCAM or Scammers to the hard working men and women serving San Diegans 7 days a week 24 hours a day are also offensive and non productive. SD Courts have, in fact, ruled just the opposite, these benefits are legal. And the men and women who patrol the streets, fight fires and run our recreation centers and libraries do not deserved to be repeatedly demeand. I applaud the VOSD of SD for hosting this blog and everyones right of free speech. Nevertheless, an even handed applicaiton of the rules should also prevail.

Posted by RD | reply to this comment
February 14, 2008 3:47 pm

In commenting on some of the posts that your commentary may envoke, the use of the words "moronic," "idiotic," "stupid," "ignorant," etc., are often the only words to describe what some individuals might try to pass off as the truth. If an individual in a posted comment claims some impressive educational credentials, superior mental acuitiy, expertise, or some other phenomenal talent, as a basis or foundation for their comment, they are in fact opening themselves up to critical comment if it is obvious they are mistating these claimed credentials. You may not agree with this, but there are some dishonest individuals commenting on articles appearing VOSD. I know it's hard to believe, but so is Santa Claus. Please don't censure.

Posted by Ralph of San Diego | reply to this comment
February 14, 2008 3:57 pm

"welfare queens" has been tough for us in the comments. When it's directed at someone in particular like another commenter, we usually cut it. I'll think about it more and we'll discuss whether it is productive at all - thanks for your perspective. To Ralph: Calling people names, no matter how appropriate, is never productive in a debate like this. It's a choice we've made to make the forum as valuable as possible.

Posted by Scott Lewis | reply to this comment
February 14, 2008 4:34 pm

Scott, how about cutting posts with "unsubstantiated allegations" as your rules above state?Surely they're just as unproductive.

Posted by JF | reply to this comment
February 14, 2008 9:48 pm

Having been a sworn California 830.1 peace officer for nearly 29 years, I have usually found those who cry the loudest over "excessive" police pay and benefits to be the same people who have been rejected for police employment because they lack judgment, physical ability, or emotional stability. Even if he did complete an open enrollment academy, BBH clearly demonstrates those deficits. Jealousy is always unbecoming....

Posted by SkippingDog | reply to this comment
February 15, 2008 11:54 am

SkippingDog .. Please, don't tell me, you have a family memeber, or family friend, that works for PD, but you "earned" your spot-right??? Please....I would like to add in one of my signiture comments here, but it appears the WQ label, while accurate, is causing the mods some problems. The fact is the PD is overpaid, over pensioned and the ONLY reason they have gold plated pay and benefits is because the union heads were bribing city officials-hence you have felony indicments for such criminal acts currently pending against all public union officials. And JF, if the VoSD cut out all "unsubstantiated allegations" there would not be a single comment on here from the SDPD or FD. For the record, I usually do not, if ever, call people idiots or morons. I do use the welfare queen comment on a regular basis-but that is just keeping it real.

Posted by Billy Bob Henry | reply to this comment
February 15, 2008 7:43 pm

Last, if someone wants to call me a moron or idiot-I can take it, that is not going to intimidate me or affect me. I take some very unpopular positions (at least on a forum where there are large numbers of PD/FD/gov wrkers), and not just here on VoSD, but the UT and Reader also, and I make some very high-octane comments, and with those positions you better be able to take some criticism-I just don’t take it personally.

Posted by Billy Bob Henry | reply to this comment
February 15, 2008 7:51 pm

BBH.. the problem with you is you would not know the facts nor truth if it hit you fully in the face. FIRST; Name the SDPOA person who was indited for wrongdoing? SECOND; Name the city official the SDPOA bribed? THIRD; Since you are an attorney, provide the case law that you can cite indicating DROP is NOT a vested benefit? FOURTH; IF PD members are so over paid are you saying ALL law enforcement officers are overpaid? SDPD members are in the bottom third of pay and benefits for law enforcement state wide! FIFTH; Give us all a break here and admit you never completed a POST approved, California Police Academy! SIXTH; READ Judge Wellington's decision related to Tom Story and tell us again what a great City Attorney Mike is?? High-Octane? Hardly! Inflammatory, Baseless and Pathetic are better descriptors. If you had a grasp of reality maybe.

Posted by Sparky | reply to this comment
February 16, 2008 5:27 pm

Huh, that must explain why I provide links for most of the hard numbers I post... I know... they're "alleged" links.

Posted by JF | reply to this comment
February 17, 2008 6:31 am

Sparky is right-FOR ONCE IN HIS LIFE-the PD guy voted against the under fundung, but the rest of the welfare queen union heads did not-and they bribed the City officials to underfund the pensions- for higher benefits.

Posted by Billy Bob Henry | reply to this comment
February 18, 2008 12:43 pm

BBH are you saying union leaders voted to cut their own throats by allowing the city to avoid paying its negotiated share. Are you implying the City knew by underfunding its share they knew someday they would claim poverty and maybe, as you want BK so they would ultimately not have to pay at all. I never knew they were so intelligent.

Posted by RD | reply to this comment
February 19, 2008 7:49 am

Yay DROP!

Published: Thursday, February 7, 2008 9:17 AM PST

-- SCOTT LEWIS

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.

twitter.com/vosdscott

Listen to voiceofsandiego.org's radio program on AM 600 KOGO: Latest Episode (October 18): Andrew Donohue and Scott Lewis talk in depth about the Chargers stadium search, municipal bankruptcy and whether residents are too dumb to vote on the City Hall project.

Subscribe to the Podcast Feed

Subscribe to this RSS Feed