The Argus editorial today about "greedy" East Bay Regional PArk District employees was well written, if you like hearing less than half the story. Perhaps this type of journalism is what is tossing so many newspapers into insolvency. It sounds quite clearly that the Argus got all the info they needed from the District's main office and did not do much research on the union side of the story.

Our economy is in a shambles. People are losing jobs (11.5% in CA!), my wife included. California's deficit is severely dimming the present & future prospects of our two boys. Yes, the EBRPD may indeed get hit with some funding cuts (see below). Let us look at those, shall we? This may be news to the tiny minded editorial writers at the Argus.

State workers are losing jobs,  taking pay cuts, as are private sector workers because there is no money in their coffers. The East Bay Regional Park District has $66 million, MILLION, in reserves. Compare that to an operating  budget of around $100 million. If all funding stopped dead, the District has enough money to operate for a full 8 months at full capacity. A 10% reserve fund is condidered enormous, and the District has almost 70%. The District is not hurting for cash like others, so why are they screaming poor and hurrying to take money from employees? Is it because the PR climate for such is favorable?. Even if the state borrows money (it can not "take" or "reduce" funding arbitrarily) from the District, it must pay that money back with interest in 3 years. It is a loan the District will get back with interest. Better that it does not happen, but if it does, the District will be paid back. But the District is turning this borrowing over to the employees - funding that loan with proposed cuts to employee salaries and benefits. Are we hearing anything about the District returning that money to employees with interest after 3 years? Not a word. If a private business is doing very well, but lending money at a decent interest rate for 3 years because they are flush with cash, then cries poor to employees, what might the Argus say then? And if salaries and benefits should go down in bad years, shouldn't they rise in good years? Like the 10's of millions of dollars above and beyond expectations and budget the District collected in real estate boom years. Did the employees benefit in that? Nope. Property values are down and so the District will collect less revenue, maybe 8% less from Contra Costa and 2-3% less from Alameda. Easily absorbed by the reserve fund - the very reason a reserve fun is there!

Yes, tragically, not many folks are getting raises nowadays (note my unemployed spouse). But in the midst of our real estate meltdown (the District is funded by property taxes provided by the supportive and generous citizens in Alameda and Contra Costa Counties), General Manager Pat O'Brien has recieved a 20% raise, with a 4 year contract. Didn't the Argus think it absurd for the union to ask for anything more than a single year? Assistant General Manager Dave Collins recieved a 13% boost. Other managers have received additional step increases that do not immediately put more money in their pockets, but raise the ceiling on what they will make in future years. Suggestion: Argus, dig a little deeper to run the totals on all that - how do the totals comapre to what the union has requested?  Do I begrudge any of those raises? Not in the least. These people do amazing work, the best in the business, and deserve every penny they earn. And they do earn it. Why the different view toward union employees? Is it because employee compensation takes up 76% of the budgert? The District is a service organization - its product is its people who provide the services required to run the top system in the country.

The citizens of Alameda and Contra Costa counties passed Measure WW last fall with over 70% of the vote. This District is publicly supported as few things are. I assume this is in recognition and appreciation for the kind of parks and programming the District runs, and the future that promises. The public gave the District and local municipalities $500 million over the next twenty years. That is at least (considering matching funds, grants, etc. ) a boost of $25 million/year for land aquisition, facilities, and support for local governments. So that part of the general budget is taken care of for the next 20 years. Bravo. But tell me, when folks marched into the polls and marked yes on WW, what compelled them? The great good works of upper management? Perhaps. Or were they compelled to vote yes by their own visits to the parks, with maintained trails, clean restrooms, extraordinary in-the-field park maintenance and management? Or their hikes with Naturalists, or the visits Naturalist's paid to their kid's schools? I see that as a $25 million, 25% annual boost to the budget, brought largley by the best employees in the business. Reward? Proposed pay cut. The propsosed .9% raise the Aergus mentioned is to cover inflation -  the CPI.

To top all this, the Board of Directors just came back from Chicago and a conference for similar special districts throughout North America. A junket such as this in such uncertain and extraordinary times? Did it promise to increase funding? Nope. Do I begrudge the Board's presence at this conference? Not in the least.  Quite the opposite. They are responsible to keep current in the field, bring back and share new ideas that make this District and all like it run better for their consituents. They have steered the District with unmatched skill, responsibility, and great service, and deserve to be commended for it. They are also the best. But, again, why is the money there for tis type of expenditure and not for an employee contract?

Why is the Argus so quick to jump on the miguided bandwagon for the "race to the bottom" -cutting everyone's compensation until no one can afford to live in the ultra-expensive Bay Area? Why should we continually erode the standard of living of Bay Area workers when there is no need? Why should we jump to the conclusion that because District employees ask for fair compensation for the value they bring to the East Bay Regioanl Park District (and teh value that adds to east bay residents), they are greedy and selfish.

Ask any Board Member or any manager about the District's employees. Are they selfish? Greedy? The employees of the East Bay Regional Park District are the best, the most deeply dedicated to providing the best park experience for their consituents. That is evident in the parks they provide and maintain, the programs they offer and the support the public has shown. How come the Argus did not look for that side of the story? Shame on you.