Here is the key claim from the City’s Jan. 30, 2017 press release: [emphasis added] “Market analysis has determined that of the 10 comparable agencies, Long Beach consistently ranked at the bottom and more than 10 percent behind today’s median pay for a police officer.”
Who conducted this “market analysis,” and will it be made available to the public? Which were the “10 comparable agencies” ? Who selected them? If they were chosen by the POA, did the City bring its own list of comparison agencies to the negotiating table? (I have been informed by a former councilmember that in fact the POA always unilaterally chooses the 10 comparison agencies and that this practice was strongly criticized by the outside review of city government conducted by the firm Management Partners in 2012.)
The latter question is especially important in light of the Feb. 27, 2016 article in the Sacramento Bee entitled “See what California cities pay police, firefighters,” which assembled a database of average police pay throughout the state based on IRS tax forms submitted to the State Controller’s office. This data contradicts the claim that Long Beach has “consistently ranked at the bottom” for median pay. Indeed, Long Beach appears to rank much closer to the top.
Furthermore, comparison agencies in the currently active contract (or “MOU” ) appear to have been intentionally selected to weight median pay toward the high end among all Southern California police agencies, including cities that pay officers on average over $130,000 total compensation per year, such as Anaheim, Huntington Beach and Santa Monica, while leaving out the vast majority of LA and Orange County agencies, which pay far less. Even a cursory review shows that LBPD officers are already well compensated at about $115,000 per year versus LAPD at $96,000 per year, LA Sheriffs at $108,000 per year, Pasadena PD at $108,000 per year, and Orange Sheriffs at $100,000 per year. Indeed, LBPD already make considerably more than police officers in any adjacent city and more than the median of $105,000 of all agencies in the two-county region.
To be clear, I have the utmost respect for our police, who unquestionably deserve competitive pay. The question which still must be answered is whether they are already underpaid or not. The city council and public should be made aware of these facts and should have all questions answered prior to the final vote of the council on the new POA contract.
Patton is a longtime political strategy and communications expert who began working on campaigns as a teenager volunteering full-time during the summer of 1996 for the successful come-back campaign of now-retired state senator and assembly member Betty Karnette. After graduating from UC Berkeley with a degree in history and working in the legal industry, he went on to become a senior staffer for the late Congressmember Juanita Millender-McDonald before partnering with Adouki & Associates and consulting independently.
Thank you for your article and the posting on Nextdoor . Did the city reduce the retirement pay for future employees ?
Long Beach Mayor and city council is owned by special interest . Look at the donations campaign reporting . it will be become clear that if you want o change a parking requirement pay big $$$ to city campaigns , If you want better retirement or health then the majority of the citizens in the city then give big to the city politicans , If you want a increased tax to pay for your miss management of the city give big $$$ to the politicians the facts are there you just have to look at them
The proposed POA MOU scheduled for council consideration tomorrow evening also has many hidden elements that transfer bonus related costs that traditionally were not a part of pension calculations to be added to the cost of pensions. Â Â This is a time in our history when we should be protecting against added pension costs, not adding to them. Â
CalPERS regulations regarding special compensation (CCR 571) prove what the city bureaucracy is not telling us in their letter of transmittal. Our council members – and the public need to ask them the questions for which answers – and pension cost projections – should have been provided.
Also, the representation in the City’s letter of transmittal that recruitment and retention is an issue is patently false. Â
There is not a recruitment problem when thousands line up on each occasion that positions within the police department are advertised as open. Â
And if there is a retention problem, money will not solve it. An independent  management audit of personnel practices and the application of equitable discipline (which is a problem) would be more appropriate – and cost effective – to address retention problems.
It would also serve to prevent the many law suits generated by the police department and city manager’s office because of continuing inequitable personnel practices.
Council members should also re-examine the unnecessary cost of providing the POA president full pay and benefits to run the union and participate in other state and national union programs full time when the law, under the Milias-Meyer Brown Act, Â provides for all of the release time necessary for representation activities with the city.
Taxpayer costs related to full time management of the union over the past five years has been $1.2 million – and the so-called 4-hour deduct from the rank and file amounts to nothing more than smoke and mirrors. Â Hard cash against allocated holiday time does not provide any kind of relief – or additional service – to the taxpayer.
This very undemocratic, corrupting clause in the POA MOU – as well as the 1,000 hours allotted to the POA directors – is unnecessary for proper labor relations and has been historically abused by the current president and the city bureaucracy  by allowing the president to promote twice without having worked a single day in the field since his original election to the office 17 years ago – not to mention the on-going practice of annually granting the POA president cash payouts in the tens of thousand of dollars for vacation and holiday time not taken.
These dollars – when cashed out annually – also qualify for pension calculation, a fact not unknown to the individual manipulating the system (“my busy schedule makes it so I can’t the time off) and those who blindly grant it (the chief of police and city manager) when it is clear that none of them supervise or manage his work schedule. Â
These abuses were exacerbated when the average annual overtime of $20,000 paid out to the POA president over the last decade became an embarrassment when exposed on Transparent California and the bureaucracy responded by disallowing overtime but then covertly created a highly discriminatory pay-grade for the POA president and elevated his pay (and related benefits) a full step higher than all working lieutenants in the police department – a political move that insulted the taxpayer, the rank and file and his  peer group of hard working police lieutenants. Â
There are many questions that members of the council – and the public – should ask on Tuesday night – and then the council should adopt a motion to send the contract back to the city manager for straight answers and responsible solutions to the long standing problems of pension abuse and the political corruption that emanates from the POA treasury in support of political campaigns like Measure A as well as the financial support for the campaigns of our mayor and a majority of the current council.
Rather than simply adopting the current highly manipulative recommendation from city management that resulted from a negotiation in which the POA – in effect – sat on both sides of the bargaining table the council should order up a new INDEPENDENT system so that future collective bargaining puts the POA on just one side of table.
You’re amazing for the continued work you do for the residents of Long Beach.
Thank you!