Opinion

1. Gilroy’s leaders failed to bring key issues to the ballot box

Battalion chiefs’ labor lawsuit against the city certainly about   ‘feeling royally dissed’

The revelation that the top 20 earners at Gavilan College earn more than $3.4 million a year, or about 15 percent of the total personnel costs at the college, begs this question: Are they worth it?

1. Choosing which is more astounding no easy task

Athlete of the Year at the high schools should include criteria for academic performance

• No, do we really need government regulating the size of our soda cups but allowing marijuana sales, alcohol sales and cigarette sales? Give me a break. • Yes. Not sure why we need to have more than 16 ounces. Also, there would be less waste. • No, 16 oz. seems to be a bit of an overreach. HOWEVER, I wouldn’t mind seeing action taken on much larger sized drinks. Banning huge drinks, locally, would be a small step taken in the right direction in getting citizens to recognize the physical and financial impacts on being fat and unhealthy for no other reason than eating poorly.  Some will argue that government should not interfere with culinary choices. However, when those decisions have huge financial impacts on our health care system, and inevitably all taxpayers, then government is obligated to act. 20 years ago, San Luis Obispo, made national headlines when it banned smoking in ALL buildings. Many argued against it in the name of individual freedoms. This once, outrageous government intrusion, is now widely accepted as common sense. • No. The idea is ridiculous just as it is in NYC. There is an equally ridiculous idea before the council now regarding smoking in parks and the big issue is enforcement, which would also be the case for soft drinks  Banning soft drinks over 16 oz. would be another law to punish business. • Too much “Big Brother” for me.  NO!! What happened to “This is a free country?” Let people decide for themselves whether or not they want to super size their drink. Who would enforce this ban anyway? The police need to be addressing real crime, not something as stupid as this. • Oh sure why not, then everyone will lose a lot of weight and stop cracking the sidewalks and the city’s problems will be over. NO! • No. Free choice is something we value, and if people choose to drink that much soda it is their choice. Wrong, but their choice. • No. This is government overreach. I do agree with limiting nutritionally questionable items within the K-12 school campus. That said, obesity is an epidemic in our country, and all of us are bearing the health care burden for those who choose to do harmful things to themselves, including eating junk food, smoking and drug use. A cultural shift through comprehensive public communications programs is a better way for our government to promote health in our communities. • No. Unlike smoking, soft drinks don't give off “second hand calories”. I believe it would be infringing on a person's personal rights. I don’t think anyone should drink sugary soft drinks very often, but that is my personal choice. • NO! I do think it would be very responsible for theaters/fast food establishments to offer smaller sizes and if they were really responsible they would make the larger sizes less attractive by increasing the price differentials between small and BIGGIE. • Hell no! I think our taxpayers have a lot more to be concerned about then limiting soft drinks over 16oz.n Pretty Big-Brother-silly. Let's educate. We have made the diabetes epidemic ourselves. Parent education, removing empty calories from school lunches, community gardens, youth physical activity opportunities, good health education. I support all, but the legal rout? No thanks. • No! Consider the source (Michael Bloomberg). According to da Mayor “One doughnut’s not damaging; it’s lots of doughnuts that are damaging. All we’re trying to do with full-sugared drinks is to give people encouragement to do things in moderation.” If you follow his faulty logic to its reasonable conclusion, we will have to downsize all food packaging and limit the purchase quantities. I see individually wrapped tofu cubes in our future!

GOP presidential candidates have the ‘foreign born’ problem

1. One of the key points in building a relationship is listening

• Certainly not higher than $200k. At that, this would be very generous. • $150,000 – he does a great job and that is a great compensation! • At the level of enrollment, he should be receiving close to $150,000 and perhaps some performance-based bonuses. • $150,000 or commensurate with  community college president salaries and benefits of comparably sized institutions. • The compensation level should be tied to the rate-of-pay of the rest of the employees. One formula could be 10% more than the highest paid employee. Another might be no more than 75% more than the lowest paid full-time employee. After applying some formula, the board needs to look at enrollment, budget, accomplishment of goals, customer (student and taxpayer) satisfaction, and faculty assessment. What we know for sure is that the current compensation is way out of line. • $250,000.  He’s already at that level, or pretty close.  It would be insulting to reduce his salary. Future salary increases need to be thoughtfully considered, though, based on Gavilan’s revenue, cuts to services, public opinion and salary comparisons of all Gavilan staff. It seems that top level staff receive hefty compensation packages while rest of personnel receive no raises or salary cuts to bear the burden. • Somewhere about $165k seems fair. • Our Gavilan College President has a payment contract as of last year. I have no idea what a president of a JC should be paid, but I’m guessing the amount can exceed $250,000 since his total amount when the payment contract is completed will be $276,000. • $200,000 is fair and reasonable • A very reasonable salary and benefit package should be $150,000. Then, attach an aggressive bonus plan of up to 25% of the package that rewards recipent based on Steve’s production.  Part of incentive plan must be related to how the student and taxpayer benefits from his leadership. Our elected officials have gotten way off course by chasing a false philosophy in which it is believed that to get great public sector managers, you must pay them private sector wages.  Higher salaries can be justified and  sustained only when they are tied to financial risk. If public sector managers want higher salaries they can find them in the private sector. • “Researcher John Curtis said that, according to a recent survey conducted by his organization, the compensation of public community-college presidents range from $81,000 to $390,000, not including extra benefits for housing and car expenses. The size of the salary is influenced by the size of the school, its location and the number of its students and employees.” Given this information, I think Kinsella's salary is too much for the size of the Gavilan student body. His salary today makes sense in a school that serves over 35,000 students at least – Gavilan has less than 6,000 students. The Trustees depend on him and his expertise, but competition for jobs is healthy and should be practiced for Gavilan’s presidency in the future, given that student fees are increasing and more students are relying on financial aid to finish their schooling … $150,000 to $200,000 is more reasonable.

• 1.5% to 3% depending on the benefits package. As it stands, the benefits package is so comprehensive it would be more than fair to offer a 1.5% cost of living increase. That said, I do appreciate very much all that our GPD does for our community and they should be compensated fairly. • 1.5%. I also feel that the police should be paying into their pension and medical programs and not expect taxpayers to pay them for the rest of their lives. • No raise. It’s too soon to come out! This is going to be a long and bumpy recovery. • 1.5%, just to show appreciation for what they do.  Any other increases should be on an individual basis based on performance. • No raise. During difficult times, every employee of the city should understand that sacrifices must be made by all.  For instance, Boise, Idaho’s police department have already decided to give up a 2.5% raise they were going to receive in October, 2012. This move will save their city $1.2 million.  We all need to step up to help our community. • Out here in real life, especially in the non-profit world (I think the city