Credit: The Bakersfield Californian, Lois Henry 

So, Alexander Haig is alive and well, and apparently serving on the Bakersfield City Council in the guise of Zack Scrivner.

Lest there was any question, Scrivner answered it last Wednesday with a Haig-esque “I am in control here,” op-ed piece about just who’s pulling the strings on negotiations with the police union (fire too, I presume, but he didn’t mention them).

“Let’s be clear — the city manager is an agent of the City Council; he follows the council’s direction,” Scrivner wrote in reference to a recent ad campaign by the Bakersfield Police Officers Association lambasting City Manager Alan Tandy for holding up negotiations over the 3-at-50 retirement benefit in which an officer retiring at 50 gets 3 percent of his salary for every year worked.

Okaaay, Mr. Vice Mayor, you want credit for this mess, you got it.

The police union leadership has publicly stated that they’d be willing to negotiate ways to help save the city money on 3-at-50, a program that so rankles a certain faction of the Council (Scrivner and Ken Weir), if only the city would talk to them. And the fire union even made formal offers to save the city money including giving a percentage of any pay raises to help defray costs and having new employees pay the city-funded portion of their pensions to CalPERS.

At every turn the city’s response  — I guess that’d be Scrivner’s response — has been a resounding “POUND SAND!”

Police have been without a contract for two years and are now at impasse.

Firefighters have been without a contract for over a year, but are still in negotiations.

Wow, excellent work, Scrivner!

While he was asserting his authority on this matter, Scrivner also included a little IED in his editorial.

In earlier negotiations, the city had been demanding that new hires for both unions begin with a 3-at-55 retirement benefit.

But in his op-ed column, Scrivner said: “Other plans are available, such as returning to the formula of 2 percent at 50, which was the rule until December 2003; that guaranteed a 30-year employee 60 percent of his salary. This was a generous benefit; returning to it would save the city millions.”

Union presidents told me that a day or so after his editorial, they both received notice from the city that a letter to withdraw all previous offers would be on its way.

Hmmmmm. Lets review the timing:

• May 20, the City Council met in closed session and voted to give their negotiator new directions.

• May 27, Scrivner’s column appears, casually mentioning a 2-at-50 retirement benefit.