Recently there have been several debates among the mayoral candidates. Invariably there have been moments of grandiose ideas or visions of what each candidate’s would do as mayor or differently from the incumbent. As to be expected, there were some testy exchanges between candidates, and maybe a few close calls, at least to me, of some smart smack downs. Facts usually fly out the window and once-sensible, at least sometimes sensible candidates, transform and become reckless kiss asses-all to win votes or get an endorsement.
All of this was on display at the recent early morning debate hosted by the firefighter’s union at their union hall. Everyone was mostly bright and cheerful for the early morning debate. As I was sitting in the audience, I figured this debate would expand on some of the answers that had been previously given by all the candidates. And I was glad to see all of them were there. There was another great moderator on deck, and I was glad to see that the last two debates also had moderators who have deep roots in local news and the political scene.
As the debate started, there were strong talking points and snazzy comebacks, I looked forward to some fireworks! The real action came towards the end when questions were being asked about two issues, one about reinstating employees who had been terminated for not being vaccinated and support for the ballot measure to roll back the retirement age for firefighters, from 58 to 55.
The vaccination issue is still a sore point for many unions but more so for police and fire because we lost good people who had experience that we desperately need right now. But instead of some candidates showing true city experience and leadership and getting real about what they can and cannot do, they said yes, they would reinstate those who were terminated anyway. If there is one thing, I have learned in dealing with the city, it has layers and mazes of bureaucracy that must be navigated. A yes is really checking with another part or parts of the bureaucracy to see if the rules will allow for something to happen. Additionally, a yes might require the creation of a new rule. Also, let us be real, nothing happens with the snap of one’s fingers. A yes to this question is just saying yes in the hope that it wins over enough people to get their vote, knowing full well that it will not happen. And that is disingenuous and dishonest. After yes, what is next?
Again, for the firefighter’s retirement ballot measure, the yes answer is the uncomplicated way out. The totality of what is being asked of voters needs more vetting to make sure it can be accomplished in a fair and fiscally responsible way. Will it add more burden to our deficit? As city leaders, are they willing to accept it if it does? What about including the change for all safety members? The retirement process changed for all emergency services new hires after 2012. Is it fair to give it only to one entity and not all of us? Believe me, I understand the frailty of our health as we get older in the jobs that we do, be just as cancer hits firefighters, do not forget police and sheriffs suffer from it too along with a host of other health issues. Let us not forget that cancer, along with a host of other serious health issues, is a presumptive illness in our profession.
Just as Supervisor Dorsey is pushing for the Deferred Retirement Option Program (DROP) to help with our staffing crisis, if it cannot be done with fiscal responsibility in mind, we all need to go back to the drawing board.
Whether you are the leader of an organization or a city, you have a fiduciary responsibility to decide what you are going to include in your budget and how much is spent on each line item, and there must be careful consideration for each. It is equally important to not waste money on things that you will not get any return on. I am sure there are many out there who would disagree with what the city has and has not spent from its coffers and who or what issues it has given monetary support to. But at the end of the day, no one can write a blank check for a yes vote. And if someone will, then do I really want that person in charge of the check book?
