Proposition 61: Salary Limits

I urge a No vote on Proposition 61. Before your readers stretch and yawn, however, and think that this is just another “special interest” letter, I hope they will read further.

I have been elected president of a group called “Embarrassed Liberals, Moderates, Conservatives and Others Against Proposition 61.” Why “embarrassed”? Because we all originally supported Proposition 61 and now have to admit we were wrong.

Most of us signed and/or circulated the Proposition 61 petitions, thinking we could plug the loopholes left from Proposition 13. But none of us had any idea that the cleverly worded Proposition 61 would turn out to be such a devastating blow to absolutely vital government services. These are services we cannot do without, such as police, fire, paramedics, etc.

I never thought I’d take this position. Very few people are more anti-bureaucrat than I am.

I have supported, worked for, and voted approval of, every previous Howard Jarvis and Paul Gann initiative. As a member of the Pasadena School Board, I was one of the few elected public officials, statewide, who openly urged a Yes vote on Proposition 13.

I urged Yes on 13 because I wished to lower taxes and tighten up on excessive government expenses. There is an awful lot about government I would cut back or eliminate completely. This is why I helped put Proposition 61 on the ballot, particularly when we were told about the excessive pensions of some key state officials that ought to be looked at.

But after the proposition was analyzed, the truth became apparent. Several glaring facts come out:

1--The huge pensions of the state officials mentioned are not even affected by this proposition.

2--Although we were told that only the compensation of “appointed” and “elected” officials was affected, our police, fire and paramedic forces will be clobbered because they are all deemed to be “appointed” people.

3--Many extremely qualified police, fire and medical personnel will get a substantial cut in pay, requiring them to retire and seek jobs in a private industry. Estimates are that fully 40% of our police and fire forces could resign to go elsewhere to earn a living.

You know from the intensive recruiting activity of police and sheriff’s departments that they can’t even find enough police now , at present wage levels, to staff the needs of the departments. What will happen when the qualified officers leave for better pay in private industry, and the departments try to recruit with less pay and less benefits?

Yes, I want tax relief. Yes, I want control of government spending. But not at the expense of expert, dedicated police, fire and medical services. I can think of lots of areas of government to cut back rather than these. I hope you agree.

JEROME D. MEIER

Sierra Madre