60 replies to this topic

[The Average Joe]

Does it ruffle anyone elses feathers that this public servant is making 3 times the average CA household income? Without factoring in benefits and retirement. I'm sure it's a demanding job, but can we use a little common sense here? Most State governors don't make that much, and I'm sure they have a lot more on their plate than a local commander. When the inevitable drama is played out about cutting (insert pertinent scenario here) cops/teachers/firemen, why is it no one ever factors in the legacy costs for these folks in retirement and health? How many cops could that put on the street?

We took a turn toward crazy a long time ago...as one who promotes sustainable services, I have to wonder why no one uses logic and sees that we can't sustain a retired force at (nearly) full pay at a rate much higher than private sector, and pay for their replacements as well...

As for being a woman, I don't care one bit. Can she do the job well is the only question that should be pertinent.

[FolsomEJ]

Does it ruffle anyone elses feathers that this public servant is making 3 times the average CA household income? Without factoring in benefits and retirement. I'm sure it's a demanding job, but can we use a little common sense here? Most State governors don't make that much, and I'm sure they have a lot more on their plate than a local commander. When the inevitable drama is played out about cutting (insert pertinent scenario here) cops/teachers/firemen, why is it no one ever factors in the legacy costs for these folks in retirement and health? How many cops could that put on the street?

We took a turn toward crazy a long time ago...as one who promotes sustainable services, I have to wonder why no one uses logic and sees that we can't sustain a retired force at (nearly) full pay at a rate much higher than private sector, and pay for their replacements as well...

As for being a woman, I don't care one bit. Can she do the job well is the only question that should be pertinent.

The Folsom 2009 median (married) family income is $117,385 as seen here: Census Data - Folsom

$178,992 is 152% of that figure. You can decide if that is fair or not, but you really should be measuring her salary in this community with comparisons that match the community.

For me, I see this as fair compensation. We want to pay competitively so we attract top talent and retain them.

[DukeU]

http://www.lawofficer.com/article/industry-news/eight-law-enforcement-professi

An article on graduating from the Homeland security school.

This school also looks quite competitive. Not just against police officers from all over the US, but it said FD, military...

Out of pure curiousity...I wonder what her thesis was..

There is a video of her discussing her thesis studies at http://www.chds.us/?player&id=2527
Evidently she won an award for her thesis, so not to shabby

[MikeinFolsom]

Does it ruffle anyone elses feathers that this public servant is making 3 times the average CA household income? Without factoring in benefits and retirement.


Nope. Not at all. Median income in Folsom is quite high. I'd rather have a police chief living in town instead of having to live down in Rancho Cordova because as you put it, "she's wayyyy overpaid" and should earn a lot less. Your life must be in ruins, or be quite depressing. All of your posts seem to be.

[old soldier]

cops make lots of money cause they put their life on the line every day...the chief isn't in much danger but she will have to deal with the city council.

I could never figure out though why police make more money then soldiers, I guess it may be the soldiers don't have lobbyiests

[The Average Joe]

Your life must be in ruins, or be quite depressing. All of your posts seem to be.

LOL, nope, not at all. My life is fine (thanks for caring!) Perhaps you are interpreting a detached but sometimes pointed analysis of where we are and where we are going as depressing. I am, however, concerned about the life my kids will have. <edit> Actually, I just reread my first post and I find it hard to see where the diagnosis for ruinous or depressed came in...I thought it was pretty straightforward...no ranting, no moaning...just a differing perspective. Perhaps it depressed you to have to confront the fiscal realities we find ourselves in?

Unlike some, I am not going to walk through life with blinders on ("we're doing fine here in Folsom") while those in power ruin the future for my children. We are getting to the point where between 13-16% of employed people are employed by the government. Their average salary and benefits are higher than private sector. Somehow, the 7 or 8 others working at a lesser pay (average) have to pay for that, AND their replacement when they retire (as well as their retirement benefits and healthcare). Those funds are typically not solvent (not just here, but nationwide).

Using methods that are required for private sector pensions, which value pension liabilities according to likelihood of payment rather than the return expected on pension assets, total liabilities amount to $5.2 trillion and the unfunded liability rises to $3 trillion. The ability of governments to pay for the retirement benefits promised to public sector workers runs up against the reality of limited resources.full article here

Of course, that doesn't even factor in the health care costs...

So, how does this factor into my "depressing" post critiquing public worker salary? This sums it up well,

Why does it matter? Because every dollar spent to reduce the unfunded retirement liability cannot be used for education, public safety and other needs. Ultimately, taxpayers could face higher
taxes or cuts in essential public services. another source

That is what is already starting to happen, and will only get worse unless depressed people like me ()convince people like you that there IS an issue with public sector unions, their salaries and the benefits. It's simple math.
The promises the politicians made were easy to make, but impossible to keep.
Now, have a nice day :D

[The Average Joe]

The Folsom 2009 median (married) family income is $117,385 as seen here: Census Data - Folsom

$178,992 is 152% of that figure. You can decide if that is fair or not, but you really should be measuring her salary in this community with comparisons that match the community.

For me, I see this as fair compensation. We want to pay competitively so we attract top talent and retain them.

So let's do some comparisons that match the community. I used HOUSEHOLD income to compare to her salary, you used MARRIED household income. Why?
The Folsom median household income was some 30,000 less than the married median...(or only 87,787, not 117,385). Using your apples to apples, we would have to add in her spouses income to compare.
Her salary alone is 2.04 times the household income of a fairly affluent community...for one public servant. If you compare to non-family households (which is likely single earner), the median is around 43k, and her single income would be 4 times that much. Now you may stand by your position that that is fair, and that is fine. I just have a different perspective for reasons stated in my previous post.
Now go soak up some sun! (but wear sunscreen!)

[FolsomEJ]

So let's do some comparisons that match the community. I used HOUSEHOLD income to compare to her salary, you used MARRIED household income. Why?
The Folsom median household income was some 30,000 less than the married median...(or only 87,787, not 117,385). Using your apples to apples, we would have to add in her spouses income to compare.
Her salary alone is 2.04 times the household income of a fairly affluent community...for one public servant. If you compare to non-family households (which is likely single earner), the median is around 43k, and her single income would be 4 times that much. Now you may stand by your position that that is fair, and that is fine. I just have a different perspective for reasons stated in my previous post.
Now go soak up some sun! (but wear sunscreen!)

She is married. Married folks have a higher median income than unmarried. Making a comparison to data that intentionally includes all of California or all single moms is not a fair comparison either. It was the most accurate data point for this discussion.

Bottom line: She's getting compensation in line with the former COP, Roseville's COP and it is not fair or reasonable to consider the position to be "median" in any way. She'll run a department of about 100 people. There's nothing wrong with the compensation.

I'd rather not go with the lowest bidder for this critical position...!

[The Average Joe]

It was the most accurate data point for this discussion... Making a comparison to data that intentionally includes all of California or all single moms is not a fair comparison either.

Hate to be a stickler, but that would only be true if you added her husbands salary to hers and THEN compared to married household income. So no, it wasn't accurate at all. As shown above, the non-family household income is only around 43k. Which again, would be comparing a single constituent salary for this city. As hers is a single salary, I included that reference. but that wasn't my focus.

Salaries from the second post were for Folsom only.

[Robert Giacometti]

The Folsom 2009 median (married) family income is $117,385 as seen here: Census Data - Folsom

$178,992 is 152% of that figure. You can decide if that is fair or not, but you really should be measuring her salary in this community with comparisons that match the community.

For me, I see this as fair compensation. We want to pay competitively so we attract top talent and retain them.

First, I've never heard of any employer paying their employess a salary based upon comparisons of the residents income of that community. Does McDonalds or any small business in town do this? How about any larger business in town? The City of Folsom is an employer and they should pay a fair wage to attract competent staff, while making sure the City can provide its residents the services THEY desire, within the amount of revenue the City collects. The priority should be providing services to its residents, just like every successful business that tries to provide services to its clients.

Secondly, didn't the City just offer "pension enhancements" encouraging senior staff to leave, including the Former COP, who took advantage of this generous incentive to create the opening in the first place? So much for trying to retain them

[Redone]

First, I've never heard of any employer paying their employess a salary based upon comparisons of the residents income of that community. Does McDonalds or any small business in town do this? How about any larger business in town?

LOL, but it's OK to provide housing based on the income of the community ?

To answer your question , many municipalities do base their pay on Median income with the theory that you'll settle down and become part of the community. Another benefit would be faster response should off duty personnel be required.

Some people do it, others want no part of living near where they work
(EX: going to Raleys and seeing someone you just pulled over the day before..)

[Robert Giacometti]

LOL, but it's OK to provide housing based on the income of the community ?

To answer your question , many municipalities do base their pay on Median income with the theory that you'll settle down and become part of the community. Another benefit would be faster response should off duty personnel be required.

Some people do it, others want no part of living near where they work
(EX: going to Raleys and seeing someone you just pulled over the day before..)

Isn't providing for affordable housing the law? If you want to debate the merits of the law, be my guest. Until the law gets changed Folsom has to follow the law.

Is there a law that says employers must consider pay based upon median income? How many private sector companies are doing this? In communities that have lower median incomes are those cities paying their employees proportinately less than surrounding communities who have higher median incomes? I doubt it very much.

Remember, when cities provide for affordable housing, sometimes its their own employees who then can afford to live in the very community they work in.

[supermom]

To answer your question , many municipalities do base their pay on Median income with the theory that you'll settle down and become part of the community. Another benefit would be faster response should off duty personnel be required.

Some people do it, others want no part of living near where they work
(EX: going to Raleys and seeing someone you just pulled over the day before..)

geesh, and all this time- I thought the practice came about to discourage graft...

Chicago style.

doh...maybe that's just Hollywood hype.

[supermom]

There is a video of her discussing her thesis studies at http://www.chds.us/?player&id=2527
Evidently she won an award for her thesis, so not to shabby

Thank you for the link!

A very interesting thesis. A few of the recommendations are spot on.

She did a great job at simplifying a complex set of events that transpires during a large-scale emergency/castastrophe. Due to the relationship of Folsom and the State Parks (Folsom Dam)-I think there may be some merit to attaining a Chief of Police whom has a strong grasp of large scale emergency response.

Particularly in as much as the recent (10 years ago -which is pretty recent for government beaurocracy) published stand on the need for heightened protection of our Dam from terrorists.

I think some mixed ideas are based off the NIHM module, within her thesis, but that is another conversation, altogether.

Ps...I noted she talks a lot with her hands. Hard to not like someone who talks a lot with their hands. It usually means they are talking earnestly.