Mayor Sanders has been busy promoting Props B and C, appearing all over town to speak with residents and media outlets in hopes of convincing voters to approve two crucial components of his plan to restore San Diego’s financial credibility and get us back in the black. On Nov. 7, we’ll be asked to decide if voters should have the right to approve proposed increases to the pension benefits city employees and elected officials receive (Proposition B) and if city jobs should be outsourced (Proposition C).

We say no, the city charter should not be amended to require us, the voters, to approve all future increases in pension benefits for city employees and elected officials. Prop B is a patch-job solution that may hurt the city more than help it.

On its surface, Prop B looks like an effort to increase transparency in city government and give voters a say as to where their tax dollars are spent when it comes to the touchy issue of city pensions, which is a large part of the reason City Attorney Mike Aguirre and Councilmember Donna Frye support it. But the problem with the measure is that the issue is too touchy for San Diego voters, for whom the mere term “city pensions” invokes negative connotations, to have a say about – just yet. Though Prop B would force the city to explain to the public how it would pay for any pension increases, which is a very good idea, the mistrustful masses aren’t going to be the fairest judges with which to entrust city employees’ retirement coffers with. Other options, such as a board comprised of elected and appointed individuals with legal and financial expertise in that area, need to be explored instead.

If passed, Prop B would take effect Jan. 1 and continue for 15 years. While we agree that pension benefit increases should not be decided solely by the city government, Proposition B is not the solution. Creating an oversight board may indeed be more expensive in the long run and difficult to implement, but that’s simply another hard truth the city is going to have to face.

No matter how long it takes for San Diego to get itself out of its financial mess, 15 years isn’t long enough for residents to forget that 1.7 billion of our tax dollars have been misspent. Ask us again in 15 years when things have (hopefully) settled down. Until then, vote no on Proposition B.

Voting yes on Prop C doesn’t mean numerous city employees will lose their jobs overnight. It means private companies will bid on city-run services such as waste disposal, garbage collection and general maintenance (though Sanders hasn’t specified which services will be put out to bid if voters approve Prop C), and if a particular city department can’t streamline operations and cut costs to match contractors’ bids then the service may be taken over by a private company – if a seven-member review board recommends the mayor go with the contractors’ bid, the mayor then approves that recommendation (or decides to continue with existing city-run services) and the City Council gives its consent.

The idea is that outside competition will force the various city departments to ferret out cost inefficiencies and streamline themselves, saving our desperately broke city fistfuls of money. And it means that if a particular city department can’t offer the same efficiency that a private company can, the city has the go-ahead to outsource that department’s services.

Understandably, union organizers vehemently oppose Prop C because it places unionized city employees’ jobs on the line. Other opponents argue bidding out services will perpetuate corruption, particularly regarding who gets appointed to the proposed seven-member review board, which would review the bids from both the city and from private contractors and then make recommendations to the mayor. Prop C’s opponents worry big-business cronyism and campaign contributions will influence who is appointed to the board, and that the city’s bids will then be overlooked in favor of the private contractors’.

However, Aguirre’s analysis of Prop C (Aguirre supports the measure) says that though the mayor will indeed appoint all seven board members – three city employees and four private citizens – the City Council must approve the appointments of the four citizen board members. And, according to Sanders, members of the board will not be allowed to compete for city contracts or to solicit employment from any company to which services are outsourced.

Opponents also worry that the details of how the measure will be put into practice aren’t clearly outlined, but as part of the plan, the mayor will be required to produce annual performance audits for contracted services and an independent audit will be required every five years.

Outsourcing makes sense. As long as appropriate safeguards are in place to protect against conflicts of interest and review-board appointments based on cronyism – which is where the City Council’s approval of four of the seven comes into play, as well as its approval of the final recommendations – the plan will be effective.