"Many of these task forces degenerate into conflict and, therefore, end up not producing any meaningful work products. In fact, the last two Fire and Police Disability and Pension task forces worked for months, made recommendations to reduce the cost of the fund and....nothing happened."

While I’m putting aside many of my questions regarding your proposal (mostly due to the fact that I don’t feel that I understand all the issues that they address adequately) -- I am genuinely curious as to why it is that you believe that these task forces get developed, work on addressing on an issue as a part of public input -- and then nothing happens with it? (assuming of course the task force overcomes its own inner conflicts) When or where (in the process within the City) does the hold up occur? What kink in the process doesn’t allow the recommendations to manifest?

I ask this, in light of the Bureau Innovation Project and the critique from some sectors of the public that it will merely amount to a “waste of time”.

If it is your experience that this is the case, would you mind shedding some light as to why it is so?

Still does not address the expert syndrome from what I can see. If Mr X gets his brother-in-law (the new doctor) to write up a report stating Mr X, due to stress (cf CW Jensen), cannot work in an office environment, the CoP cannot challenge that report of Mr X's witness. So Mr X merrily collects his paycheck nursing his stress as long as his expert says OK.

I am not understanding why CoP like other ventures does not use a 3rd party for diability insurance (a la workmen's comp) and take out the trustees who are beneficiaries out of the equation. That is why this seems more like patches as opposed to addressing root issues. Conveniently this overlooks the pension part of the fund which is hemorraging and is grossly underfunded also.

Echo Frank, Kari and Paul. (Add -- what about using some of these folks to staff desk positions at the neighborhood precints, so they could be open at night again?)

I also think allesaya's question is interesting, and important.

I have the same concern Frank expressed about the dollar-for-dollar reduction for replacement incime. Wouldn't something like an 80% reduction be better, in terms of giving workers some financial incentive to find outside income?

"...why it is that you believe that these task forces get developed, work on addressing on an issue as a part of public input -- and then nothing happens with it?"

Allehseya- Excellent question.

I do not believe these task forces fail because of the task force itself but, rather, the bodies that create the task force.

Take, for an example, the recent Bridgehead debacle. The PDC created a ciitizen advisory committee (functionally identical to a task force) to give the PDC a recommendation on which developer to use for the Bridgehead development.

After citizens spent many hours of their own time weighing the pros and cons of both developers, the PDC ignored its recommendation and picked the developer the citizens had rejected.

That same example has occurred a number of times at the council level as well.

I think that happens because of a lack of leadership. In other words, bodies that appoint task forces that do not truly empower them to make decisions are really saying they do not trust what it is those task forces may come up with. If the task force gets lucky and recommends what the governing body wanted anyway, everyone is happy. If, however, the task force recommends something the governing body does not agree with then the task force is routinely ignored or overruled.

There is nothing more damaging, in my opinion, to citizen involvement than that.

If a governing body knows it is going to make a certain decision they should just announce that, take the heat for the decision and then move on.

To make citizens go through a charade that in the end has no impact on a final decision creates cynicism and distrust of government.

"Why aren't our fire and police folks just part of the regular Worker's Comp system? Is there something wrong with Worker's Comp that makes it insufficient for this class of workers?"

Kari- That is an excellent subject that should be a part of what the task force that is looking at the more controversial aspects of the disability system should study.

It may be that after looking in depth at the pros and cons of the current system that the task force may recommend just that.

"What seems missing from this proposal is any change to the management of this fund so it is not dominated by parties with potential or real conflicts of interest. Are we contemplating any changes to the process by which the disability claims are evaluated?"

Paul- Again, excellent questions, however, the proposal I brought forward are really basic, common sense fixes that should be non controversial but will yield dramatic reductions in police and firefighters on the disability roles.

How disability claims are evaluated and the management of the fund are subjects that I would agree would be best analyzed by the task force that is studying the system.

"(Add -- what about using some of these folks to staff desk positions at the neighborhood precincts, so they could be open at night again?)"

Anne- Exactly. In fact, in a meeting I had with the Mayor this afternoon, coincidentally, I used the same example.

If this measure is passed by Portland voters then each of the precincts should be reopened within a very short period of time and, best of all, staffed by officers who up to that point were home recovering from their injury.

"To make citizens go through a charade that in the end has no impact on a final decision creates cynicism and distrust of government."

I agree. Do you mind if I pose a hypothetical scenario? What if the task force itself disagreed with the changes in your resolution? I understand that you view them as common sense changes. And even people outspoken against your general direction with these changes (I’m thinking of Ron Ledbury) have gone on record stating that the math is sound and will save money --- but what if the task force (unanimously) had issues or concerns similar to those voiced by Ron? How would you / the city handle that so as to avoid yet another “Bridgehead debacle”?

[disclaimer: I appear to be experiencing technical difficulties as the last paragraph in my post didn’t make it. In any event, it stated that I am aware that the task force is, in fact, thinking along the lines as your resolution in many regards -- I merely pose the hypothetical question as I'm concerned with how we can avoid becoming entangled in the kind of debacle you mentioned as we undergo the Bureau Innovation Project and reach its outcomes]

Allehseya- The task force is certainly a public process to help the council reach a decision on the disability issue. However, the council introducing a resolution, debating and then voting on improving the disability system is also a public process.

The issues I have put forward are, notwithstanding the huge impact they will have, cost controls and checks that exist in virtually every other disability system I am aware of.

Although I often am in disagreement with the Oregonian editorial board, the editorial they wrote here pointing out that I have a special responsibility to lead the effort to make improvements in the current fire and police disability system did have an impact on me. After reading and thinking of their perspective, I came to the conclusion that they were right and that, indeed, I had become overly defensive of a disability system that I played a major role in crafting.

I do believe these changes will reduce the cost of the disability system while still being fair to injured firefighters and police officers...a principle that I feel very strongly about. I do not want to pretend, by referring these questions to a task force, that I am open to them not being included in a reform package because I am truly not.

"I do believe these changes will reduce the cost of the disability system while still being fair to injured firefighters and police officers...a principle that I feel very strongly about."

Yes, and it is my understanding that the task force agrees with you in many regards along these lines. To be clear: It is not my intention to question your heart, principles and feelings on the matter. At the risk of being redundant, I merely posed the hypothetical question to glean some insight so as to avoid the debacle that seems to reoccur when task forces address even larger issues of public import -- such as the BIP represents. My concern, is, of course, off topic (sorry Kari) -- I only seized the opportunity due to your mentioning the task force in general and how such hard work gets lost in the system.

Is there any public-available report on this fund? It seems we throw out the most inflammatory topic ("hurt" police/fire men that are making what look like fraduulent claims on the system) yet we ignore the shaky funding on the pension part which is going to be a much larger issue.

There are just some basic issues not being addressed such as trustees being beneficiaries (fox guarding the henhouse syndrome) that would hamper some real change to this fund.

Until then, we will get Mr Leonard saying he doesn't believe in task forces ("Many of these task forces degenerate into conflict and....nothing happened"), then a day later saying the task force will have to address issues ("How disability claims are evaluated and the management of the fund are subjects that I would agree would be best analyzed by the task force that is studying the system")

I think Mr Leonard by his actions is giving a "go away and let me take care of it" attitude. Based on the history of this fund is that something we can afford? There are many people who faithfully pay their property tax bills at great personal expense and at the cost of their own retirement funding only to see the abuses and they deserve better treatment.

Allehseya- I think this proposal takes off the table subjects that, while costly, should be considered "low hanging fruit".

That leaves the task force with coming to terms with truly controversial issues such as funding and whether or not the benefits structure of the disability and retirement system are in need of change.

I intentionally stayed away from those issues and dropped one of Commissioner Sten's proposals because, in my opinion, those larger benefits issues are more appropriately studied by the task force.

Additionally, not only do I not, as Steve has incorrectly written, believe task forces are irrelevant, quite the contrary, I believe when a task force is appointed we should respect their final report and, absent some extraordinary information, follow it's recommendations.

You will find if you inquire at the Bureau of Emergency Communications and the Bureau of Development Services that I have established the only functional labor/management systems in the city.

Those two labor/management committees literally are the governing bodies of each of those bureaus. They are comprised of front line workers and top managers. They resolve employee disputes (we have not had a grievance out of either of those bureaus in two years...they have disputes but they solve them together), they decide on who is promoted, they construct the budget and they set up the goals of their bureaus.

I accept their recommendations in total...including the budget. Why? Because I trust them and I do not feel my authority is diluted by empowering front line employees with the authority usually only reserved for a commissioner in charge or the director of a bureau.

My comment on task forces in my post is my reaction to how others use the committee or task force model. Unfortunately, some who are interested in the outcome of what this task force is doing do not have a record of empowerment or confidence in what front line employees may suggest.

In fact, I have met with the fire and police unions this past week and, after lengthy and contentious discussion, they agreed to support these changes. The significance of that support should not be lost on anyone in this debate. It means, in my opinion, the difference between success and failure at the polls when these issues will be voted on by Portland citizens.

Excellent summation, Paul. You put it much more succinctly than I have.

Paul Gronke,

"Sten and Leonard are proposing some obvious and immediate reforms of the system that are relatively non-controversial and (I assume) supported by outside observers of our system (many of whom are quoted in the Oregonian articles)."

Can't you spot the Nose-Ring attached to the Randy-Bull? He is being led around like a prize animal at the county fair by a young member of FFA.

He is being hoisted up as the champion of labor so as to thwart any opposition to anti-labor attacks by the likes of SAIF and Liberty. If Randy can be cowed then so must anyone else that represents genuine labor rights. It is time to send Randy out to pasture or the stockyard, his time of usefulness to labor have been exhausted and he is just a tired old man.

Randy, let's talk fairness and labor, shall we . . .

Fairness? The concept itself highlights the distinction between of arbitrary decision making and law making.

I could make an argument that straight pay, without any pension, of 100,000 per year for any and all fireman, uniformly, is fair. I could even put it into an ordinance or even into the charter. No one would complain that 100,000 per year is too low, or unfair.

Yet, inserting a hard and fast number, a number that is considered fair, dismisses entirely the entire notion of bargaining either individually or collectively. The act of the picking of the number (whatever it is) and by virtue of calling it fair as the legal justification for enactment of such law removes the very number from the scope of any labor bargaining.

The problem arises when a judge would ever review such a law. The question that would be put before a judge is the fairness of the number itself without any standard other than the power of a local government official to establish public policy. If a judge could not question the political choice of 100,000 dollars then likewise a judge would likewise not have the power to question an alternative political choice that set 10,000 dollars as the fair number. The proposition is that it is fair because a politician says it is fair therefor it is fair.

Suppose a less amicable set of fellows picked 10,000 dollars as the fair pay rate, and put it into an ordinance. Suppose that the laborers that are faced with this law try to collectively strike over the matter. It is not within the scope of bargaining and thus such a strike would be considered unlawful and the strikers could simply be replaced, permanently. The pleasure or displeasure of the strikers or their replacements would be irrelevant to the judicial review of the fairness of the pay level to which the politicians chose to place into the law. You (Randy) claim the right to declare something is fair, thus it is fair, because you say so . . . so take it or leave it.

If it is OK to force injured firefighters to accept a take it of leave it offer from the city so as to save the city some dollars on those injuries then a lesser included public policy power must exist (in you view of the world) to simply establish a lower level of pay for uninjured fireman. You can save the city money by passing an ordinance the sets a maximum pay level, to constrain the discretion of city bargainers, at say 30,000. The city will save money, therefore it is both your "responsibility AND duty" to establish such an upper limit because it is your fault for not establishing such an upper limit before.

What is fair? It is fair to demand that you halt your systematic attack upon the right of labor to organize and fight their employer peaceably. Your attack on the injured firefighters is MORE dismissive of labor bargaining rights than if you set, via an ordinance, a maximum level of pay for firefighters.

Just picture that you had stripped away the right of common government workers to strike, collectively, then engage in your happy pleasant talk of saving taxpayer dollars. The right to strike, as a vindication of the individual right to bargain, has become just too much of a hassle anyway because it interferes with the politicians power to dictate what is fair in their eyes. You have become an embarrassment to labor. If Tom Potter and all the other folks pondering the great issue of the rights of disabled safety workers, on the panel reviewing the matter, are of like mind then they too are an embarrassment.

Is it any wonder why The Oregonian has selected the most vulnerable set of folks to launch their attack on labor? Is it any wonder that SAIF and/or Liberty would become a potential beneficiary? Is it any wonder that they targeted you in particular to make their attack? If they have punched you in the face then act like you still have some testosterone left and stand up and smack them back, in the interest of labor rights generally. If your past leaves you unable to properly advocate for labor then you ought to actually resign instead of setting out to aggressively spearhead an attack on labor yourself.

Picture yourself as though you were not on the City Council. Picture yourself pleading with a judge to save you from the evils of a hostile government bureaucrat. What would be the outer limits of the arbitrariness that you would find acceptable in that bureaucrat?

Randy has taken a beating over this issue if you haven't noticed. And instead of cowering and waiting for the issue to pass as many gutless elected officials in Oregon would, he is drawing more attention to the issue, and beyond that is the only person around who is trying to bring a solution to the table. I could care less what his proposal says, it says enough to me that he has the courage to do something while everyone else sits around and throws rocks. Go Randy!

So much of everything comes down to trust....

"In fact, I have met with the fire and police unions this past week and, after lengthy and contentious discussion, they agreed to support these changes."

Indeed, this is a good thing

(... thank you for humoring my hypotheticals and addressing my curiosities)

You are welcome, Allehseya.

I appreciate the good discussion and I am grateful to see Commissioner Leonard taking part. However, I am going to add contrarian points of view.

Commissioner Leonard has said that his FPD&R proposals are non-controversial, commonsense reforms, that they will “potentially cut costs of the disability fund drastically,” and that if passed each of the neighborhood “precincts should be reopened within a very short period of time.” There are at least two reasons to question Mr. Leonard’s assessments: they ask the voters to assume that the basic structure of the disability portion of the Fund is sound, and that the financial savings to the proposal are known. I also believe Mr. Leonard’s proposal would make more fundamental changes more difficult to implement.

The City Council created the FPD&R Independent Review Committee to comprehensively review of the Fund. Their mandate includes examining the disability and pension programs, benefit levels, funding mechanisms, and pros and cons of moving the programs into other systems such as PERS and workers’ compensation. It is possible that the IRC’s review will show that the basic structure of the FPD&R is flawed and that minor changes that keep the program intact will only prolong a failing system. Mr. Leonard’s proposal aims clean up problems with the disability program, some which were identified in recent reporting by The Oregonian. He does not propose making major changes of the sort that may come out of the IRC’s comprehensive review. Because the FPD&R is part of the City Charter, any changes will require a public vote, and it is questionable whether the public will be willing to support minor changes in the fall only to be asked to make fundamental changes once the review is completed in January.

Mr. Leonard’s wants to put his reform agenda up for a vote in November, which would require a special election. Multnomah County Elections Director estimates a special election would cost the city $275,000. The next regularly scheduled election is May 2006, the cost for which is mostly borne by the county. From a purely economic perspective, then, Mr. Leonard’s proposal only makes sense if the savings exceed $275,000 in the six months between a special election in November and the regularly scheduled election in May. When Mr. Leonard presented his proposal to the IRC at their August 11 meeting it had not been scored for its financial impact. Therefore, it is not possible to know whether or not his plan would save the city money. And it is certainly not possible to know whether enough injured police officers would come back to work to staff neighborhood precincts as Mr. Leonard has claimed.

Mr. Leonard seems to want to capitalize on the recent controversy surrounding the Fund. A series of articles in The Oregonian have been critical of the disability portion of the FPD&R, and Mr. Leonard is probably right that the public is primed to act. And this may make sense if the goal is to make the changes he proposes then stop. But it will be difficult to explain to voters why changes are so urgent that a special election is necessary only to go back to them a few months down the road and ask them to ditch the program altogether, which could happen if the IRC recommends moving police and fire fighter’s into the city’s workers’ compensation plan.

Two final points. First, earlier posters have suggested that Mr. Leonard’s plan would make the work of IRC easier because it takes some fixes off the table. This doesn’t make sense. If the IRC recommends the FPD&R continue with its basic structure then by Mr. Leonard’s own assertion the IRC will spend little time considering these “commonsense” changes anyway. And if the IRC proposes fundamental reforms then Mr. Leonard’s changes will be irrelevant. Lastly, Mr. Leonard asks in this original post to forgive him for sounding cynical for saying:

“I have been a party to or an observer of countless task forces within the city for nearly 3 decades. Many of these task forces degenerate into conflict and, therefore, end up not producing any meaningful work products. In fact, the last two Fire and Police Disability and Pension task forces worked for months, made recommendations to reduce the cost of the fund and....nothing happened.”

I will not forgive him. The City Council voted unanimously to create the IRC; if Mr. Leonard truly dislikes public task forces then he should have voted otherwise. If Mr. Leonard has concerns about the IRC specifically then he should say what they are instead of making a general statement about task forces. And it simply doesn’t follow that because the recommendation of previous FPD&R review committee went nowhere that this is somehow the fault of review committees. Past political leaders are to blame for not acting, just as current political leaders will be to blame if they ignore, or make irrelevant, the work the IRC.

Thank you.

As I pointed out in a link in one of my comments above, I have been specifically singled out on the council to bring forward changes needed in the fund.

I have done what the Oregonian and others have demanded of me. And yes, prior council's have refused to consider changes proposed by prior task forces on the subject of reform to the FPD&R. The difference this time is that I know these changes, if adopted, will dramatically reduce the number of firefighters and police officers on disability.

The other difference is that this is the first time that a vote is being called for on dramatic changes to the system.

There are always reasons to wait...but the message to me has been to act and lead.

This is my best attempt to do that.

Mr. Leonard,

While I disagree with you on this issue, I appreciate that you're discussing the problem with Portlanders in this forum.