Showing posts with label Open Government: Mission Unfulfilled. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Open Government: Mission Unfulfilled. Show all posts

July 11, 2014

The last day to submit FCC comment on network neutrality is July 15 2014


The last day to submit FCC comment on network neutrality is July 15 2014. This is it folks. If you want blogs and small non corporate websites to have a chance to make a difference in the world this is it. Tell the FCC's Tom Wheeler than corporate greed is not ok and that he should look out for us, the ones he is sworn to protect, not his country club buddies from the cable industry that spewed him forth (We are aghast at the fact Obama appointed him). Yes Mr Wheeler you are a Dingo watching our baby. Wheeler disagrees

You can make a comment here.  Email address not required. This is your last chance to tell the FCC what you think. This is more effective than writing to Congress. After this they have to finalize the rules to deal with this defeat (thanks again to the Supremes) you can also send an e-mail to make your opinion known at openinternet@fcc.govr or direct a tweet to Wheeler @TomWheelerFCC

These are all the comments so far (205,000)   This is the FCC press release as of may 15 calling for comment.

Other good background info: PBS on the future

Kickstarter

Businessweek: Wheeler Backtracks

Vox: Beyond Net Neutrality

Vox: Pressure on FCC

Vox: What is neutrality

And Last but not least, Susan Crawford's Book on the issue


Lakewood Accountability Action Group™ LAAG | www.LAAG.us | Lakewood, CA | A California Non Profit Association | Demanding action and accountability from local government™ | click here to receive LAAG posts by email

July 7, 2014

Lakewood is correct in opposing a California Assembly resolution which seeks to eliminate the ability of cities to outsource services

The City of Lakewood is opposing this California Assembly resolution (also reprinted below as of this posting; House Resolution No. 29) which seeks to eliminate the ability of cities to outsource services, including law enforcement and fire. The problem of course is that those two services are just provided for other government bureaucracies (LASheriffs Dept.; LACoFire) so there is no threat to government unions. Don't fret Assembly Democrats. Now as for trash services and street sweeping etc, as the recent price increase in Lakewood suggests, we need to make sure there is full transparency at the city level for all services provided. Transparency heads off problems (like this Assembly resolution) but people at the city of Lakewood try their hardest to keep things "hidden" in plain view. ["oh you can always come into the clerk's office and ask to see a document"...yeah like voters have the time, energy and know how to do that...they can't even find time to vote!] All documents regarding outside contracting need to be posted on the city's website. How many times have we brought this up? What are you afraid of [Lakewood City Council] if someone sees an outside services contract? All those contracts should have a clause in them that says they are to be web posted as well as all documents that relate to the contract. Don't like that Mr. Contractor then don't contract with the city. Can you imagine how much Lakewood services would cost (i.e. taxes) if we had to pay government union level benefits and wages to all service providers? We are already paying outrageous sums to "grass cutters" for parks and center medians vs what private contractors would likely cost. This resolution is opposed by cities and of course supported by bloated over priced public unions who are bankrupting the state. This Assembly resolution needs to be stopped...now. And they way to do it is with more transparency.

Amended IN Assembly April 03, 2014 Amended IN Assembly March 13, 2014 CALIFORNIA LEGISLATURE— 2013–2014 REGULAR SESSION House Resolution No. 29

 Introduced by Assembly Member Gomez (Coauthors: Assembly Members Alejo, Ammiano, Atkins, Bloom, Bocanegra, Bonilla, Bonta, Bradford, Buchanan, Campos, Chau, Chesbro, Dababneh, Dickinson, Fong, Frazier, Gatto, Gonzalez, Hall, Roger Hernández, Holden, Jones-Sawyer, Lowenthal, Nazarian, Pan, John A. Pérez, Quirk, Rendon, Ridley-Thomas, Rodriguez, Skinner, Stone, Ting, Weber, Wieckowski, Williams, and Yamada)

 February 04, 2014 Relative to outsourcing public services.

LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST HR 29, as amended, Gomez.

WHEREAS, Public services and assets are the fabric that binds our communities together. They are also a ladder to the middle class; and WHEREAS, Faced with severe budget problems in the wake of the Great Recession, state and local governments across America are handing over control of public services and assets to corporations that promise to operate them better, faster, and cheaper; and WHEREAS, Outsourcing these services and assets often fails to keep these promises, and too often it undermines transparency, accountability, and shared prosperity and competition - the underpinnings of democracy itself; and WHEREAS, Outsourcing means that taxpayers have less say over how future tax dollars are spent and have no ability to vote out executives who make decisions that could harm the public interest; and WHEREAS, Outsourcing means taxpayers are often contractually limited to a single for-profit corporation; and WHEREAS, Outsourcing frequently means that wages and benefits for public service workers fall and the local economy suffers while corporate profits rise. The Center for American Progress Action Fund has found that of the 5.4 million people working for federal service contractors in 2008, an estimated 80 percent earned below the living wage for their city or region. For-profit corporations are three times more likely than the public sector to employ workers at poverty-threshold wages; and two million private sector employees working for federal contractors earn less than $12 an hour - too little to support a family. That is more low wage workers than are employed by McDonald’s and WalMart combined; and WHEREAS, Outsourcing means that taxpayers often no longer know how their tax dollars are being spent. Meetings and records that used to be open to the public can become proprietary information when corporations take over; and WHEREAS, The Taxpayer Empowerment Agenda is one model that may help ensure transparency, accountability, shared prosperity, and competition in the operation of public services and assets; and WHEREAS, Planks in the Taxpayer Empowerment Agenda would require governments to post information about their contracts online and require contractors to open their books to the public, ensure that governments have the capacity to adequately oversee contracts, to cancel contracts that fail to deliver on their promises, prohibit law breaking companies from getting government contracts, require contractors to pay their employees living wages and benefits, require competitive bidding on contracts that guarantee company profits at the expense of taxpayers; and WHEREAS, Recent polling shows that taxpayers oppose the outsourcing of public services and assets to for-profit companies and support these common sense controls to ensure that their interests are protected; now, therefore, be it Resolved by the Assembly of the State of California, That the Assembly opposes outsourcing of public services and assets, which harms transparency, accountability, shared prosperity, and competition, and supports processes that give public service workers the opportunity to develop their own plan on how to deliver cost-effective, high-quality services; and be it further Resolved, That the Assembly urges local officials to become familiar with the provisions of the Taxpayer Empowerment Agenda; and be it further Resolved, That the Assembly intends to introduce and advocate for responsible outsourcing legislation; and be it further Resolved, That the Chief Clerk of the Assembly transmit copies of this resolution to the author for appropriate distribution.

Lakewood Accountability Action Group™ LAAG | www.LAAG.us | Lakewood, CA A California Non Profit Association | Demanding action and accountability from local government™ click here to receive LAAG posts by email

April 21, 2011

Here we go again?

This is starting to become a problem. Now that city budgets are getting tight in the downturn the ugly truth is coming out: mismanagement or worse, fraud and deception. Again like with City of Bell we keep saying this is due to lack of transparency and voters and media that just dont want to take the time to scrutinize what is going on a local level and everyone is so obsessed with state and national political circus played out every day. Well this is where the news channels needs to focus their energy. Real investigative reporting at the local level. With all the media we have today there is more than enough to cover local politics properly. Without the drama and party bickering that overtakes state and national politics. But if the media does not shine the light on this type of stuff then voters will never see it. Quite frankly the two reporters that broke the City of Bell story last year deserve the Pulitzer.


State controller orders audit of city of Montebello, saying there's evidence of false financial reports

April 21, 2011
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2011/04/allegation-of-fake-financial-reports-prompts-outside-audit-of-troubled-montebello.html

The state controller took the unusual step Thursday of ordering an outside audit of the struggling city of Montebello, saying there is evidence the city produced false financial reports dating back several years.

The action, which marks the first time officials have launched a full city audit since examining wrongdoing in Bell last year, marks an ominous turn for Montebello, which is in danger of running out of money later this year.

The working-class city east of downtown L.A. has been mired in budget problems and allegations of mismanagement and missing money for months. Last week, the city manager brought in to clean up the mess abruptly resigned. Peter Cosentini warned councilmembers that former city officials for years had used accounting tricks to hide the true nature of the city’s financial picture, making it seem as though the city had more money than it actually did.

Montebello officials discovered more than $1 million in two off-the-book bank accounts. That prompted a probe by Los Angeles County prosecutors that is still ongoing. Last month, Montebello officials said they solved the mystery, claiming the money went to a local developer as part of a complex loan to build a restaurant in the city.

In a letter to Montebello announcing the audit, state Controller John Chiang said the city was out of compliance with state laws because it had not submitted annual audits and financial reports to the state. Chiang also cited comments made by several city officials to The Times and others that financial reports might be inaccurate and included false information.

“I have concluded that there is reason to believe that the Annual Report of Financial Transactions … [is] false, incomplete or incorrect,” Chiang wrote.

Montebello Councilwoman Christina Cortez, a critic of the city’s past financial dealings, said she welcomed the audit.

“It’s unfortunate that nobody in the city understood the severity and seriousness of all the illegal activities that have been going on,” she said. “I’m glad we are finally getting a third party to investigate.”


Lakewood Accountability Action Group™ LAAG | www.LAAG.us | Lakewood, CA A California Non Profit Association | Demanding action and accountability from local government™ click here to receive LAAG posts by email

April 7, 2011

Transparency and Open Government in Lakewood: Larry Van Nostran does not get it

The only thing that happened to LAAG's transparency pledge we sent to all candidates (including Larry Van Nostran) on 2/17/11 was that they used it for campaign fodder/spin but did not learn anything from it apparently (or heaven forbid agree to take the pledge, with the exception of candidate Marisa Perez). We watched the 3/22/11 city council meeting (first one after the 3/8/11 election) with interest and Larry Van Nostran did not disappoint. Larry’s quote from the 3/22/11 meeting: “Recently transparency has become a great buzzword and well Lakewood has for more than 30 years has communicated with the residents about all aspects of civic life, in the newsletter, on cable TV, through direct mail and public meetings and now on line”. As my third promise to you we will continue to listen to your ideas on improving transparency and we will explore this year [2011] how we can increase your ability to become involved in city government.”

Form this short quote it is obvious that Larry cant see the difference between "spin" and "transparency" (also known as "open government"). Lakewood Living Newsletters, bill stuffers in the water bill, Lakewood Community News (the free Lakewood Chamber “throw away” paper). Those are all examples of spin. This includes the Lakewood web site. Just look at the nonsense on the home page. Nothing revealing or meaty on the entire site. Just happy talk. Spin. The Press Telegram is hardly news. Its mostly regurgitated press releases from the city council. No investigative journalism there. Just a few tidbits of "news" ...just enough to sell ads. All the foregoing "media" always put the city and the council in a positive light (as this is how you get re-elected) Transparency is explained here (interestingly this granicus.com site is the same one that provides Lakewood council meetings on the web!) and here and how to implement it is set out here.

Larry also made a number of other "promises" that night. His promise number 1 was to prevent blight through code enforcement. Oh yeah they have such a great track record on that. So Lets apply the LAAG transparency “buzzword” to that claim/spin and see what we get. For example where is the listing of all actions taken on all properties in Lakewood under the so called code enforcement? What was done? Where are the before and after pictures of the property? What did it cost us in terms of redevelopment money, interest free loans or staff time to get that one property fixed? See Larry that’s transparency and how it differs from your version of it which is “spin”. Spin means you just say it in a soundbite enough times and magically it becomes gospel.

How did transparency become a great buzzword? LAAG made it so before the election. You did not hear it or see it in any Lakewood publications, or Lakewood's website (word never mentioned once on the entire Lakewood website)

Telling residents about "all aspects of civic life" like how and where to vote, or where the parks are is NOT transparency Larry. Sorry. Getting people involved in your crusades based on your spin is not transparency either. So in other words Larry just because you want to pick a fight with the state like every other city over redevelopment money supported by our taxes, and get the residents to help you, that does not equate with transparency. So how do we apply the LAAG transparency “magnifying glass” once again to Larry's spin claims re the redevelopment money he wants? Well for one lets post how much Lakewood received in each of the last 5 years in terms of redevelopment money, where those funds came from (i.e. state taxes, local taxes etc.. be specific) and then how those funds were actually spent…on “studies” or consultants, meetings, trips, bogus organizations, or real shovels in the ground word to fix the blight? Again show us some before and after pictures of the "redeveloped" property so we can see with our own eyes what OUR tax money did (not private developer money). See Larry that’s the difference between transparency and spin. Spin by definition is not backed up by facts as there is no transparency. That’s what makes it spin.

Also note that Larry said that he (and the council apparently) would continue to LISTEN to OUR ideas on transparency. Not that they would implement any. Just listen to them. See how tricky politicians are? You have to parse their words very carefully. That's why Larry was reading from a script. Need to choose your words very carefully.

Also note how Larry said he wants to "increase our ability to become involved" in city government. What he meant by this is he wants to enlist you in fighting Sacramento and Jerry Brown to keep the city's redevelopment slush fund. (which really needs a transparency magnifying glass focused on it from the looks of this report) That was encoded in the rest of his speech. But again that is NOT transparency. Maybe astroturfing but not transparency.

LAAG is betting that its transparency pledge is not implemented. Simply because the more transparency there is the more questions will be raised. The more questions raised the harder it is for incumbents to get re-elected. So the incumbents have no incentive to create transparency. Get it?

Lakewood Accountability Action Group™ LAAG | www.LAAG.us | Lakewood, CA A California Non Profit Association | Demanding action and accountability from local government™ click here to receive LAAG posts by email

Posted Comment:

Transparency is NOT a buzzword it IS a policy of honesty and accessibility to our government. It is what taxpayers deserve and voters expect. Unfortunately, it is lacking in or city along with integrity... Lakewood living "released" a residential survey one month before the election and 6 months after it was taken! The "facts" were spun to favor the council and city management. No where does it state the demographics of the 400 residents (registered voters only) mostly white, elderly, working in our city in the upper income brackets, or how many times the same residents have been surveyed(information collected by phone only!) the "newsletter" left OUT a lot of facts like 2% of those surveyed want a dogpark or how many answers related to traffic! and safety or that residents stated "from neighbors" as their second way of finding info about city issues. in other words gossip. Information that a lot of times has no basis in fact. why? because the city and council will NOT allow residents to bring community issues to agenda. Cameras are turned OFF at council meetings so residents issues are never seen and there is no record of issues. The city also will not post important information residents need on their web site although residents have paid for countless computer upgrades! Questions to lakewood one take far too long to answer (keep in mind that the city staff enjoy 2 three day weekends a month more when monday holidays are connected. (that's why no furloughs are necessary) So city staff works part time anyway! so often several days pass! AND the information given depending on the subject matter is often wrong! Council Members have no email links to the city and no responsibility to residents to respond to problems once elected. Mr Van Nostran claimed "we are a safe city" KNOWING he had a serious home burglary situation going on at least a month prior to his re-election. He sat in on meetings promising to deal with the unenforced trucking issue on clark PRIOR to the opening of costco and has refused to acknowledge or deal with the escalating problem ever since breaking his word! Several neighborhoods are plagued with traffic and parking issues that destroy are safety, peace of mind , quality of life, and family budgets, Residents are forced to pay for and deal with situations and issues city policy has created and council refuses to address. Advocates for this city handled themselves admirably during this past election in the best interests of this city . I was one of them. It was hard to stand by and watch as the lines of religion and politics were so badly crossed. If these are the "values that dont change" I want nothing to do with them! I walk my talk and I have taught my children better by EXAMPLE! We will be ready in 2013 because times DO change!

February 21, 2011

The need for transparency in local government grows

See our related post on our proposed candidates transparency pledge

This story from the LA Times is quite timely given our prior post and sort of begs the question. Its hard to know what is going on in a city until you have the transparency. There is virtually no local media doing any investigative real journalism at the local level as they are all focused on state and national politics as that is where the headlines are. The problem is that most people fail to realize that the biggest quality of life issues can be at the city level and the biggest scandals can be there as well simply because there is no transparency or real journalism. It is much easier for Bell like scandals to take place, simply for that reason alone.

Again no one addresses what the down side to more local government transparency is. There is none that we can see when compared to the downside of not paying attention to what may really be going on beneath the surface. Even if there are not "scandals" going on, there simply may be things going on that voters do not agree with. But they will never know that under the current system.

Bell's corruption scandal has boosted scrutiny of other cities
City hall watchdogs are popping up across California to oust officials, scour public documents and organize rallies. But whether residents have rooted out corruption or just imagined it is up for debate.

latimes.com/news/local/la-me-lindsay-bell-20110221,0,4945039.story

By Catherine Saillant, Los Angeles Times
February 21, 2011

Reporting from Lindsay, Calif.
Advertisement

Awakened by the salary scandal in Bell, newly engaged citizens are turning out at community meetings and city halls across California, demanding public documents, asking tough questions and pushing for change.

The common theme is suspicion that something underhanded is going on in city government. But whether residents have rooted out corruption or just imagined it is up for debate.

In Hercules, a city of 25,000 north of Berkeley, Mayor Ed Balico stepped down in January after residents threatened to recall him. Balico was seen as being too close to a city manager who had already been pushed out following allegations that his relatives had received $3 million in affordable housing contracts.

Redlands council members considered dismissing City Manager N. Enrique Martinez in November after residents objected to his $231,229 salary, and residents in Chula Vista pressured the City Council to study the salaries of top officials.

Even in leafy, upscale Thousand Oaks, citizens are demanding big cuts to council members' health benefits.

But in the wake of the civic implosion in Bell, some of the strongest tensions between a city hall and its citizens are playing out in Lindsay, a tiny city smack in the middle of the San Joaquin Valley farm belt.

On a recent day, Lindsay's newest activists — two realtors, a corrections officer and a federal data clerk — sat around a dining room table, stacks of city documents in neat piles in front of them.

Six month ago, Yolanda Flores, Lorena Vasquez, Steve Mecum and his wife, Delma, didn't know a general fund from an enterprise account. Now they toss the terms around like budding lobbyists, eager to explain their suspicions of malfeasance at City Hall.

For years, Lindsay has struggled to overcome white flight, rising poverty, vacant storefronts and a 19% unemployment rate. City officials have spent tens of millions trying to reverse the slide, sprucing up walkways in the business core, building a new aquatic center and a sports and entertainment complex, and launching a Mexican-style outdoor market that reflects the city's predominately Latino population.

But some residents, including those gathered at the Mecums' rambling home, see a dark side to the work. The city manager, they say, was overpaid at $214,405 a year and city leaders showed favoritism in awarding grants and contracts. This fall, they rallied hundreds of residents to demand salary cuts, lower water rates and greater transparency at City Hall.

Things got so heated that City Manager Scot Townsend — the man credited with shepherding the redevelopment efforts — resigned after allegedly receiving death threats. Three other officials also quit, including the town's finance director and a City Council member. Allies said the four were weary of being verbally attacked.

Delma Mecum, a realtor, was questioned by the Tulare County Sheriff's Department about a flier left at Townsend's home that allegedly threatened the city manager and his family. Mecum flatly denied that anyone from her group sent the flier. But the Mecums are unapologetic about Townsend's abrupt departure.

"Things happen when no one is looking," said Steve Mecum, a correctional officer at nearby Corcoran State Prison. "And we walked into a big mess."

Angered and in the mood for change, residents in Lindsay enlisted the help of BASTA, the grass-roots activist group that has championed reform in Bell. Lindsay is one of at least five cities in California that have turned to the group.

Tucked against the Sierra Nevada foothills, Lindsay has one main corridor, Honolulu Street, leading into its downtown. Attractive aging brick buildings grace several blocks of a business core that includes an old movie theater with a high neon marquee and a family-run hardware store. The vibe speaks of a Mayberry past, when the city was thriving with two auto dealerships, an olive-packing plant and dozens of agricultural businesses.

Many downtown buildings are now vacant. The surrounding neighborhoods are filled with modest, single-story homes, the kinds that flew up after World War II. The sidewalks are busy with Latino mothers pushing strollers and surrounded by children. The white farming elite still hold many positions of power, but Latinos, who make up 80% of the city's population, increasingly have joined the City Council, business groups and civic associations.

When BASTA leaders arrived in the Tulare County city in October, armed with T-shirts and loads of advice, more than 800 residents turned out to meet them.

Unlike Bell, however, there is no united front among Lindsay's 11,600 residents.

At meetings, pro-City Hall forces sit across the aisle from critics and letters to the editors in the local newspaper rage back and forth between the two sides. Lorena Vasquez said she is sometimes snubbed by acquaintances at the neighborhood grocery store.

"We've been called thugs, a Mexican cartel and rabble-rousers," she said.

Beatrice Robinson, 32, was raised in Lindsay and remembers a tired, crumbling town with few things for young people to do. Now she sees promise.

"The leaders in the community have done so much," she said. "Mr. Townsend spent 20-plus years trying to bring up the people who unfortunately tore him down."

The uprising started in September when the Visalia Times-Delta published the salaries of Lindsay's top officials. Though modest in contrast to the extreme salaries handed out in Bell, the pay of the city manager angered some Lindsay residents.

Others were upset about high water rates charged by a city-owned utility and city documents that they said revealed low-interest home loans being awarded to City Hall insiders. Vasquez, a data clerk, said she was on a waiting list for seven years before she finally gave up and bought a house on her own.

Mayor Ed Murray said the city's critics are simply misinformed. Water rates are higher because Lindsay is unable to draw from polluted local aquifers, and Townsend's salary was higher than administrators in other like-sized cities because he was experienced in leveraging the state and federal dollars that made Lindsay shine, Murray said.

"When we hired him, we knew we were willing to pay more to get Scot to do those jobs, and he's done them well," he said. "But people didn't want to hear about that."

The mayor confirmed critics' assertion that many of the low-income mortgages were being awarded to city employees. The city gives preference to police, firefighters and teachers to encourage them to live in the city where they work, he said.

Murray believes that much of the dissent is based on misinformation, the long shadow of the scandal in Bell and frustration over the slow pace of economic recovery.

"We are not Bell," he said, noting that council members are paid $100 a month and receive no health insurance. "We're not awarding huge salaries and we're not giving the city manager $100,000 loans. Nothing illegal has been done here in Lindsay."

For his part, Townsend said he was disappointed to leave under a cloud but no longer feels bitter. He declined to talk about the alleged death threat.

"We had a great run. I got paid 10% to 20% more than my counterparts," he said. "And the citizens, it's their community and they have a right to ask how much you get paid."

Townsend now works as a real estate consultant and divides his time between Lindsay, where his oldest son is a senior in high school, and Salt Lake City, where the rest of his family settled.

Last month when the Lindsay City Council appointed a new member, they selected a social program case manager at the local school district over nine other candidates, including Steve Mecum, Vasquez and Flores.

Steve Mecum said he wasn't surprised, calling the social worker the hand-picked favorite of the other council members. Undaunted, he and other activists returned to City Hall the next morning to request documents relating to a local low-income housing developer.

"We're not going back to our couch to watch television," Mecum said. "We're going to see this through."

catherine.saillant@latimes.com



Lakewood Accountability Action Group™ LAAG | www.LAAG.us | Lakewood, CA A California Non Profit Association | Demanding action and accountability from local government™ click here to receive LAAG posts by email

February 17, 2011

The Lakewood transparency in local government pledge

Update: see related post on need for transparency and our Candidate Review


We are asking all Lakewood City Council candidates, and incumbents, to agree in writing (they can just reply to us and we will post their pledge as weak or strong as it is) to the following transparency pledge and to introduce legislation to insure that a city ordinance or section is added to the Lakewood municipal code to address all these issues below. LAAG will be glad to assist in this process in any way feasible.

Some of these ideas can be implemented immediately. Some will take longer but that is no reason for foot dragging. All are very technologically feasible and are already being done by other local government websites. These proposals are all very low cost and quite frankly will cost less than most of what the city has spent so far on technology issues (had the full budget been posted as it should have we would know that figure!!)

Why Lakewood voters/residents need this pledge

"Transparency" is the linchpin to ensuring that the city government does what its supposed to do. Quite frankly it is one of the most important factors to ensure a democracy remains a democracy.

What do China, Iran, Egypt, N. Korea and host of other repressive regimes all have in common? No free press but most of all a total lock down on any information being leaked out other than what the government wants to have leaked out. The best way to insure you win re-election is make sure the voters never find out anything bad might be going on at city hall. The best way to do that is keep all information off line and away from snooping voters. Then when you run for re-election just say you support things like law enforcement, parks, baseball and puppies. Then get 2500 of your friends to vote for you no matter what and you are in. The rest of the voters have no idea what is going on as there is basically no media or investigative journalism going on (unlike in most larger cities) so the vast majority of voters have no real reason to vote...nothing bad is going on right? This is the formula Bell city officials used. Seem familiar to you? If Lakewood voters (all 41,000 of them) really felt strongly in favor of a candidate don't you think they would get more than 6% of the vote (3% of the population)? 2500 votes is not a mandate or an endorsement. Its a glee club.

Elements of this proposal were presented to (now) Candidate Joy Janes in December 2009 as proposed state legislation to be introduced thru Assemblyman Warren T. Furutani (D-Lakewood) but nothing ever came of it (no surprise there) Interestingly Janes re-requested it on 10/26/2010 (likely to use in creating her campaign website!). So it is not really a big surprise that she lifted some of our ideas to add to her current "platform" (of course with no thanks or attribution to LAAG).

Candidate Jeff Wood stated in one of his his campaign fliers he "support[ed] transparency in local government" but again no details what so ever on his website or anything else we could find on him. Disheartening. But this is typical with candidates. Say as little as possible. Just enough to get elected. Talking points are best. Don't use detailed substantive platforms, just mention your endorsements and that you belong to the YMCA. Who cares! We will discuss the candidates in detail in an upcoming post.

Both Wood and Janes are also long time sitting city commissioners so one has to wonder if they are so "pro" transparency why have they not enacted any of these proposals on their own commissions over the last 5 years. Again talk is cheap and politicians will say anything to get elected. That's why.

On Jan 7, 2011 LAAG sent all the candidates a link to some recent Long Beach proposed ordinances regarding transparency (here and here) so really all the candidates and the sitting council members have had more than ample opportunity to adopt these ideas as a platform but did not. LAAG also has posted numerous articles dealing with transparency over the years. The real question for voters is why have the city council and the two sitting city commissioners Janes and Wood not done more so far? What are they afraid of?What is the excuse they are going to hide behind?

We proposed our state legislation in December 2009. The City of Bell scandal broke in July 2010. Amazing. Again transparency is the key to keeping local government honest and under control. Anyone that fights against transparency is highly suspect as a politician in today's web enabled environment. Again its the appearance of impropriety that is the issue here not actual impropriety. Secretiveness breeds distrust. Oh and don't fall for the line that "all this stuff is out there" as its not. People don't have time to dig thru musty archives are do Public Records Act requests which as costly and time consuming for both the requester AND the city. People are busy with their lives. Government should make it easy for citizens to check up on what their elected leaders are doing. That should be part of what our tax money does. Posting it on the Internet accomplishes that at a very low cost.

This is a work in progress and will will amend this as time goes on as we refine it based on what other comparable cities are doing.Obviously there is lots of detail missing here which we will also try to flesh out as time goes by.

General conditions applicable to all postings:

* All material (material includes documents, photos, video or any other information in any form) must be posted as soon as it is made available to the city or city council. Static documents (like organizational charts) or information must be updated at least quarterly.

* All material must be posted on the web for a minimum of 2 years from date of posting regardless of the date of expiration of the information or notice. City emails should be archived for 5 years.

* All postings must visibly indicate to the viewer the day, month and year of the original date the document or material was first posted to the web;

* All materials posted must be text searchable (this includes pdf documents which can be rendered text searchable before posting)

* All postings to the web must be fully available to the "spiders" and "crawlers" of all major search engines such as google at the time they are posted and at all subsequent times. The material must also allow web search engines to "cache" posted material.

* Any material posted can of course be redacted to exclude private information already excludable from current Public Records Act request responses, such as home addresses, home phone numbers, social security numbers, drivers licences, etc.

* Postings of documents or other material must not require special software that must be purchased to view it. When possible documents should be posted in HTML or in open source formats. Documents or material must be downloadable and able to be saved on a viewers computer.

* If possible documents should have a unique URL or web address for the documents entire existence on the web.

* Any third party hosting site may be used to post documents but it should be a reliable host such as google.com and the city must use the most cost effective posting site and protocol.

* There must not be a user fee or registration requirement for viewing or saving any documents or material.

* Any Sheriff's department (LASD) material or that from any other contractor in city possession is subject to the same rules as the city with respect to posting and Public Records Act requests.

* The city can link to external government websites where such data is already posted so as to avoid duplication.

Material/information to be posted following above guidelines:

* Organizational chart for the entire city by department, listing the functions, duties and areas of responsibility of each department, in addition to all commissions and the city council. Also list the top three persons in each department with a photo, as well as that persons direct extension or phone line as well as their cell phone number, if city funded. This must be updated quarterly. All other employees or contractors working in the department listed by name and title and direct email address (not a general one).

* City email addresses (name@lakewoodcity.org) for all commissioners, elected officials, city attorneys, code enforcement people or any contractors working more than 20 hours per week for the city.

* video of all council and other city public meetings and include all public comments full length (not cut off like now after 30 or 60 mins and public comments intentionally cut off) at all city meetings (timely released on Chanel 31 via Time Warner and Verizon FiOS) and posted on line in an on demand streaming format so that it can be viewed at any time. Link the FULL agenda package and meetings minutes (when completed) with it. example from long beach In addition there should be an online public comment ability so that people can comment in writing via the internet on all agenda items and these comments should be viewable by all and archived.

* all written comments to city council or commissions by any person or entity.

* all so called "press releases" or information provided to local newspapers such as the Press Telegram will be posted to the city website the same day it is sent to any newspapers or publications.

* all information or "notices" required to be (or which generally are) posted in the city clerks office (or publicly posted) or posted in a newspaper of general circulation in the city (even though the City claims Lakewood has no newspaper of general circulation; see Govt. code sections 6000-6159) must be posted on the website at the same time with dates posted and expiration dates and shall remain posted on the site for two years.

* post all rules relating to Public records act requests, costs for copies, time frames and who to write to for such requests (example) Allow non profit groups (or individuals that could prove they were working as a “private attorney general” or for the “common good” sort of speak) to obtain records without cost if provided electronically and less than 10 hrs of government employee time is required to obtain them. Create a maximum number of free requests per year. Create a realistic pricing structure for the cost of providing digital info via email as opposed to paper. See prior bills (2006) SB 1832 and AB 2927 and (2007) AB 1393. Post all requests and responses to public record act requests.

* post links to all salary info posted here (this state site was put up due to calls from LAAG and many others after the Bell scandal broke). Post all other city salary/pay/reimbursements/per diem information not requested by the state controllers office on a quarterly basis.

* Post all sitting council members FPCC filed materials regardless of date or link to them on the FPCC site.

* Post all staff reports and presentations to the council, including photos, power points and video.

* Full agenda packets with the full agenda. example from long beach

* full meeting minutes with all attached followup information referenced or attached and linked to the meeting video. example from long beach

* Detailed City budget in excell or html form. Not only forecast but actual expenditures and check register logs. Update this quarterly. Also log all incoming revenue and source as well as cash surplus.

* The city's checkbook register should be posted online. This information provided should include: The amount of each payment; Date; Check number; To whom the payment was made (including the address); Scan of Invoice or Purchase Order or Check Request (this often provides significant drilldown detail including who approved it); What it was for; Budgetary authority for the expenditure; Functional expenditure category; Sources of funds; Links to the relevant contracts under which the payment was made.

* all FULL survey results paid for or commissioned by the city including information on the approximate geographical location (by street intersection or rounded street address of those polled) and number of resident polled.

* public calendar of all private meetings and public meetings under the Brown Act along with dates times and locations as well as contact persons for the meeting and anticipated attendees or speakers. Similar to what is being done now but in greater detail.

* list all business licences that are current and have expired in the past three years searchable by business name and address within the city

* list all vacant commercial property updated quarterly searchable by address or former tenant (Ironically we saw a city employee walking the streets just today looking at vacant commercial property. When we asked him what he was going he said making a list of all vacant commercial property sites so the city can create a master list...hmmm..so the taxpayers are paying for the collection of the data they just don't get to see it....wonder why...is it foreboding? Does it show how ineffective the city's redevelopment efforts have been vs what we have paid for them?)

* list all redevelopment funds as spent or scheduled to be spent that budget year by address

* City contracts should be made available to the public once they are completed and become final. Placing completed contracts on line - with all private, personal information redacted - would support and demonstrate openness and transparency in government. The Sheriff's Department (LASD) should be included in this requirement.

* adopt as many of the ideas in the two Long Beach proposed ordinances (here and here) as possible to the extent any items were not mentioned in this LAAG proposal or to the extent the Long Beach proposals detail more information.

Lakewood Accountability Action Group™ LAAG | www.LAAG.us | Lakewood, CA A California Non Profit Association | Demanding action and accountability from local government™ click here to receive LAAG posts by email

Comments:

One anonymous poster (likely a plant or one of the candidates...thus the anonymity) was perplexed why we were "blaming" lack of transparency on the sitting commissioners and not the sitting city counsel. We weren't. We are not letting anyone off the hook either, especially those who claim to be campaigning on transparency and also currently sit on city commissions. All we are saying is that there is no "transparency policy" at this time, so there is nothing stopping commissioners from being transparent other than state law. We welcome any information from the commissioners themselves as to how they tried to do things like post full commission agenda packets (not just abbreviated ones), why they did not obtain and or post all their email addresses and info on line etc. The campaigning commissioners apparently have the time to run campaign websites but not enough time to post their own blogs like this ever since they have been on a commission and or post public items or documents from their OWN commissions on their own sites. Nothing illegal about this. I have not seen a case made by the commissioners noted above for holding them blameless for their own lack of transparency on their own commissions or why we should blame the city council for the commissioners own lack of diligence. LAAG is not saying that the commissioners should set policy for the whole city, the city council or the city website. But again we see no indication that transparency talk amongst the commissioners running is anything but campaign fodder.

January 4, 2011

Open Government Proposals..Finally

Its sad but apparently Long Beach has once again beaten Lakewood to the starting line. This time on "open government" or "transparency" proposals. We proposed state legislation on this two years ago as it affects local government but quite frankly Sacramento has too much on its plate now and is looking to offload more of its burden on to local government but that's another column. We felt the best way to get Lakewood to do something on transparency was to mandate it from the state level. But now perhaps they will be shamed into doing something not to be one upped by Long Beach (something they hate). LAAG knew the city council would never act on their own as transparency is not in the city councils interest. Its better to just put "fluff" on the website so Lakewood residents don't go sniffing around too much.

For some time we have linked (see our "web page links" on the right side of this page) to various open government websites like http://www.sunshineweek.org, http://public.resource.org, the Urban Governance Toolkit and the Sunshine review local government transparency checklist on our site and have requested that the city implement open government type initiatives through our postings on this site and emails. None of these initiatives cost anything but staff time, and from what we have seen the city staff in Lakewood has plenty of idle time on their hands and is quite frankly overpaid for it. Thanks to the city of Bell debacle, the California state auditors office posted its site regarding local government salaries, but not before LAAG had to request the info from the city via a public records request. More and more cities realize that transparency is badly needed at the local level.

Lakewood however does not and does not feel there is a problem. They feel if you need to know something you can ask but quite frankly your questions will be responded to with a polite "Thank you we will look into it" and then the door will be closed in your face and your request will be "lost" especially if you seek something that could put the city or its leaders in a bad light. If you are lucky enough to have the emails of city council members (also well hidden from view) you can ask them about certain issues, but most pawn you off to a "staff person" and the question is never really adequately responded to. The main reason is that if you don't have the time and expertise to to a California Public Records act request and the time to pour over the records, you likely will get no where. But most importantly if it is responded to at all, it is hidden from public view so that other Lakewood voters that have the same question and don't know where or how to get the answer are left in the dark.

Our city leaders of course feel there is no problem as they live "inside the bubble" not outside of it. Most are long time government insiders and know how to shield information from voters in a completely legal fashion. Its not hard. They have the city attorney to help them (who costs us hundreds of thousands per year). We have explained time and time again that its not so much that anything illegal or untoward is going on at city hall but secrecy and opaqueness breeds distrust. Its the "appearance of impropriety", or the potential for it the secrecy breeds, not actual impropriety, that's the problem. But like with Bell no one was the wiser until one of the thieves spilled the beans on the others. (we all know there is no honor among thieves). There really is no downside to openness and transparency at the local level.

For a further look at the Long Beach initiatives click here and here. They are a good "start" (if Long Beach does not "kick the can down the road" and delay their passing, implementation and funding) Both should be combined and could use a lot more fleshing out, detail and refinements. We would be glad to lend our expertise to the City of Lakewood in the endeavor should anyone care to listen over there in the bubble.

Lakewood Accountability Action Group™ LAAG | www.LAAG.us | Lakewood, CA A California Non Profit Association | Demanding action and accountability from local government™ click here to receive LAAG posts by email

September 3, 2010

State Controller's revised Local Government Compensation Report (LGCR) due Oct. 2010

On the heels of LAAG's PRA (public information request) to the city of Lakewood regarding salaries of all top Lakewood city employees in each city department, the State Controller's office just released its Local Government Compensation Report (LGCR) for Calendar Year 2009. This report is intended to collect salary, compensation, and benefit information for all elected, appointed, and employed personnel but not independent contractors. It includes staff for all dependent special districts, redevelopment agencies, or other component units that are supported by city or county staff or any staff for which the city or county issues a W-2. This report is required to be submitted to the State Controller on or before October 1, 2010. It will be quite enlightening to see all the cities in the state comply and how user friendly the State Controllers web site is in detailing all the results so that cities can be compared head to head by taxpayers. This is a step in the right direction with more to come. LAAG will stay on top of these developments. Thank you City of Bell for making all this possible.

Lakewood Accountability Action Group™ LAAG | www.LAAG.us | Lakewood, CA A California Non Profit Association | Demanding action and accountability from local government™ click here to receive LAAG posts by email

August 20, 2010

City of Lakewood responds to LAAG's public records request on city employee salaries

We find it sad and disheartening that Lakewood did not step forward right after the City of Bell scandal broke like so many other cities did and post something about city hall salaries. Not a peep on the Lakewood city website about Bell or the fallout. (typical given Lakewood's usual tendency to "duck and cover") Sadly it was incumbent upon LAAG to make the CPRA (California Public Records Act) request to get something posted for all taxpayers to see. Did the Press Telegram bother? No...Where were these folks before LA Times broke the Bell scandal? Or Attorney General Jerry Brown for that matter? (who is now closing the barn door after the horse got out).... Suffice it to say that we don't trust government officials to be looking into excessive pay of their pals across the hall in government. We were glad to get these Lakewood salaries for our readers but once again a lackadaisical attitude about what city hall is up to and giving Lakewood city leaders a "pass" by letting them continue to keep things "in the dark" forcing residents to do CPRA requests is the type of atmosphere that led to the Bell scandal. Now we see more people starting to "pull their heads out" and look closer at their city halls which quite frankly are run by "rank amateurs" in the best cases and by very suspect people in the worst cases we only now know about. Most are not really "qualified" managers. I guess that is the reason cities pay guys like Rizzo the big bucks...for their excellent management and wisdom.

As for the Lakewood city employee salaries the request once again was here and the response from Lakewood is here (in the original format). Draw your own conclusions.

The problem of taxpayers and whistleblower sites/blogs not watching this topic or their respective cities in general is becoming apparent now that the veneer of "assumed trustworthiness" is being peeled back. The Oxnard story, the Indio story and now Vernon are good examples of more aftershocks (again our hats off to LA Times) 

One of the things that irritates residents and taxpayers in the private sector is that we have born the brunt of the layoffs and unemployment in this recession; not the public sector. We keep asking people to show us one full time government unionized worker that has lost his or her job in the recession permanently. Any takers? We are listening. We'd love to post proof of one real government job loss in the entire state to compare to the hundreds of thousands in the private sector.

Secondly I am tired of the BS excuses that "well we need to pay these salaries as other cities do". Well prior legislation has set limits on city council pay to end that nonsense but not that of city employee pay. I think we need to set limits based on population like the city council. This is out of control. Why should Lakewood's City manager get paid MORE than the Long Beach City manager? Makes no sense. Again folks this is not capitalism. Its tax dollars. The same principles DON'T apply. We need a "race to the bottom" not the "top" when it comes to local government employees making over $100,00 a year. But do we really think Sacramento legislators want to cut their pals pay. Or even publish it like this?

I also get tired of hearing "well people in the private sector make more for the same job". Well first that is bogus. Read this article: Federal workers earning double their private counterparts  Secondly show me a public sector job that's the same as a private sector job. Don't exist. First public sector folks cant be fired and get benefits well beyond what any private sector worker gets. That is now painfully obvious. One retired fireman I know making 140,000 a year at age 50(!) said: Calpers is like "Amway on steroids"..lol indeed.

Another thing to keep in mind about the "low" city council salaries. Some council members already have "day" jobs in the public sector. The city council job is just icing on the cake letting them "spike" their Calpers pension benefits. We already have six (former Lakewood city employees BIEGEL, JOAN $112,153.08 yr; EBNER, CHARLES $129,820.20 yr; GONSALVES, JACK $119,698.44; RODDA, DAVID $139,251.48; SCHROEDER, LAWRENCE $116,251.80; STOVER, MICHAEL $154,147.56) in the Calpers $100,00 club (which they are in for the rest of their lives from age 50 on). (see story below) We don't need any more.  I know people in the private sector already looking at this "spiking" and "piling on" angle. Nice gig. The only people that get "golden parachutes" like this is the private sector are AIG execs and we all know how popular they are. But again if its tax dollars then LAAG really gets mad. We don't care about private money. If a corporation wants to charge high prices and pay its execs a ton of money then they will loose in the "price is all we care about" recession based economy of today.

Folks its time to get real about local government and start paying attention. Stop taking things for granted. You only have yourself to blame for not getting involved and not demanding transparency and accountability from your local elected leaders. We cannot afford to trust them any more. Do we blame the rank and file government employees for accepting a kings ransom for very little work? No we would all like jobs like that. We blame taxpayers for (1) letting local government elected leaders keep things shielded from taxpayers (not timely posted on the web in detail) and (2) taxpayers not calling the city leaders on the salaries pensions and benefits once they know about it and holding them accountable. The city leaders are counting on you to let them get away with murder right in front of you. And if you do they will stick it to you in the end as these salaries will last for LIFE.

Public service pensions over $100,000 per year skyrocket
By Troy Anderson, Staff Writer
Posted: 08/15/2009 04:49:50 PM PDT

At a time when government agencies are cutting back on law enforcement, health care for children and services for the poor, the number of public servants collecting $100,000-plus pensions - including one raking in nearly $500,000 a year - has exploded in recent years, in some cases tripling or even increasing sevenfold.

In Los Angeles County, the number of retired county employees receiving pensions of $100,000 or more has nearly tripled from 1,198 in 2004 to 3,096 today, the Daily News, a sister paper of the Press-Telegram, has learned through a series of Public Records Act requests.

Throughout California, the number of retired state workers collecting $100,000-plus pensions has mushroomed more than sixfold from 816 in 2004 to 5,115 now.

And the number of school administrators and teachers collecting six-figure pensions has rocketed more than sevenfold from 427 in 2004 to 3,088 now.

Los Angeles, excluding the Department of Water and Power, currently has 600 retirees collecting more than $100,000 a year.

"This is just outrageous to me," said Marcia Fritz, vice president of the California Foundation for Fiscal Responsibility, an organization that advocates statewide pension reform. "I would not have expected the number of ($100,000 pension club members) to have increased that much in the last five years."
Nearly $500,000 a year

The dubious honor of collecting the state's highest pension belongs to former Vernon City
Advertisement
Administrator Bruce Malkenhorst, who receives $499,675 per year - even though he is currently facing two counts of misappropriating public funds for allegedly taking $60,000 in city money for personal use.

Malkenhorst's attorney did not return calls for comment.

The second-largest pension goes to an undisclosed Los Angeles County government retiree who is paid $366,384.

As grand juries throughout the state are investigating pension systems, former Assemblyman Keith Richman, president of CFFR, said these huge pensions are the result of a "corrupt pension system."

California, Richman said, is the only state in the nation that allows employees to use their highest year of salary - including unused vacation, vehicle allowances, bonuses and other compensation - in calculating their pensions.

"The bottom line is we have very extravagant pension benefits that taxpayers can't afford," Richman said. "Pension-spiking has played a large role in this. We have public employees throughout the state who are retiring at age 50 and collecting more than 100 percent of their salaries, getting annual cost-of-living raises and lifetime health benefits."

But union leaders bristle at the suggestion that most public workers receive extravagant retirement benefits.

Barbara Maynard, a consultant for the Coalition of LA City Unions and the Coalition of County Unions, said only a small percentage of retired public servants receive "these exorbitant pensions."

"It's really upper management who are receiving these benefits," Maynard said. "The rank-and-file workers are really struggling to get by on very meager pensions averaging $40,000 a year."
Call for rollback

The revelations about the eye-popping pensions - a by-product of what officials describe as a "Cadillac" pension system elected officials have created at the prodding of public employee unions - come as Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, Los Angeles City Councilman Bernard Parks and others are calling on elected officials to roll back generous pension and retiree health care plans.

Schwarzenegger has estimated the unfunded retirement promises - the money the state has promised to pay over the lifetime of its employees and retirees without designating where the funds will come from - could be as much as $300 billion if investments don't meet projections.

When the state's first pension fund - the California State Teachers' Retirement System - was created in 1913, teachers who worked 30 years were paid a $500 annual pension, the equivalent of about $10,500 annually now. Over the years, other public pension systems were created and most were designed to pay public servants about half their salary in retirement.

In 1999 - at the height of the economic boom - labor unions aggressively lobbied state lawmakers to pass SB 400 - the "pension-boosting bill" - retroactively boosting pensions for state employees and allowing them to retire at younger ages with higher pensions.

Then in 2003, the California Supreme Court issued a ruling on a 1997 lawsuit allowing public employees to use bonuses, clothing and auto allowances, unused vacation and other income in calculating their pensions.

Since then, government agencies throughout the state have adopted similar plans and public employees - whose pensions are usually based on the highest year's pay - have used a variety of methods to "spike" their pensions shortly before retirement.

Now, even as the number of government workers collecting $100,000-plus pensions has skyrocketed in recent years, the pension systems charged with dispersing their checks have lost tens of billions of dollars in the stock and real estate markets.

As a result, the amount of taxpayer subsidies for these pension plans will have to be increased by billions of dollars in the years ahead, requiring more tax increases and cuts in public services.

The nation's largest public pension fund, the California Public Employees' Retirement System, has recently lost a third of its value, dropping from a high of $253 billion in December 2007 to $181 billion as of June 30.

Even before the historic stock market downturn, the annual taxpayer contribution to the fund jumped from $4.2 billion in 2003-04 to $7.2 billion last fiscal year.

CalPERS spokesman Ed Fong said the system is planning to meet with representatives from public employee unions and its 26,000 member government agencies to discuss ways to reduce costs to ensure retirees are paid the amounts owed them.

Despite failed efforts in recent years to reform the public pension and benefit systems, David Crane, special adviser to the governor for jobs and economic growth, said a growing number of Democrats and Republicans in Sacramento agree steps have to be taken.

While existing pensions can't be renegotiated, Crane said the governor plans this week to propose several reforms, including less generous pension plans for newly hired workers and increased retirement ages.

"I think the Legislature increasingly understands the nature of this problem," Crane said. "They have been issuing general obligation bonds regularly without voter consent to pay these benefits. But now the programs they care very deeply about are being shut down because we have to pay off these past pension promises."

In the same way as CalPERS recently lost a huge portion of its funds, the teachers system, CalSTRS, has dropped by a third from a high of $172 billion in 2007 to $119 billion as of June 30.

Even as taxpayer contributions to the plan have grown from $1.9 billion in 2004 to $2.3 billion in 2008, CalSTRS now says closing the shortfall will require legislative action to further increase contributions made by school districts.

Similarly, the county's taxpayer contribution to the Los Angeles County Employees Retirement Association fund is expected to increase from $805 million this year to $1.1 billion by 2011-12 as the fund has dropped in value since mid-2007.

But while county officials are confident they can afford the increased costs, Parks, the Los Angeles councilman, said the city's pension funds are "seriously in bad shape" and a rapidly growing proportion of the budget is going to pay for pensions and retiree health care costs.

In response, city officials are drafting a change in the city charter that would allow for the creation of a new, less generous pension plan for newly hired city workers.

Assistant City Administrative Officer Tom Coultas said the City Council could approve the new plan for civilian employees, but any changes for police officers and firefighters would require voter approval.

troy.anderson@dailynews.com, 213-974-8985


Lakewood Accountability Action Group™ LAAG | www.LAAG.us | Lakewood, CA A California Non Profit Association | Demanding action and accountability from local government™ click here to receive LAAG posts by email

August 6, 2010

City of Bell..the salaries are only the tip of the Iceberg (and the taxpayers are on the Titanic)

We read these two articles below and became even more outraged at the Bell scandal, which really is only just beginning from what we hear from multiple sources. Likely more cities will be drawn into this mess as they are exposed by the media frenzy fed by outraged taxpayers. CalPERS is totally out of control and is going to bankrupt the state. It already lost 40% of its value in the last few years and will be asking taxpayers to foot the bill for Wall Street's plundering. It needs to be reined in. These articles make that painfully clear. This is just the latest is a series of debacles at CalPERS. The inmates are in charge of the asylum now. You ask any public pension recipient about this mess and they just shrug their shoulders and laugh...and then say so what are you gonna do? There is no political will to get a grip on the public employee union problem. This current public taxpayer furor is short lived and is no match for the public employee union grip. This pension problem has been known publicly for at least 5 years (LAAG published stories about it in 2006) and yet nothing has been done. It will take a bankruptcy judge to deal with it. And that is where Calif. is headed.via campaign contributions and easy, direct access to politicians.


Marcia Fritz summed it up pretty well here and below. Its not the salaries that are the crime. Its the pensions. The salaries are but a mere tip of the iceberg.

CFFR’s president Marcia Fritz was on the CBS Evening News again last night. Here are the segment’s opening comments:

When the angry citizens of Bell, California, forced their outrageously overpaid city manager and police chief to resign, it may be the best thing that ever happened to the two. Consider the pension now due city manager Robert Rizzo.

“His lifetime pension will be roughly $30 million,” said Marcia Fritz of the California Foundation for Fiscal Responsibility.

And the pension due police chief Randy Adams.

“His lifetime pension will be more like $15 to $17 million,” said Fritz.

But it’s taxpayers in other cities who will be shelling out for these lavish pensions because in California every city or county an employee worked for has to pick up a portion of the pension. And the pension is based on the final year’s salary alone, reports CBS News correspondent John Blackstone.

Our editorial comments to the article are below in bold.

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2010/08/pension-fund-knew-about-high-bell-salaries-but-didnt-stop-them-memo-shows.html
Pension fund knew about high Bell salaries but didn't stop them, memo shows
August 3, 2010 | 6:39 pm

Officials at California’s state pension fund became aware four years ago of the exorbitant pay raises being given to administrators in the city of Bell and did nothing to stop them, according to an internal memo obtained by The Times.

The memo, which pension staff sent to board members today, shows that the California Public Employees’ Retirement System granted an exemption to its rules in 2006 so the Bell city manager could get a 47% pay hike and still receive a full pension on his salary.

The pension system learned of the salary hike during the course of an audit and informed Bell officials that the exemption would be needed.

“At the time, the city represented that the city manager was part of the top management groups or class, and all of the employees in this group or class received similarly large increases,” [LAAG: like we said before this was the scheme..he got more so we all get more too..that makes it ok if we all rip off the taxpayers as a group...] said the memo, written by Lori McGartland, head of the pensions fund’s employer services division. “Based upon those representations, CalPERS granted a one-time approval of the city manager’s 2005 increase.”

Just last week, CalPERS officials expressed surprise at the hefty increases for the then-city manager and two other top officials and ordered a freeze on their pension benefits pending completion of an investigation by California Atty. Gen. Jerry Brown. [LAAG: how silly..none of them getting the pension yet so its like freezing something that is not going to happen how lame]

The three have resigned but not applied to receive retirement benefits from CalPERS.

CalPERS spokesman Brad Pacheco said such large pay hikes can be permissible under CalPERS rules as long as they are spread out among a group of employees, as was the case in Bell, as opposed to enriching a single official. [LAAG: like we said before this was the scheme..he got more so we all get more too..that makes it ok if we all rip off the taxpayers as a group...the more the merrier...]

“Our job is to enforce the statutes that govern the retirement law,” he said in a statement. “Pay and compensation is the decision of city and county elected officials.” [LAAG: well looks like we better change the law and fast..or that may be like rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic]

But Pacheco said Bell officials may have violated other rules and regulations, and CalPERS is assisting law enforcement in their investigations. [LAAG: what!? you are just now looking at that? Also not your job? Great]

The memo states that CalPERS has expanded its internal probe beyond the city of Bell. “Staff is currently researching the pay of all CalPERS members paid in excess of $400,000 for appropriateness,” the memo states. [LAAG: What" How about in excess of 150k..oh wait that is all govt employees...]

-- Evan Halper and Marc Lifsher in Sacramento

latimes.com/news/local/la-me-bell-pensions-20100806,0,711701.story
latimes.com
Bell salaries raise more concerns about CalPERS
The state's embattled pension system did not act four years ago when it learned about the city's runaway salaries. The state attorney general and auditors express shock that nothing was done.

By Evan Halper and Marc Lifsher, Los Angeles Times

August 6, 2010

Reporting from Sacramento

The failure of the state's embattled pension system to take action after learning four years ago of Bell city officials' runaway salaries has put the fund under another unwelcome spotlight. [LAAG: I guess a good question would be what the top management at CalPERS makes and what their pensions will cost us..I guess they did not want to blow the whistle on this thing for fear that their own fat paychecks would be questioned. Once gain the you scratch my back Ill scratch yours buddy system. Here is a related CalPERS sob story for you.]

The state attorney general says he is shocked that nobody at the fund alerted law enforcement. Professional auditors are perplexed by the lack of follow-up that even board members at the California Public Employees' Retirement System are at a loss to explain.

During a routine audit in 2006, CalPERS learned that Bell City Manager Robert Rizzo had received a 47% salary increase the year before, driving his pay up to $442,000. CalPERS is supposed to stop pay spikes that can unduly enlarge retiree pensions, but officials signed off on Rizzo's raise because Bell's assistant city manager and City Council members were also getting enormous boosts. CalPERS took no further action. Rizzo's salary would eventually grow to nearly $800,000.

"A 47% increase in salary should have set off alarm bells," said California Atty. Gen. Jerry Brown, who is also the Democratic nominee for governor. "That kind of jump in pay is shocking and completely unacceptable. CalPERS should have told someone, and the attorney general's office would have been a good place to start." [LAAG: So Jerry why didn't you look into it yourself. Could you not hear any alarms? You are no newcomer to state pension ripoffs are you? Taxpayers have to deliver crimes to you on a silver platter? Is your AG office not the chief investigator and law enforcement officer of the state?...perfect timing though for your underfunded gubernatorial campaign. you cant buy press like this]

Documents released by CalPERS on Thursday show that the fund was also informed of a 42% raise for the assistant city manager and nearly 38% raise for City Council members. That brought council members' pay to $62,000 by 2005 for part-time jobs that in other small cities pay about $400 per month. The newly released records include Bell's explanation to CalPERS of why its officials were worthy of such salaries.

Assistant City Manager Angela Spaccia told CalPERs in writing in October 2006 that the city manager's salary was hiked "to reflect his contributions to the city," which included helping Bell resolve a multimillion-dollar deficit. She said her own pay hike was "provided to reward her for her efforts and new responsibilities" related to a promotion the city had given her.

"It should also be noted that the City Council, also members of the Executive Management classification, were compensated accordingly for their contributions and efforts toward the City's dramatic financial recovery," Spaccia wrote.

CalPERS responded a week later that the city had provided sufficient documentation to authorize "a one-time compensation adjustment" for the officials. The fund conducted no follow-up audits, and Bell salaries continued to soar.

The pension officials' handling of the audit has invited more scrutiny for CalPERS at a time when it is already reeling from a corruption scandal. Brown's office earlier this year accused the fund's former chief executive and a former board member of being engaged in fraud. A civil suit is pending in Los Angeles County Superior Court.

CalPERS has ordered a freeze on the pension benefits of the three highest-paid former Bell officials pending the outcome of an investigation Brown has launched. None of those former officials have yet applied to receive their pensions.

Brad Pacheco, a CalPERS spokesman, said there were no follow-up audits because Bell wasn't scheduled to be looked at until about five years later. Asked why CalPERs did not alert authorities to the salary spikes, he said: "We're not part of that chain of command. It was the elected city officials who negotiated, saw and signed the salaries and who are accountable."

But some CalPERS board members say the fund mishandled the situation.

Among those critics is state Treasurer Bill Lockyer, who says CalPERS staff never alerted the fund's board members to the audit's findings.

"There were no red flags raised for the board," said Lockyer spokesman Tom Dresslar. "That has to change."

He said Lockyer would propose rules requiring CalPERS staff to report to the board any audits that spot excessive salary hikes.

State Controller John Chiang, also a board member, said he would call on CalPERS to require that local governments "immediately notify the pension fund of any proposed salary increase that exceeds a reasonable level, along with a justification and the pay history for that position."

The controller's staff said "reasonable" might be 10% or less.

Political opponents of Lockyer and Chiang, both of whom are running for reelection in November, have sought to blame the two officials for CalPERS' handling of the audit. Lockyer and Chiang said the audit was complete, and CalPERs already had approved the salary hikes, before they joined the board.

Laura Chick, appointed by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger as the chief auditor of California's federal stimulus dollars, expressed surprise that nobody at CalPERS flagged the Bell information.

"When you see unusual things and see things that raise eyebrows — and someone's eyebrows go up with a 47% salary increase.…The best thing is to go back and take another look."

Officials at the California Bureau of State Audits say that is their policy. Spokeswoman Margarita Fernandez said her agency routinely does follow-up audits after 60 days, six months and one year.

"If we don't follow up, we don't know if our auditees are taking our recommendations to heart," she said. "Most standards will call for some follow-up."

evan.halper@latimes.com

marc.lifsher@latimes.com


Lakewood Accountability Action Group™ LAAG | www.LAAG.us | Lakewood, CA A California Non Profit Association | Demanding action and accountability from local government™ click here to receive LAAG posts by email

City manger compensation in LA County 2009

Well this is a bit of an eye popping chart but again hats off to the LA Times for compiling this info so quickly in light of the Bell scandal. Shame on you Press Telegram for not even trying to act like a real news paper. I guess all they can handle are High School sports scores. And shame on you local radio stations for just adding "mindless blabber" to the airwaves and adding nothing like this to the substance of the debate.

One again our good friend [long time Lakewood City manager] Howard Chambers comes out near the top (18th out of 77 cities reporting so far, including Bell) of the stack and shockingly is paid more ($2,000 that the Long Beach city manager Pat West who has many many more employees to manage than Howard. Even more than comparatively wealthy Cerritos. So why the disparity in pay even at such shocking high levels? Again the pay does not seem to be based on anything concrete. Its up to the city council. Anytime you have high paying jobs where salary is based on a group of people deciding it you usually have a situation where there is a "you scratch my back Ill scratch yours". In Howard's case its likely due to the fact he is one of the longest reining city managers in history (but that problem is for another column) In the case of CEO compensation it comes down to a "gentleman's club" mentality of people who consider themselves privileged and entitled to such high pay. The CEO "cons" the board of directors at the company to give him a high compensation package as other CEO's like him get X dollars at other companies. So it s a "race to the top" sorta speak not based on any hard and fast figures. Its based on "well Bob over at  X city gets Y salary so I should get that too" Also what most people fail to realize is that most boards are comprised of either former or current CEO's or top executes of other companies. So when the board gives a CEO a high compensation package they knew when back at their company what comes around goes around. Its a wink and nod scenario. Nothing is written down its just understood.That is likely what was going on in Bell. The Bell city manager allowed (or enabled) the council to pull this caper off so all had to get a share of the pie (the inflated property tax scheme dollars). You approve my salary Ill approve yours. All nice and tidy. And the voters were never the wiser.

Of course this monkey business is fine in the private sector as we are not forced to pay those salaries. In government however not only are we forced to pay these salaries but we are forced to pay them until the death of the employee. Chamber will likely retire well before us poor schleps in the private sector (10 years or more) and be paid benefit likely close to 95% of his current salary. For life. This of course includes lavish Cadillac heath care for life. What do you think that will cost you. You get the picture. Chambers will be laughing all the way to the back while you private sector fools work to 67 to fund his retirement. (Oh don't forget CalPERS, the big pension plan which will be paying the Bell pensions, lost like 40% of its value last year and is looking to you the taxpayer to make up for Wall Street's plunder of its risk investments) You private sector people ask "well why don't taxpayers back fill what I lost in my 401k for the last 3 years?" Well my friend its because you are not part of the elite ruling class of local government employees. Sorry..... lol

Pay in government is never truly, objectively performance based so that is why government city employees are so lacking in enthusiasm and not motivated. Why work hard to serve the taxpayer if you can get the same pay regardless? One thing that LAAG fears is that this LA Times chart will do is force managers and others, like Pat West, to rush into the Mayors office and say "How the hell is Howard Chambers getting paid more than me for running such a puny city like Lakewood?"  Oh I am sure we will hear all the same lavish praise as was heaped on  the Bell City manager. "Oh he is such a great guy and a rocket scientist to boot...he saved us from a Tsunami...blah blah blah" Yea right. So if you pay them $50,000 year less the city will somehow suffer a worse fate? Give me a break. None of this can really be justified. But its like the CEO's in many respects. The company goes down the toilet and the CEO leaves with a "golden parachute" for all his great work. (in the public sector the golden parachute is the pensions as in Bell's case) Its not pay for performance. Its pay based on privilege. And with taxpayer dollars scarce now, its time for that to end. Just like Wall St. is getting sacked now by the Fed's. Time to end the local government shakedown. And if you think LAAG is crazy read this.

Oh one last funny observation. The LA Times article gives links to contact the city managers via email directly. Most complied. Howard of course does not want to list his email like other city mangers. Similar to the Lakewood city council who prefers to not place that info on the website as it fosters direct contact by voters (an issue LAAG raised long ago). Well here it is for those of you that want it:  HChamber@lakewoodcity.org  When you email him ask him what all his deputies and assistants make and let LAAG know what kind of a response you get. lol.

Lakewood Accountability Action Group™ LAAG | www.LAAG.us | Lakewood, CA A California Non Profit Association | Demanding action and accountability from local government™ click here to receive LAAG posts by email

August 3, 2010

State Controller Takes Quick Action to Prevent Another City of Bell Debacle

We applaud State Controller John Chiang's move as reported in the LA Times below (as well as the Controllers own press release below) as it gets around legislative wrangling, delay and various city groups lobbyists that are tying to let this Bell furor calm down so they can water down the financial reporting rules and go back into hiding like before. We say it again and again and again. Secrecy breeds mistrust and ultimately corruption as was the case in Bell. Its not the impropriety but the "appearance of impropriety" that has most residents upset. Its taxpayers money plain and simple. Their needs to be transparency and accountability. Quite frankly we are afraid even Controller Chiang's rules will get watered down. They also will not likely cover the pension information these fat cats will be raking in from cities other than the one they retire from or all the "side perks" not really on the books like lifetime "Cadillac" health insurance, outrageous cars allowances, free cell phones and blackberries all used for personal business. But its a start.

Controller Requires Cities, Counties to Report Salaries of Government Officials
PR10:27
8/3/2010
Contact: Jacob Roper
916-445-2636

SACRAMENTO – State Controller John Chiang today announced new reporting requirements for all California cities and counties, directing them to clearly identify elected officials and public employees’ compensation. The information will be posted on the Controller’s website, starting in November.

“The absence of transparency is a breeding ground for waste, fraud, and abuse of taxpayer dollars,” said Chiang. “A single website with accessible information will make sure that excessive pay is no longer able to escape public scrutiny and accountability.”

The new reporting requirements come after the City of Bell reportedly spent $1.6 million annually on just three city employees, and nearly $100,000 for each part-time City Councilmember. At the request of the City of Bell’s Interim City Administrative Officer, the Controller ordered an audit of Bell’s finances last week.

Under current law, local governments are required to transmit summary information about their revenues and expenditures to the State Controller’s office. Payroll information is included in the total amount listed for each category of program, such as public protection, health and welfare, and governing body. The data is compiled and used to produce annual reports for the Legislature. The Controller’s new rules require cities and counties to provide the salaries for each classification of elected official, such as mayor and supervisor, and public employee, such as city manager and county administrator.

City and counties generally are required to provide the information to the Controller by mid-October of each year. The Controller’s website will be updated annually to reflect the most recent data received. Local governments who fail to report timely could face a penalty of up to $5,000.

###

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2010/08/in-wake-of-bell-scandal-state-controller-to-require-that-cities-disclose-pay-in-state-financial-repo.html
In wake of Bell salary scandal, state controller to require that cities disclose pay in financial reports
August 3, 2010 | 12:58 pm

In the continuing fallout from the Bell salary scandal, State Controller John Chiang announced Tuesday that he would overhaul city financial reporting requirements to require that salary information for elected officials and other employees be clearly stated. The information would be posted on his office’s website beginning in November, he said.

The action comes as a Times analysis found that Bell’s reports to the state in recent years have shown that costs for its legislative activities, including City Council salaries, declined sharply since 2005, at a time when overall council compensation rose to nearly $100,000 for part-time work.

“The absence of transparency is a breeding ground for waste, fraud, and abuse of taxpayer dollars,” said Chiang, who is running for re-election. “A single website with accessible information will make sure that excessive pay is no longer able to escape public scrutiny and accountability.”

The new requirements follow reports by The Times that Bell spent $1.6 million annually on just three city employees, including nearly $800,000 on the city manager. Council members drew pay for serving on multiple city panels, some of which met at the same time or for as little a minute.

Under current law, local governments must transmit summary information about their revenues and expenditures to the state, which goes into reports the controller prepares for the Legislature and posts on the internet. Payroll information is included in total amounts spent on various government functions, such as police, but not itemized separately.

The new rules, which Chiang said would be issued in the coming weeks, will require compensation figures for each category of local official, including council members and city managers.

“We have to make sure people aren’t moving categories or hiding what they are being paid,” Chiang said in an interview. “We want to put it in a format people understand.” Bell reported a total of just $34,483 in spending for its legislative activity in 2007-08, far below the total of council compensation alone.

The apparent disparity is "obviously a question that needs an answer," Chiang said.

-- Rich Connell


Lakewood Accountability Action Group™ LAAG | www.LAAG.us | Lakewood, CA A California Non Profit Association | Demanding action and accountability from local government™ click here to receive LAAG posts by email