Are city furloughs ‘the least bad plan?’
During the virtual City Council meeting Wednesday night, Mayor Alan Webber described municipal government’s circumstances amid the COVID-19 crisis succinctly. “This whole situation really sucks,” he said.
In a 5-4 vote after four hours of discussion, with the mayor casting the crucial tiebreaker, the governing board approved a furlough plan as the economic crash caused by the virus has sent city revenues plummeting.
About $1.4 million will be saved. That may not seem like much when the overall deficit the city is facing in all funds is $46 million. But the furloughs — cutting hours, and pay, for most workers other than police officers on the street by 10% — do coincidentally put a 10% dent in the $14 million portion of the deficit located in the city’s general fund. That’s the portion of the budget that covers the basic operations of city government, and for which employee pay and benefits are the biggest expense.
Some workers will lose 16 hours of work, and the corresponding amount of pay. Those furloughs apply mostly to people whose jobs have essentially disappeared during the coronavirus shutdown, such as those in libraries, recreation centers and parking enforcement. With three-day work weeks, these workers — maybe city supervisors will find something for them to do — can keep their job benefits.
The city employees union complained, in effect, that the furlough plan sucks the most for the lowest-paid workers — a 10% cut affects someone struggling to get by much more than high-ranking administrators making near or above six-figure salaries.
It’s a valid point. The mayor and his administration should have given the City Council another option with tiered cuts, aimed at reducing the burden on the lowest paid. Mayor Webber himself has taken a 30% pay reduction and councilors are also eschewing pay. But having the top staffers closest to them chip in a bit more toward the collective effort to survive these hard times would have been better.
On the other hand, avoiding outright layoffs and keeping people on the payroll with benefits after their jobs have gone away or become substantially reduced, even with a 40% pay cut, is something the union and those impacted have to understand is gracious. Critics of the anti-government persuasion might even call it wasteful and unfair, considering how many private sector workers — who pay taxes to support the government — have lost their jobs altogether.
“Among a number of bad options designed to address a bad situation, this is the least bad plan,” Webber said of the overall furloughs.
Another criticism is that the furlough plan was rushed out without enough input from city councilors.
Time is of the essence — the city had to start cutting expenses quickly as gross receipts tax revenues tumble with businesses closed — but one extended session on the furlough plan with the council or one of its committees could have resulted in a few improvements.
We’ve advocated for similar open discussions before the council is presented with another major decision — on the administration’s recommended master developer for the cityowned Midtown Campus, a recommendation expected to come Monday. But that apparently also will be a takeit-or-leave-it proposition.
Councilors won’t be able to complain about this kind of decision-making process then. A council majority voted last year to keep all contract negotiations secret until after the council votes on a recommendation from the city staff.
Santa Fe voters decided a few years ago to go with a “strong mayor” form of government. Webber, the first “strong mayor,” is showing how it’s done.