Trickle-Down Theory Arms Prop. 61 Foes

Among the toughest questions confronting voters weighing the pros and cons of Proposition 61 is whether the initiative’s salary limits would somehow trickle down to cut or freeze the salaries and benefits of thousands of rank-and-file public safety and teaching employees.

It is a question with no immediate answer, but one that has solidified public employee opposition to Proposition 61, even from workers with little hope of reaching the $64,000 salary cap imposed by the ballot measure.

The possibility that lower and middle-echelon workers might suffer has supplied initiative opponents with a weapon they have used effectively in TV and radio ads over the past month. Now, in a slick mailer sent to hundreds of thousands of California voters last week, the No on 61 campaign has restated the argument even more explicitly than in the commercials in an effort to persuade voters that the measure threatens public education and safety.

“By cutting the pay of top public safety officials,” the mailer says, “Proposition 61 could cause pay cuts for employees all the way down the line. In fact, many firefighters could end up earning only slightly more than the minimum wage!”

On another page, it says, “Superintendent of Public Instruction Bill Honig has warned that cutting and freezing the salaries of top school officials could be reflected by reductions or limitations in salaries all the way down the line--EVEN FOR OUR TEACHERS. “

The opposition mailer hedges the two arguments but clearly establishes worst-case scenarios. It does not tell voters that the scenarios are based on possible court interpretations of the measure that may never be issued.

The debate centers on whether the $64,000 limit on public employee salaries also applies to retirement, vacation and health care benefits. Initiative sponsor Paul Gann has argued that he intended to limit salaries only, but opponents counter that the measure’s language is open to interpretation.

Opponents argue that Proposition 61, while capping the governor’s salary at $80,000, fails to make that same distinction for other government workers. The initiative’s language alternately speaks of salary and compensation, which could arguably refer to both wages and benefits. If the courts ultimately hold that compensation includes both salary and benefits, the $64,000 limit could extend to tens of thousands employees beyond the 9,000 estimated under a salary-only interpretation.

No on 61 spokesman Brad Moore said the mailer’s minimum-wage firefighter scenario assumes that Proposition 61 would combine both salary and benefits in establishing the $64,000 limit. He said the mailer statement evolved from testimony given last summer by Los Angeles City Fire Chief Donald O. Manning during a legislative hearing on the ballot measure.

Manning was not available to discuss the issue Monday, but Assistant Chief Gerald Johnson said that under the scenario, Manning’s post-Proposition 61 salary would be cut from more than $100,000 to about $39,000, with the balance of the $64,000 being made up by various benefits. If that occurred and if the Fire Department decided to maintain many of the salary step differentials it now has, entry-level firefighters would make about $12,000 a year, or about $4 an hour, Johnson said. The federal minimum wage is currently $3.35 an hour.

‘To Give Incentive’

Johnson acknowledged that nothing in city law or Proposition 61 requires the department to retain its existing salary hierarchy. But he added, “Common sense dictates (that) you have to maintain some sort of stairstep system between ranks . . . to give incentive to employees to advance.”

If Proposition 61 applied only to salary, Johnson said, only about 88 of the 2,800-member firefighting force would be affected, while hundreds more would be affected if benefits were included. Because of the uncertainty, he said, the department is expecting as many as 500 firefighters to apply for early retirement. So far, about 200 have done so.

School Supt. Honig said the same thing holds true for teachers. Co-chair of the No on 61 campaign, Honig said Monday that it would be up to individual school districts to decide whether to pay teachers more than administrators. But, he added, there would be little incentive for teachers to enter administration if such a situation existed.

Little Immediate Effect

Honig added that there would be little immediate effect on teacher salaries if Proposition 61 affected salaries only.

“But voters have to take the risk,” Honig said. “We’re saying, ‘Why take the risk?’ ”

The Legislature’s nonpartisan analyst, John L. Vickerman, author of the explanation of the measure that appears on the statewide voter pamphlets, agreed with Honig that Proposition 61 would not require pay differences between supervisors and their subordinates, explaining that each governmental agency would have to make that choice.

“There is no set rule that you would have to follow,” Vickerman said, “(But) obviously it would have a chilling effect. . . . How much, I don’t know.”