CORRESPONDENCE - 65B - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

read.) The staff report makes much of the fact that Ca1PERS has not responded to the City's letter regarding the employment of the existing park rangers. I believe this is a red herring. I understand from Steve McGuigan that if CaIPERS does not respond to the City's request to keep the CalPERS annuitants within 60 days, the failure to respond is deemed approval to keep them. I have not yet independently verified this, but perhaps the City Attorney could provide us with accurate facts on this point. I found it interesting that Mr. Raya's letter to CalPERS failed to explain that the Ca1PERS annuitants were only being employed long enough to train new recruits and would be let go once their replacements were hired and trained. Perhaps it was inadvertent oversight rather than a deliberate attempt to mislead Ca1PERS into denying the City's request. That the City has issued termination notices to the existing Park Rangers is of no matter. Such termination notices have been rescinded before and may be rescinded again. Using police overtime to fill the gap is fiscally imprudent regardless of any budget surplus, and those funds would be better spent by expediting the park ranger hiring process. Speaking of expediting the process, I have spoken with family members who work in law enforcement for other agencies, and they related that no desired hiring process takes six to nine months. In their experience, open peace officer positions are filled much more quickly. It would be useful to know, with actual data, how long the Police Department takes in hiring lateral officers and new graduates for its open positions. Because Management has not presented any persuasive reason for Council to deviate from its existing policy, Council should reject the staff recommendation and proceed with its existing policy and direction. Thank you for your consideration of this important issue. Sincerely, Ann Salisbury