Showing posts with label Budget issues. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Budget issues. Show all posts

September 6, 2020

Why the budget and the budget process is broken in Long Beach California

As there is yet another budget hearing coming up in Long Beach on September 8 2020 we thought we would use our blog post as our comments. Get them into cityclerk@longbeach.gov before noon 9/7/20. Heaven knows these "Citywide Community budget meetings" were a waste of everyone's time.(which we also had to pay city staffers for as we are taxpayers)

 

Long Beach is currently in a budget crisis brought about mainly because of the covid-19 crisis.  Of course it's a double whammy situation where the city spent more money than it had on emergency type services and as a result overpaid for these services (which were under delivered or did not provide much value) For example there were tons of private Labs that were being paid a very costly premium for test results that were being delivered seven and eight days after the test. Anyone that knows anything about testing said that's completely worthless. Any test result delivered after 48 hours should never have been paid for but of course government never demands that kind of accountability from private contractors.


On top of that because of the economic crisis and less sales tax is being generated we have a double whammy.  So now it appears the most local entities are waiting for the state to get a windfall of money from the federal government who of course can print money regardless of its deficit.  State and local governments can't print money but they use other budget shenanigans and tricks to make it look like the budget gets “balanced” every year.


Unlike Lakewood which is mostly a contract City Long Beach tries to provide most services through employees that are employed by the city. This is horrendously cost inefficient because these costs are fixed. Once these people are hired they are basically never fired and you have to pay for their pensions, healthcare vacation and other costs basically as long as they're alive and they are usually very costly employees. The more costly employees are the ones that work in the office and shuffle paper and get very little done in terms of infrastructure and repairs.


In addition there are a number of things that Long Beach claims it has to purchase and it does a very bad job in negotiating good prices. Here are two examples. City spends $372,327 on TWO Chevrolet Silverado 2500HD trucks (2020 Chevrolet Silverado 2500HD start at $34,600) AND $539,331 on TWO CNG-fueled 2021 Freightliner M2112 pothole patch trucks, (LB apparently patches so many streets that we need two new trucks?) Who negotiated these prices for these trucks and why are we buying something NEW that's so expensive right now during a budget crisis? Do we have to have these trucks right now? Are we selling off the used trucks are we trading them in what are we getting for them? These questions are never asked and never presented in the budget or any publicly disseminated documents. As for the pothole trucks no needs were spelled out. Zero. You want them Public Works Dept you got them! No questions asked.


Then you look at outside contracting for services and you have a similar problem. Really no transparency at all in terms of how many hours of time you're getting the hourly rate or bonuses being paid, overhead being paid how many hours of services are you being provided with, what specific tasks are going to be completed etc. Here is a recent example:” a fourth amendment to Contract No. 34265 with West Coast Arborists, Inc., of Anaheim, CA, for as-needed tree trimming services, to extend the term through March 31, 2021, and increase the amount by $3,400,000, for a revised total amount not to exceed $11,340,000. (Citywide)”

 

So taxpayers are paying almost 11.5 million dollars for tree trimming but there's really not much of an indication as to what exactly were going to get for that. Even if you assume that these people are being paid $15 an hour and you do the math that gives us about 59 hours a day of tree trimming assuming 2080 hours per year working time at 8 hours per day 5 days a week. But again this says “as needed” (determined by who?). So that might mean that no trees are being trimmed or half the amount. Again clear as mud.


Contract costs are too high because I assume the city relies on “low bid”. The city should be setting the maximum contract prices with bonuses for early completion. The city should be setting a (realistic low ball) maximum amount for these contracts before the bids ever come in. We also have to assume that there are multiple bids coming in on these projects and I doubt that seriously.  My suspicion is certain favorite companies that contribute to campaigns are invited to submit a bid with a wink knowing that these bids are going to get selected because they're the only bid that's being made.  Again the city should set a maximum price for an amount of service and then provide some sort of incentives for early completion or other types of Contract objectives that can be objectively verified.


With respect to labor provided by city employees of course the picture is much more grim. There really is no way to significantly reduce the costs of employee labor.  This is why City employees should be rarely hired and outside contractors should be used because it's much easier to control costs over time when you have a budget problem. 


The Police Department and the fire department are classic examples of the two costliest groups of city employees. Lawsuit settlements due to police shootings and arrests are not helpful either. These depts are heavily unionized and the unions control all labor activity and contract negotiations.


We were recently told that the city is budgeting $200,000 per police officer. (That does not include the cost of special units K-9 units, bomb units, helicopters all sorts of special Patrol units, management, office staff, vehicle costs etc) Of course the best way to do the math is to take the total police budget of about 264 million and divided by the number of sworn officers which is about 792 which gives you about $333,000 per year per officer. Now to make matters worse because of the BLM protests and other Union Shenanigans we are now in a situation where every car has to have two officers so we've cut the number of cars in half and so we're spending anywhere between $400,000 to $650,000 a year for each police vehicle you see driving around on patrol.  What's even better with police and fire is they tend to start work at age 25 to 26 or later and then they retire at 50 and their retirement income is at least the highest amount they've ever been paid in their lives. That continues on until they die and also includes Healthcare and a bunch of other cost-of-living perks so you can see how this adds up when you're paying for hundreds and hundreds of officers that don't even work for you anymore. And you're paying for them at a much higher rate than you are for officers currently patrolling the streets. Eventually this house of cards is going to collapse.


There are no efficiency studies being done by people that don't curry favor with the unions or with the city. All the efficiency studies are done by the departments themselves or by those individuals that pass muster with the union. Apparently because the fire department is so popular in Long Beach in terms of public polling they basically came back and said we're not cutting our budget at all for 2021…. so take that City Council. The fire department and the police department are probably the least cost-efficient agencies in the city and use up the most tax money. For example the whole privatization of ambulance services in Long Beach has never been realistically looked at. The reason of course is if you do that you will lose union jobs and give jobs to private companies which cost less. With respect to the the police department they're finally starting to get smart and realizing that they have to have more civilian staff to do a lot of the functions within the department that don't require sworn police officers. (de-fund protests no doubt helping that argument) This is just an example of the stupidity and union nonsense involved when trying to get even simple things done like the administrative enforcement Lakewood did with respect to fireworks.


Another budget-busting problem we have is that a relatively small percentage of the payroll of city employees is too low for those that actually hold shovels versus those that shuffle paper and the paper shufflers in the people in the office tend to cost even more money that other low level worker bee employees This is likely the reason why it takes so long for potholes to get filled and sidewalks to get fixed; there's not enough people actually doing the work.


Another problem with the budget is that the airport revenue/fines and the oil revenue, and the port that money is not being allocated wisely. It's typically trapped in a way that keeps it within the particular Department that it comes from. Fix that.


An ongoing problem with infrastructure ( potholes streets sidewalks bike paths trees parks and other sorts of things) is these were all created many years ago when labor was cheap but there were never any budgets created to support the maintenance of these items and the bills are coming due on almost all of these things especially sewers electricity and water supply. The new money is all allocated for all new projects which get federal and state funding but none of that money is ever allocated or can be allocated towards the maintenance of these projects for 20 or 30 years in the future. Bad idea as it leads to where we are now.


The city spends its time chasing objectives of Sacramento. Not enough of our budget is spent on core infrastructure needs. Too much of it is spent on socialism and other pet projects of administrations. The city received budget funding to create “open streets” for covid yet when it did neighborhood surveys no one wanted the streets to be blocked off from vehicles so the children can play in the streets only to be run over by local delivery trucks. But that money comes with strings attached and you have to spend it on things voters dont want. Much of our budget is being allocated to social projects and not for infrastructure and this loss of focus is responsible for the problem with the infrastructure.


The budget process has very little transparency and taxpayers are never given a seat at the table when Union contracts and other issues are negotiated. There are very few people that could take a look at the current 146 page page proposed budget document and make heads or tails of any of these issues raised above and most don't even care to do it. Most rely of course on their city council member to fight for their objectives. And we see how well that has worked out. 


The budget itself is very obscure and does not provide taxpayers with a clear picture of cost increases cost allocations what goes for health care what goes for pensions what goes for office workers what goes for actual people that perform labor for the city. 


Finally we need to stop penalizing departments for not spending all their budget. They need to be rewarded for not spending all their budget on frivolous matters such as new vehicles. Unfortunately many of these things are going to take many years to change.  California as a whole is running out of money and that includes all of their cities. Cities are still allowed to file bankruptcy (states are not) and a number of cities in California have filed bankruptcy including Stockton. In that case the bankruptcy actually helped Stockton to “de-fund” (reduce funding to) their police department and rethink how they look at public safety. "House Democrats included nearly $1 trillion in state and local aid in the relief bill they passed in May, but the Senate majority leader, Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, has said he doesn’t want to hand out a “blank check” to pay for what he considers fiscal mismanagement, including the enormous public-pension obligations some states have accrued. There has been little movement in that stalemate lately."


The reason we have a budget problem is the city is using "other people's money" (yours and mine) and they dont give a damn. Their “solution” to all problems is to shovel more money into the trough (Like Measure A...how is that vote tally suit going? ). At the end of the day it's not really their problem they're going to continue to get paid for going to work, continue to get their nearly free health care, and they're going to continue to get their ludicrously costly pensions. Meanwhile city services and infrastructure spending will just crawl to a complete standstill and our city will decay even further. Until people show up at City Hall with “pitchforks and torches” this is not going to change. The only thing that will really make any difference is to elect a majority of the city council to come in from outside city government not feeding from the trough (real outsiders).  They will have to take a hard look from the outside as to how the budget is going to have to work going forward into these very lean years which we are going to be facing for the next 5 to 10 years most likely ( assuming continued fires, floods, climate change, power outages, disasters, earthquakes, pandemics Etc) California is almost in a constant state of emergency now. Long Beach is in the same situation. It's on life support.

 

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

June 6, 2014

water and trash service rate increase hearing at Lakewood City Council Chambers on June 24, 2014 at 7:30 pm


Just so that everyone is aware there is a water and trash service rate increase hearing at Lakewood City Council Chambers on June 24, 2014 at 7:30 pm. You must object to the rate increase before that time in writing (presumably to the Lakewood city clerk at dhayward@lakewoodcity.org not to our site) which will be much more effective that rambling on at the meeting. (we find that communicating with the City is much more effective if done in writing so that there is a paper trail) In classic Lakewood "non transparency" style no information whatsoever has been posted about this rate increase (on www.lakewoodcity.org) as of this posting (and the city has been planning this since at least March 2014). We made the following public records request to the city this week and we will try (if we get a timely response from Lakewood) to post what we get back (if anything) on this site. We need this information well in advance of 6/22/14 so that we can respond to the proposed increase in writing before the 6/24/14 hearing. Hopefully with the new "bolstering" of the California Constitution and the Public Records Act under the recently passed Proposition 42 (on June 3, 2014) we can expect to see local government entities give a little bit more respect to public records act requests.

Here is what we were seeking in the public records request: 

1. copies of all staff reports or 3rd party reports and all attachments regarding the rate increase and its need and or justifications

2. Any surveys, studies or any other documentation showing water and trash rates in any other cities done at any time in the last two years

3. communications to / from the Edco trash/waste company wherein they justify and or explain the need for a price or rate increase

4. Any proposed amendments to the Lakewood municipal code regarding the rate increase

5. Any forms or rules proposed for protests to the rate increase

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 20, 2011

Wonder where your law enforcement tax dollars are going?

Well when it comes to the LA County Sheriff's department it's not going to enforcement and keeping you safe, but to lawsuit payoffs. This Blake Dupree case was settled very quietly 2 months ago and we just recently came upon one article that just mentioned it. The only reason we mention it is because the incident happened at the Lakewood Sheriff substation in 2008. From the LA times story on yet another settlement for bad behavior:


"Lyznick's settlement comes less than two months after the county agreed to pay $4.25 million and other costs [so its even more money?] to Blake Dupree, a man who was paralyzed from the chest down after a sheriff's deputy Tasered him, causing him to fall from the top bunk of his jail bed. Dupree, who had been refusing to leave his cell, was then carried out to the station's fingerprint area and dumped on the floor, according to his lawsuit. Much of the 2007 [we understand it was 2008] incident was caught on tape." (keep those iPhones rolling!)

You ask yourself why the county settles these? Its because they cant take them to trial as it would be so obvious to a jury that LASD screwed up (per the LASD defense attorneys) and the jury would likely award a lot more money that then settlement. Also don't forget we still have this little gem yet to be "resolved". The LASD is very good at keeping these settlements out of the press as they dont want you to know where your tax dollars are really going. The Dupree settlement is almost half of he Lakewood LASD budget for a year! Like we said before, the Deputies that are causing these problems need to go. To never be hired again by another agency. Oh but wait the LASD union is in the way preventing us from getting rid of the "lawsuit magnets"....

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 14, 2010

Getting out while the getting is good... Howard Chambers finally calls it quits

You have to hand it to Howard for great timing. 34 years as city manager must be a state or national record. He has stress? Well no doubt that has increased since the City of Bell debacle, not to mention being "outed" here, here, and here. Oh well he can join his other retired Lakewood Calpers pals and live carefree with lifetime medical and pension benefits that will no doubt cost us taxpayers millions. (the "Lakewood Six" currently costing us taxpayers $771,322.56 Annually) Much like our other noblemen in the state legislature. And for what you ask? Oh I am sure every blade of grass in Lakewood will be dedicated to Howard tonight. I expect some sort of freeway or building to be named after him shortly. Perhaps a new "self promotion shrine" we can pay for. lol indeed.

All we can hope is that the city council resets the clock on these outlandish City Manager salaries and they are more in line with (or have a rational relationship to) other cities with similar populations and total employee counts. But knowing the city council I doubt that. Again the hiring situation works much the same as it did in Bell and on corporate boards. "You pay me well and I will reward you later...some how.." So the game goes on and no one is watching the till. Oh and as for potential candidates to fill Howard's spot I hear there are some dudes from Bell looking for a sweet job....

So LAAG says "c'est la vie! Howard". And I am sure you will keep us residents posted on what you're up to just like you have for the last 38 years. Yeah right. Oh and we have to take Howard at his word that he is in fact retiring for good and will not change his mind, like Donald Waldie did last year, and not going to "run" some other city (for a "bigger" salary increase and nifty "pension spike") and then do a "double dip" on his pension. Time will tell.

http://www.contracostatimes.com/news/ci_16068235
City Manager Howard Chambers will end 38-year Lakewood career
By Phillip Zonkel, Staff Writer
Posted: 09/13/2010 08:57:06 PM PDT

LAKEWOOD - The man who has been a fixture at Lakewood City Hall for 38 years - helping balance budgets and maintain parks - is leaving.

Howard Chambers, city manager for 34 of those years, will publicly announce his retirement at tonight's City Council meeting.

Chambers said his doctor has told him for the past year to manage his stress better. The primary stress culprit is his job, Chambers said.

"Life in the public sector is extremely stressful," [LAAG: "you betcha, ever since Bell corruption story broke]
said Chambers, 65, from his Brea residence. "My body used to metabolize stress like a protein shake. Now it kicks my butt. I wish I could turn back the clock 20 years."

The council will soon begin the process of selecting Chambers' successor, said city spokesman Bill Grady.

The two-hour round trip commute between Brea and Lakewood also was a deciding factor in his retirement, Chambers said. [LAAG: I guess living in the city was out of the question in a city you manage]

Chambers is widely considered the California city manager with the longest tenure in the same city. Before becoming city manager, Chambers, from 1972 to 1976, was the executive assistant to the city manager.

Between 1969 and 1972, Chambers was Rosemead's assistant city manager.

"Howard's entire career reflects an abiding commitment to all of us who live and work here," said Lakewood Mayor Joseph Esquivel. "He truly loves Lakewood and the results can be seen in every neighborhood." [LAAG: please be specific]

Donald Waldie, the assistant to the city manager, was hired by Chambers in December 1977, and said Chambers' management style was supportive and collaborative.

"Howard offered a vision for Lakewood, one where everyone worked together to make a safe, family-orientated city, and shared it with senior managers and city work forces," Waldie said. "That vision made it easy to see the way."

Chambers' ties to Lakewood are lifelong. He grew up near Mayfair Park and worked at the YMCA.

A park director encouraged him to become a recreation leader, a path that led him to become a park director and a fixture at city hall.

After befriending the city administrator at the time, Chambers showed an interest in public administration and began taking classes at Cal State Long Beach.

After earning his degree, Chambers interned at Lakewood for two years, handling youth services. He then went to work with Rosemead as an assistant city manager.

In 1972, Chambers returned to Lakewood, securing the post of executive assistant.

Under Chambers' leadership, Lakewood developed the Civic Center, the Weingart Senior Center, the renovations of the John Sanford Todd Community Center and Mayfair Park, The Centre at Sycamore Plaza, Rynerson Park and the expansion and modernization of the Lakewood Sheriff's Station. [LAAG: thats it?]

Chambers said he takes pride in presenting balanced budgets, managing to keep park programs going and maintaining streets and other infrastructure in times of recession.

Chambers' pride and enthusiasm for the work makes it more difficult to retire.

"You don't know how much I'm going to miss it," he said.

phillip.zonkel@presstelegram.com, 562-499-1258
Want to go?

What: Lakewood City Council meeting.

Where: City Council chambers at The Centre at Sycamore Plaza, 5000 Clark Ave.

When: 7:30 p.m., today

Watch: Broadcast live on CityTV 31 and at www.lakewoodcity.org.


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

LA City Salary posting and Public Records Act request to Lakewood for same

The City of LA in response to the Bell scandal has posted a 547 page pdf document that is supposed to represent all the salaries of current "full time" employees. It does not list other perks, healthcare contributions or pension costs to taxpayers of course. It is also rather vague in that it does not state definitively if all the positions posted are currently filled or for how long they have been filled and paid at that rate. Nonetheless it is a start and is in line with the full disclosure other cities are making in light of the Bell scandal

So given this most recent developments above we are making a Public Records Act request as follows to the city of Lakewood:

LAAG is requesting all 2010 records that pertain to:

1. stipends or salaries of current city council members;

2. Health care contributions made by the city for current city council members;

3. public employee pension contributions made by the city for current city council members;

4. payments made by the city for perks (i.e. cellphone costs, car allowances, internet access, home offices, travel expenses and seminar fees for non state mandated trips, etc.) for current city council members;

5. stipends or salaries of current top 5 compensated employees in each city department;

6. Health care contributions made by the city for current top 5 compensated employees in each city department;

7. public employee pension contributions made by the city for current top 5 compensated employees in each city department;

8. payments made by the city for perks (i.e. cellphone costs, car allowances, internet access, home offices, travel expenses and seminar fees for non state mandated trips, etc.) for current top 5 compensated employees in each city department;

9. stipends or salaries of current top 5 compensated employees in city managers department;

10. Health care contributions made by the city for current top 5 compensated employees in city managers department;

11. public employee pension contributions made by the city for current top 5 compensated employees in city managers department;

12. payments made by the city for perks (i.e. cellphone costs, car allowances, internet access, home offices, travel expenses and seminar fees for non state mandated trips, etc.) for current top 5 compensated employees in city managers department;

13. All payments made to city attorney in last 12 months.

Please contact LAAG and make arrangement for us to view these materials. We will then make a decision on what materials to copy if any.

See the City's response here

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

August 2, 2010

Property Tax Rate Comparisons in LA County Cities 2010

This was a very interesting chart from the LA Times this week. (you can sort using column headers at the top) What was most interesting was that the cities with wealthier residents (and likely bigger more expensive homes) had lower property tax rates than poorer cities. The reason the LA Times likely ran this story was there seemed to be a correlation between Bell's property tax rate and its exorbitant salaries of elected and appointed officials. Bell of course is ranked no. 2, second most costly rate in the city. (City of Industry may be the hot seat next as its ranked no. 1!!) But what LAAG found more interesting was that Lakewood was ranked 47th out of all 88 incorporated cities in Los Angeles county. By no means anywhere near the lowest. Very interesting to note that city of Bellflower is ranked 88th (the cheapest in the county) and city of Cerritos is 85th out of 88 incorporated cities in the county. City of Artesia is 84th. All three have much lower tax rates than Lakewood but yet very similar cities in terms of size and demographics. All also have LASD coverage and contracts. Why the difference? Very interesting indeed. Don't count on Lakewood city hall to illuminate any of this mystery for you in any detail if at all. While most cities are responding to the Bell debacle with publications of salary and other data on their website, Lakewood remains totally silent (as of this posting), hoping that all the questions and news focus on "questionable" city practices just dies away....before anyone starts digging around and asking hard questions.

Of course the Times story notes that this chart only includes figures off the county property tax bill which includes all those "nice" little add ons ("voted indebtedness" and "direct assessments") which are not based on lot size or Proposition 13 reductions. In Lakewood these can be over 500.00 per year per parcel/bill as they are not affected by Proposition 13 limits or lot size or property value. How nice!

It would be very interesting to see a comparison of all local utility costs such as water, trash, sewer, fire and police costs. Hopefully we will see something like this in the future from the Times, along with a comparison of all city salaries and personnel costs by city. For example it would be nice to see what the total payroll costs are in Bellflower as related to Lakewood, averaged out per resident.

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