A partial transcript of the L.A. mayor's April 21 visit with The Times' editorial board.
Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa's proposed $7.05 billion budget relies heavily on his ability to win concessions from employee unions find new ways to raise additional revenue. The mayor visited with Times editors and reporters on April 21 to make his case; below is a partial transcript.
Antonio Villaraigosa: I was sitting at President Obama's inauguration, and he talked about the employee who was willing to take a cut, I think he said in pay or hours, to save the job of another employee. And that's when I got this idea of shared responsibility and sacrifice. ... And I went back and realized, you know, we haven't laid off, as you all know and have chronicled, anybody -- nine employees in 1984.
Jim Newton, L.A. Times: How many?
Villaraigosa: Nine employees in 1984, the last time we laid off any employees. The fact is, when you lay off employees, as much as everybody loves to say, "Why don't you cut," or as you guys like to say, "Why don't you cut that, but don't cut me." ... But you've got to understand, when you cut, you're cutting services. When you cut people, you're cutting the services that come with it.
So last year, if you remember, I said that we were going to lay off some 780, 790 people or whatever, and I think we laid off 760; we eliminated 767 positions. ... What happens is, those are positions that you've funded, and so if you eliminate those positions you're no longer funding them, so they are cuts but they're not cuts of people. I also said that ... we were going to have mandatory furloughs. And we ultimately didn't, we avoided the mandatory furloughs ... because the unions gave us $18 million in savings to healthcare benefits that they didn't have to give us. ...
We were somewhere in the neighborhood of 8% unemployment in October, January it was 10, February was 12, and right now we're at 12.4. ... These are middle class jobs for the most part. Putting people out of work isn't the public policy I want to be promoting, but by the same token, the cuts that come with them would be devastating. The $530 million deficit represents about 5,000 layoffs, something in that neighborhood. In our budget, through public-private partnerships that will generate revenue ... through elimination of some 1,700 vacant positions, through 400 layoffs and other small things, we've gotten to, we're reduced the 5,000-plus layoffs to 2,800. ...
So that leaves us the 2,800 layoffs. ... We've never cut anything of that magnitude. The devastation to services, and so that you understand ... when we thought we have a $430 million deficit, we did a chart that showed what you would cut. Let's say, because fire and police are off the budget right now, we would cut 25 departments; to give you an example, transportation, the zoo, neighborhood empowerment, cultural affairs, [Information Technology Agency], which is a $101 million agency, building and safety, animal services, aging, personnel, board of public works ... engineering - 25 departments.
Newton: I'm sorry, 25 departments eliminated?
Villaraigosa: Eliminated, closed down, eliminated. ... If we do nothing, we lose 2,800 jobs. You see some of the options, and there are more -- we put a whole set of options together.
What we said, and starting with President Obama, what we've said to them is, "Hold it." You know how we never laid off people? You bring in all the people that love the libraries. You saw what they did last time. Under my mayoralty, I've expanded libraries and library hours more than any other mayor: Riordan, Hahn, Bradley, OK? I tried to just cut back last year just, I proposed cutting back just, like, halfway in between where I started and where I got to. And I had, what's her name, Julie Andrews' editorial in your newspaper, I had every, you know -- that's what they do, they organize. The unions do it, everybody comes at you and makes you look like -- you're trying to be responsible here and balance the budget -- makes you look like Darth Vader.
So what we've said to them is, "Hold it. We got to all be grown-ups here. We're not proposing layoffs, only cuts, concessions, cuts in your salaries." And I joked, with all respect ... if Sam Zell had done that, maybe people wouldn't be so upset. Didn't cut his profits. I'm taking a 12% cut, all of my employees, all of my mayoral staff employees, are going to ... [not] take the cost of living, just to start off with. And so I'm saying to these guys, "Hey, if we end up here, where we're cutting 2,800 ... we don't have to get to this. If we get to this, it's because you marched them down that road."
I know what happens in this town if I were to cut fire and police in this town. Let me tell you something: Nobody's successfully done it, and I'm not going to do it because my priority is fire and police. ... Let me tell you something: We do have the best fire department; the county's not even close - the best fire department. Before we lost those 500 homes at Oak Hills, we hadn't lost a structure in 10 years. Our guys are the best. Our police department, now that we're on the reform - you know, they've always been the best trained; now they're a community-friendly and reformed department, at least on the road there. There's no question that keeping this city safer on both those accounts has got to be preserved here. ...
You've got to understand something: different than New York. I love my two friends in New York and Chicago, but they got an easier job, let's be honest. They don't have Prop. 13, they don't have Prop. 218, they can raise taxes with a majority vote -- I don't have any of that. ... I can't just say, "I'm going to be tough." I can't do that. There are a lot of limitations on what you can do. ...
Robert Greene, L.A. Times: Mayor, do you know how many more people the City of Los Angeles is employing today than it was four years ago? ...
Villaraigosa: I think we probably have, in that period of time -- I know that we've hired a net of 730 police officers, so that's 730 there, but I promised that, I made a commitment ... to do that. I know that we've grown, in the last three and a half years -
Michael Keeley, mayoral aide: So this is from '99 ... we went from 33,000 to - this does not include the proprietary, so you've got charts that show 50,000, including the proprietary and things like that - it peaked at 37, it's down to 35, as proposed in the year's budget.
Greene: So, what that question gets at, when you're looking at keeping the city workforce intact, have you made a decision that this is about the right size of a workforce that this city needs for the near future, or is there a certain escalator that you have envisioned? In other words, is this the proper proportion of city workforce, city workers to city residents? Or are you looking at growing it over time, shrinking it over time?
Villaraigosa: Truthful answer, I don't know. I can tell you in some places: I think we need more police officers. I think even 1,000 - 1,000's the goal, but I think even - you know, Bratton said that a city this size should have 12,000. And remember, as safe as the city is today - I don't know if you've seen the Part 1 crimes. The homicides are even down, they're down double digits from last year. These are numbers that are important, but if you live in South L.A. - I mean, I was in Watts yesterday. In three and a half years, Part 1 crimes, since I've been mayor, Part 1 crimes are down 50% in Watts - 50% in Watts. But you know what? All I heard from the parents at Markham [Middle School] yesterday, "Sir, it's not safe enough, it's not safe enough." So it's relative, you know? In those places, it isn't safe enough still.
So I think we should grow our police department. I think our fire department is about where it should be. I think, I can't tell you about the other departments much. I think we need more support in Rec and Parks. I think we need more support, maybe not more employees, but more support in street services. ... We're going to need more DNA analysts and crime lab people. We need more civilians in the police department so that we can put more of those police - but right now with this budget it's going to be very difficult to do that. I mean, people like to write stories about it, but the fact is, you know, that costs money to put all those folks in those jobs, and a lot of money.
I know police department, I know some of those departments. I can't tell you that anybody's ever studied exactly how many employees we have versus what they do. I don't know that anybody's ever done that.
Keeley: And I think the constraints the mayor mentioned imposed by Prop. 13 and 218 really can't be overstated. So even if we had a study that said we need more people doing X or Y or Z, at the end of the day, the mayor has to propose a balanced budget, we have to live within our means, and without going to the voters under 218 or Prop. 13, and even then you might need two-thirds approval in many cases, it really doesn't matter what the studies say. You objectively required, and you have to live within your means.
Greene: But there are critics of many governments including this one, who specifically say that, well, the workforce is just too large, and that's the problem. That's why we've gotten into a budget situation, and we're sure anecdotally, we'd be able to find some people here, some people there, and I just wonder to the extent to which you have a study that says -
Villaraigosa: I don't. I don't have one, and maybe we ought to look at that, but my sense is there are some places where we could be overstaffed, and there are places where we could be understaffed. ...
Newton: So are police officers getting zero this year?
Villaraigosa: Beg your pardon?
Newton: Zero for the [Police Protective] League?
Villaraigosa: Beg your pardon?
Newton: Are you giving them a 0% raise? They're out, right?
Keeley: There's nothing in the budget to cover raises. We're in negotiations still.
Villaraigosa: That's what we'll say: We're in negotiations, and of course everything is on the table, but there's nothing in the budget for a raise - for firefighters either. In fact, there's a 10% cut in the salary account for fire and police.
Keeley: Well, everybody really, but yes, fire and police.
Villaraigosa: But yeah, fire and police. It'll never work, by the way. I know you don't think I have the whatever to do it, but it's got to happen in DWP too, because if it just happens everywhere else, everybody's going to go nuts.
Newton: Didn't DWP just get its raises a couple years ago?
Villaraigosa: Well, raises, but again, there are layoffs, there are furloughs, there are a lot of things. It's the only way it's going to work. Otherwise, this will never work; people will not do shared sacrifice.
You know what I heard from teachers yesterday? They said, "What about chopping from the top? Start there at the top first." One of the things they're arguing, and I agree, that even though the superintendent made a 50% cut in the administration, they need to pick that number up. Everybody. I mean, that number needs to go up. And see, this is the difference, a good thing for us: For the first time -- well, last year was the first time -- the unions do not question our numbers. We've been open and transparent, nobody says, "Nah, you're hiding money." They're not questioning our numbers -- even the police union has not questioned. They don't like what I'm saying, and they're going to try to make this about public safety; both of them are, you know, about I'm undermining cops and firefighters, I'm putting them at risk -- you know, all the stuff. But now I'm saying, "Uh-uh, you are. You can avoid this by helping out." So we'll see if it works; maybe it doesn't work. ...
I think, and not to put pressure on me, you know, it's going to test my resolve. I either have it or I don't. And the reason I'm going out on the campaign trail on this, kind of like the president, is that I know I need to get other people in here with me. I need to get the public, who -- the public buys into this. This is a no-brainer for the public. ...
I've got to get a broader conversation, otherwise we lose. ...
Newton: So have you taken a salary cut at this point?
Villaraigosa: Yeah, I took 12%.
Newton: From what to what? What did you make last year, what do you make this year?
Villaraigosa: I don't know what I make. I make 200 and something thousand.
Keeley: We said yesterday 223 to 196 approximately.
Villaraigosa: Is that what I'm getting, what a 12% cut means?
Keeley: Yes sir. Is that not the right answer?
(laughs)
Villaraigosa: Last year I didn't take the 4.3%. I didn't make a big press conference about it, I just didn't take it. And this year I'll take a 12% cut no matter what happens. ... All of my employees won't take a [cost of living adjustment]. What I don't want to do, if you remember, I got rid of my cars last year, half of my cars; the Council didn't get rid of half of theirs. So I'm not giving up my employees. My employees did almost all, they did the biggest chunk - there's only 300 of them - and they did the biggest chunk of the voluntary furloughs. I'm not putting them on the sack, you know, on the, you know, like that again. That wasn't fair, because the deal was everybody was supposed to do voluntary furloughs, so I'm not going to put that on them. I told them, "You got to do at least what they do, maybe a little more, but you're not doing it first because at some point people got to be fair." But they are doing this first. They're going to not take COLAs, period. But how much they go beyond that is going to depend on, you know, are we all playing on a level playing field. But me, period, done. ...
Greene: You mentioned at the beginning ... Prop. 218, and that notwithstanding 218, you still want to get a portion from cost recovery. What'd you have in mind?
Villaraigosa: OK, less than 1% is cost recovery. It will primarily be building safety, fire department, and then ... planning, and then we're also look at -
Keeley: Storm water pollution abatement.
Newton: So they're all fees.
Keeley: Yes, these are fees.
Villaraigosa: But they're all for full cost recovery. But that one, even though it's full cost recovery, we still have to do a 218 vote. So we have to have a vote. ...
You know I have a great relationship with [Chicago Mayor John] Daley and [New York Mayor Michael] Bloomberg because those are real mayors; I love those guys. And they'll tell you, they got a much, I mean, let's be honest: When you're Bloomberg, notwithstanding he's a $12 billion man, my God, he's got power over the schools, power over the county services, he's got everything ... plus a legislature. They're 50 people, not 14, so they function as a legislature, not really -- they don't have near the power of a City Council. Daley also has a legislature. ...
We're trying to figure out other revenue. We're looking at the -- couldn't put it in this budget - we're looking at the zoo. You know the best zoo in America, San Diego? They don't own it. Most of the zoos now are public-private partnerships or owned by private entities. Cities don't own zoos. We spend $12 million -
Mayoral aide: No, 20.
Villaraigosa: $20 million? I'm getting the 12 mixed with something else. So we spend $20 million a year, not to mention the capital funds. ...
Since I've been mayor, the convention center has finally been in the black. But guess what? The AIG effect -- people are cutting their conventions all over the country because people can't travel anymore because they get beat up in the newspaper and on TV, so they're not going to travel anymore. So guess what? It's going to be in the red again this year. ... Most convention centers are either privately owned or public-private. They're not cities running them. ...
Greene: But should we not be concerned about the city selling these assets now at the bottom of the market rather than either - obviously, you can't turn back the clock, but that wasn't on the table before, or holding onto them until things improve and making a policy decision that it's not right for the city to run these things rather than sell them now because we need cash now?
Villaraigosa: There are negative consequences to everything, and I think you've got to weigh it in the end. First of all, if we determine, and we have experts who are helping us do this deal, if we determine that we are at the bottom of the market, then we're not selling it. That's not actually clear right now. ... We think we can get more than Chicago got, but maybe it is the bottom of the market and we don't want to do it. Right now that's not clear, it seems that it's a good deal for us. But you're right: One could write we don't like this deal ... but how to do you balance this budget?
David Lauter, L.A. Times: So speaking of protecting jobs, is [City Atty. Candidate Jack] Weiss going to make it back, or make it through?
Villaraigosa: (sighs) You know, I'm going to tell you something. Weiss is a man of integrity, intelligence, he is a former U.S. attorney who's best equipped to be the city attorney of this town, period. His views on public policy are consonant with this town and who we are. But I can't guarantee that. I mean, these guys can spend a lot of money. I mean, Don Novey's leading a charge. You know, I can't guarantee it. I can't tell you that I know for sure what's going to happen, but I can tell you he's a good man; he's a good man, and I think people need to take a second look. He is a good man.
You know, what is wrong -- I know, I mean, you guys would be writing -- let's be honest; you've got a Republican partisanship, Republican-Democrat partisanship in Washington and Sacramento that's gotten people sick. They're tired of it, so what's so wrong that the Council has given me a unanimous budget three years in a row? Do you think they just gave it to me because I got a smile? I had to work them; I had to go, you know, I have to -- you never hear me saying a negative word about any of them in public ever. I might say it, you know, privately, but I don't say it in public because I know I've got to work with these guys.
You know, I have a good relationship with him and [City Councilwoman] Wendy [Greuel]. What's so wrong with that? They disagree with me; they're not with me on everything. I have to work them. You know, it looks easier than -- but trust me, there's not a person on there on that council today that I don't have to work. I mean, I don't just bring them in my office and just say, "You're voting on this budget." Yeah, the same with, by the way, the school board or the MTA board, where we've been very successful. Trust me, you've got to work them. You know, and I'm always deferential to people, as much as you guys say I love the camera and all the rest of it; I'm deferential to them, I compromise, and when I need to, I make it clear: I am the mayor, and I'm not afraid of this job and the power that comes with it. I try to use it for good.
