Vallejo CA pulls the plug: Calpers holding the bag on 219 million in unfunded pension benfits

Well this is the shot that will be heard round the world. The question really is what kind of precedent will this set for other cities in the US and in Calif. to deal with the massive public employee pension problem. Like most issues the government deals with I smell a bailout. Taxpayers better grab their wallets and run. I think the time has come for the voters to become the city managers and to hold elections on the "pension giveaways". God knows the politicians cannot be trusted anymore with the public employee unions.


City of Vallejo, California files for bankruptcy
Fri May 23, 2008 5:03pm EDT
http://www.reuters.com/article/domesticNews/idUSN2352179020080523

By Adam Tanner

SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) - The city of Vallejo, California, filed for bankruptcy on Friday, a move signaled by its city council earlier this month as it struggles to avoid running out of money amid steep city personnel costs and sliding revenues from a housing slump.

The Chapter 9 filing by Vallejo, a blue-collar, former Navy town in the San Francisco Bay Area, in U.S. bankruptcy court in Sacramento had been expected since May 6, when the city council approved the drastic move.

Vallejo, with over 100,000 residents, is the first sizable city in California to file for bankruptcy. Chapter 9 is a bankruptcy filing for municipalities.

Although many California towns are coping with shrinking tax revenues and some of the highest home foreclosure rates in the nation, they are not likely to follow Vallejo's suit.

Moody's Investors Service said earlier this month that Vallejo's expected bankruptcy filing would be a "unique case."

The state's last bankruptcy filing was in 1994 when Orange County's finances ran aground on soured investments linked to derivatives.

LEVERAGE WITH EMPLOYEES?

According to the filing signed by City Manager Joseph Tanner, the city has 1,000 to 5,000 creditors, estimated assets of half a billion to $1 billion and liabilities of $100 million to $500 million. Tanner had previously said that the city's general fund would be depleted at the end of June.

Vallejo's main financial difficulty is the high spending on public safety employees, whose costs eat up three-quarters of the city's general fund.

Although the city reached a deal with employees in February for pay cuts and other short-term measures to keep paying bills, the city council said earlier this month that filing for bankruptcy might give it more leverage in talks with workers on wages and benefits.

A document accompanying the filing said that the California Public Employees Retirement System, the nation's largest pension fund, known as Calpers, held the largest unsecured claim, with $135.4 million in retiree health benefits, and another $83.9 million in unfunded pension plan benefits.

Wells Fargo Bank was a bond trustee with $27.3 million in unsecured claims, and the Union Bank of California with $26.2 million in unsecured claims, the document said.

(Reporting by Adam Tanner, writing by Mary Milliken; editing by Leslie Adler)

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

Buena Park restricts 'safe and sane' fireworks

It is a small concession but we would like to see a lot more of these types of "use" restrictions especially given the police costs "safe and sane" fireworks force cities to incur. And with many cities facing a "Vallejo dilemma" any budget cost that can be cut is welcomed, especially in the public safety arena as those costs are so inflated to begin with (for what you really get in terms of effectiveness).

Tuesday, May 13, 2008
Buena Park restricts 'safe and sane' fireworks
Residents will no longer get to light up on busy La Palma Avenue.
By SERENA MARIA DANIELS
THE ORANGE COUNTY REGISTER
http://www.ocregister.com/articles/fireworks-park-buena-2041950-year-city#

BUENA PARK – Residents wanting to light up fireworks this Fourth of July will face more restrictions after the city banned them on a strip of La Palma Avenue that's usually overrun with celebrants.

La Palma, between Western Avenue and El Monte Drive, has for years been home to as many as 3,000 people, all in the street, blocking traffic to get a spot to see the fireworks show at Knott's Berry Farm.

While they're waiting, many light up their own legal fireworks on the street, blocking traffic and creating safety hazards, said Buena Park police Sgt. William Kohanek.

"Congestion on this major thoroughfare is just overwhelming," Kohanek said.

Fireworks can be safely shot off on the city's other public streets.

City Councilmen Don McCay, Steve Berry and Mayor Jim Dow approved the restriction at Tuesday evening's meeting. Council members Patsy Marshall and Art Brown were not present.

Buena Park is one of five cities that allow so-called safe and sane fireworks; so do Santa Ana, Costa Mesa, Garden Grove and Stanton.

Last year, Buena Park banned Piccolo Pete fireworks, in part because of noise complaints.

Fines have been imposed on people caught with illegal fireworks in Garden Grove.

Santa Ana officials, on the other hand, have tentatively agreed to extend operating hours for firework vendors. Stands would open an hour earlier – at 9 a.m. on July 2, 3 and 4. Santa Ana council members are expected to finalize the extended hours next month.

Buena Park's restriction comes a month after an Orange County grand jury report called for a three-year moratorium against fireworks in the five cities to allow time to find ways of improving public safety. The report says that county taxpayers paid about $188,000 last year for extra policing and fire services during the Fourth of July season.

But the report holds no legal authority.

Last year, Buena Park police responded to 240 firework-related calls on July 1-4.

Contact the writer: 714-704-3795 or sdaniels@ocregister.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

In California, unions have the upper hand and will eventually take over

This pretty much sums up the current situation with public unions and how they are contrasted with private unions. Again we are reaching a tipping point as the Vallejo potential bankruptcy all but too painfully points out. this is all about greed and control and "we want what they have" mentality. It has to come to an end sooner or later. The Housing crisis may bring it to a head quicker due to the shortfall in property tax revenue which will be hitting home soon. This is a showdown between the taxpayers and the "ruling elite"...the public employee unions, the spinless political hacks we let get elected and their pork barrel dog and pony show.

The trouble with unions
By MICHAEL HALEY
Napa Valley Register
http://www.napavalleyregister.com/articles/2008/05/18/opinion/michael_haley/doc482b723f46256162341736.txt

When I read the recent Register article about the service workers unions approaching the City Council for support in unionizing new hotel workers, all I could think was here comes trouble. I hope the City Council does not help them.

I think most people believe that unions counterbalance management in a sort of equal relationship, one side representing one point of view, the other another, and that it all balances out equally assuring fairness. But it is not an equal relationship, the unions soon grow to have more power than management and can control the entire situation to the point that the employer becomes harmed, even bankrupt.

Let me first of all say that often times unions have done a lot of good, so I am not necessarily opposed to them in total.

But there are two main reasons for unions having an unfair advantage that it is important for people to understand. This happens in both private unions and even more so in government.

The first reason is that labor unions all link together as a large unit, while the employers, be they government or private, have to act independently by law. If you can control the position of labor across a whole field of employment, say all the firefighters in the state acting together, then each individual local government is far out manned.

The second is that they are not a feature of a free marketplace, but are an invention of the government to control a free market place. Unions only exist because government laws and regulations mandate them. A marketplace, on the other hand, would exist whether the government regulated it or not.

What that means is that by taking away some of the freedom of employers and employees to freely associate on whatever terms they prefer, you lose economic efficiency. On an economic basis, there is just no way around it.

Vallejo's safety unions are a good example of how that harms us.

The salaries they have negotiated are a shocker they are so high, yet they have refused to negotiate and caused the city to go into bankruptcy. And yet they still won‚t negotiate, they have no incentive to do so. And there is little that the city can do about it. In a non-union environment, Vallejo would have cut salaries, benefits, rearranged work schedules and a number of other things that would have saved the city through tough times. The same thing any household would do when budgets were tight.

The lesson? Union contracts cause the management of a company or government to lose control of the very thing they are supposed to run. And the unions have no responsibility to manage it themselves, even though they control it.

Of course, the automotive companies are yet another example where union demands and economically unfeasible contracts could not be gotten out of and they have bankrupted the entire auto industry in America. And which automaker has risen to the top and avoided all this? Toyota, which does not have unions.

Because unions are a government regulatory creation, they are slow to respond to changing economic circumstances, if at all. The only real control over them is whatever the employer can exert.

An employer, be that the government or private, has an organic limit on its behavior. A company has to please its customers or it will go out of business. The government is limited by what it can extract from taxpayers.

But the unions have no organic limit built into their economic system. The company or government can go bust and the unions can remain unaffected. We have seen that with both Vallejo and the auto industry. They are only limited by moral suasion and whatever the management can convince them to do.

The auto industry could have chosen to keep their prices high, but if customers won't buy that is it, they are done. On the other hand, if General Motors had just decided not to pay their union workers as much, they would have been hauled into court and fined.

This is an incredibly important point for the public to understand about unions, because this is not about whether anyone or I likes them or not, it is about the way economic reality functions. There is an organic limit built into what a government or company can do, but there is no limit built into what a union can do. Therein lies the problem.

If you doubt this, all you have to do is look at what has happened. The auto industry, Vallejo, state worker pension and medical benefit unfunded liabilities, the fact that the city of Napa is mandated to pay a salary rate based on bankrupt Vallejo salaries even when it makes no sense, these are all things that no one would do unless mandated by law.

The fact is that the way the system is structured, especially in California, unions automatically have the upper hand and they eventually will take over. This is pretty much what has already happened to the California state legislature. Lets not encourage this in Napa.


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

Taxation Without Representation

As Vallejo readies for Bankruptcy due to public employee salaries, LBReport.com did an article today on Logn Beach's action regarding public employees costs noting: "...Almost all of LB's Councilmembers voted to obligate LB taxpayers to incur at least $26.5 million in General Fund costs over the next five years to provide raises and add'l benefits in separate contracts with LB's non-public-safety city employees and firefighters. The Council majority did so despite a continuing structural deficit, declining property tax revenues...and multi-million dollar increases previously granted by the Council for the LB Police Officers' contract...."

Last week LBReport.com did an editorial on the mess in advance of this story. You can read it here. It looks like the same old pattern is repeated over and over endlessly..they got a raise so now we want one.

LAAG responded to the LBReport editorial as follows:

Subject: "Taxation Without Representation"

What an appropriate picture. Here is the wikipedia link for your readers that goes with the picture and to learn a little history. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_taxation_without_representation LAAG has been fed up with local politicians pandering to public employee unions. We started this crusade before the mainstream media got on board. At first it was limited to giveaways to "public safety" employees. Now its the full spectrum of public employees with no end in site. The problem is that all these giveaways are done in "plain view" yet concealed from most taxpayers. We need more info on the internet. More disclosure. More timely. Easier to find. The other thing that need to be done is we need to start telling private sector employees what employees like them are making for less work, less skill, less education and less hours. Once taxpayers see that then they will get angry and throw out the politicians that hide or fail to fix the problems. Check out our site for details www.LAAG.us as well as http://www.pensiontsunami.com/ and this little gem courtesy of the Sacramento Bee (what a great paper; sort of like LB Report on steroids) http://www.laag.us/2008/03/want-to-know-what-state-employees-make.html


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

Vallejo, CA Bankruptcy Looms

This is a really big story that is not getting much press coverage. Astute LAAG readers have seen this coming for some time. The question is really whether or not this will spell out the future for many small California cities that are being held in a chokehold by public employee unions who refuse to bend during the downturn in the economy. Their feeling is just raise taxes. The hell with the taxpayers. We want our six figure retirements! We are the new elite in CA. This will be a big showdown and Vallejo needs to be watched to see if it is the model for future bankrupt cities. I am sure Long Beach is watching closely. I hope the public unions are.

Vallejo, California, Residents Foresee Cuts as Bankruptcy Looms

By Michael B. Marois and William Selway
More Photos/Details

May 8 (Bloomberg) -- As Vallejo, California's home prices plunged, the once-humming Navy town on the north edge of the San Francisco Bay seemed like a good place to settle down, said Tim Medrow, a manager at a store that sells floor and bathroom tiles.

Then came the city council meeting Tuesday night, when elected leaders voted to turn Vallejo into the largest California city to declare bankruptcy. ``It's crippling the city,'' said Medrow, 32. ``It's already feast or famine. And it's only going to get worse now.''

Vallejo, with a population of 117,000, is being squeezed by declining home sales that have rippled through its economy, cutting into the taxes it relies on from local retailers and home owners. It has been pushed to the breaking point, city officials say, by union contracts with firefighters and police it can't afford or renegotiate.

After talks with unions stalled, the seven members of Vallejo's city council decided unanimously to approve filing for bankruptcy. According to a report by City Manager Joseph Tanner, the city would otherwise face ``draconian'' cuts to close a $16 million budget shortfall that would leave the community faced with deteriorating roads and public buildings and rising crime.

``This is dire,'' said Councilwoman Erin Hannigan. ``We are at rock bottom.''

Bankruptcies Rare

Cities and towns rarely go bankrupt. Since 1937 there have been 543 municipal bankruptcies, two-thirds of them small districts established to sell municipal bonds for projects, according to James Spiotto, a municipal bankruptcy specialist at Chapman and Cutler LLP in Chicago.

The last California city to go bankrupt, Desert Hot Springs, a town of 20,000 near Palm Springs, did so in 2001 because it was hit by a legal verdict it couldn't afford to pay. Orange County, California, was felled by bad bets with leveraged investments in 1994.

Vallejo residents worry that a filing will hurt a city that struggled even in the best of times, when median home prices more than doubled between 2000 and 2005, according to the city manager's report. In interviews, they said they were concerned it could scare away new residents, hurt city services, and push Vallejo deeper into the hole.

``What business is going to want to come to a city with no money?'' said Josef Klaus, the owner of a vacuum and janitorial supply shop.

Vallejo, on the San Francisco Bay, was home to the West Coast's first shipyard, and residents and business owners say its economy never recovered after 1996, when the facility was closed by the U.S. Navy as the military pared spending following the end of the Cold War.

Housing Slump

The area has since been one of the hardest hit in Northern California by the housing market slump. Home prices in Solano County, which includes Vallejo, dropped 26 percent in March from the year before, according to DataQuick Information Systems, a firm which tracks real-estate markets in the state.

That helped fuel a projected sales tax drop of 7 percent to $12.4 million, according to city figures, while the taxes collected when property changes hands are expected to fall by more than $1.6 million.

Vallejo is also being hurt by its contracts with unions, which have wielded clout in the blue-collar town. As budget shortfalls emerged this year, the city has been unable to wrest permanent concessions from the police and firefighters that account for $58 million, or 69 percent, of the city's general fund budget last year.

Seeking Concessions

The permission to file bankruptcy may give the city more leverage with unions concerned that a federal judge might order more onerous cuts. Joanne Schivley, a city councilwoman, said Vallejo may stave off filing for protection from its creditors.

``We can pull the plug on bankruptcy at any time,'' she said.

Should Vallejo file, a federal bankruptcy judge must decide whether the city is actually insolvent. Assistant City Manager Craig Whittom said a plan to emerge from bankruptcy might include asking voters for more taxes.

Without additional revenue, he said, spending for road maintenance, libraries and health clinics may be curtailed. He said police and fire fighting services are already at minimum levels because of previous layoffs aimed at cutting public safety labor costs. Police no longer have enough officers to investigate property crimes, he said.

Businesses Suffer

Megan Bolton is feeling the squeeze. Bolton, who owns a commercial and residential window business with her husband, said building and remodeling fees rose fourfold last year, and she's had to pass it along to customers.

``Vallejo doesn't value businesses,'' said Bolton, 28.

Ivonne Johnson, a 38-year-old cheerleading and dance instructor, moved to Vallejo in October from San Francisco, looking to get away from crime and high-priced real estate. She stepped back from buying a home after she saw $80,000 cut from the asking price of one she was looking at. After this week's news, she's set her sights elsewhere.

``If city services are going to lose funding, and that means there might be less police officers who can respond, we're afraid it might turn into the kind of place we just left,'' she said.

To contact the reporter on this story: Michael B. Marois in Sacramento at mmarois@bloomberg.net; William Selway in San Francisco at wselway@bloomberg.net.


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

loss of $56 million in property-tax revenue

Well this is part two of the story. Salaries and benefits for public employees continue to rise and are not tied the overall economic picture. Property tax revenues are the majority of the revenue for local government, and in California this tax revenue is going to disappear in the subprime meltdown. With government budgeting based on a bubble prone area of the economy you would think that elected officials who create these budgets would take these issues into account. Another reason why public officials cannot be trusted when doing long term back room secret deals with public employee unions.

L.A. homes being reassessed
REAL ESTATE: Lower home values to lead to $660 in tax savings for many.
By Troy Anderson, Staff Writer
Article Launched: 03/20/2008 10:18:25 PM PDT

Due to significant drops in Los Angeles County home values, Assessor Rick Auerbach said Thursday that he's in the process of reassessing the values of 310,000 homes.

So far, he said, he has reduced the assessed value of 41,000 homes by an average of $66,000 each. That means a typical property-tax savings of about $660.

Auerbach said not all of the revaluations have come at the request of homeowners. Market conditions - and the growing likelihood that some properties are overassessed - have spurred him to review recent sales.

"We are basically looking at all single-family homes and condos that have a purchase date, whether purchased new or resale, between July 1, 2004, and June 30, 2007, because those are the ones we think might deserve a reassessment below their Proposition 13 values," Auerbach said.

The 41,000 reviews were from that July 1, 2004-June 30, 2007, period, he said.

"I'd like to stress we will compete this review in June and will notify property owners by July 1 if they have received a reduction," he added.

Homeowners who disagree with the reassessments can file an appeal with the county's Assessment Appeals Board from July 2 through Nov. 30.

"We applaud county Assessor Rick Auerbach for being proactive in calculating ... reductions in value rather than waiting for individual property owners to apply for these reductions individually," said Jon Coupal, president of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association.

"We understand that other assessors are likewise being proactive, and California homeowners are grateful they are doing so."

The reassessment comes after the median price of a home in the county peaked in February 2007 at $616,230 and has since dropped 23.8percent, to $469,420, said Jack Kyser, chief economist for the Los Angeles County Economic Development Corp.

"We expect prices to continue to slide down, and a lot of that downward pressure will come from foreclosed homes," Kyser said.

"The assessor will continue to have to do this, and for local government this is not good news. They are getting hit with a one-two punch."

Mary Funk, president of the Southland Association of Realtors, supported Auerbach's decision to reassess the home values.

"The property tax reductions, lower interest rates and higher conforming loans will help first-time homebuyers, as well as those looking to refinance and stay in their homes," she said.

Auerbach estimates the reassessments will reduce the county's assessment roll by $5.6billion, which will translate into a loss of about $56 million in property-tax revenue for local and state governments. County government receives about one-third of those revenues.

"Each city in the county will be impacted, depending on what the values are like in that particular city," Auerbach said.

Homeowners whose properties were not included in the review and who want a revaluation can download an application at the assessor's Web site at http://assessor.lacounty.gov.

Applications also can be obtained by calling 888-807-2111.

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

Its time for a reality check in "public safety"

Surely you have read about problems in Vallejo, Orange County and a number of other municipalities that are facing huge funding shortfalls due some very poor choices by elected officials who gave away the store in back room private deals struck with greedy public service unions, mostly representing police and fire union members. These deals and their true cost were hidden from the public by elected officials as they thought they could hide these deals until they got out of office. But alas were are now in a clearly foreseen public funding meltdown (spurred by inflation stock prices, the subprime meltdown and other causes) and now these little deals are coming to light as public officials scramble to find the dollars to fund them. But the dollars are not there and now they must sell tax increases on the poor schlep voters. In most cases they cant even cut back on the numbers of these employees. So its either raise taxes or cut the budget in other areas. Like LAAG loves to say..."well you got what you voted for"!


Thomas Elias: Warning signs for California cities
Vallejo's not alone when it comes to financial problems
http://www.appeal-democrat.com/articles/earthquakes_61643___article.html/warning_elias.html
March 18, 2008 12:01:00 AM

Like a swarm of small earthquakes that might — just might — turn out to be foreshocks of a Big One to come, the spate of near bankruptcies and other fiscal woes befalling small and medium-sized California cities this spring could be an early warning of far more serious trouble to come.

The city with the worst difficulties so far has been Vallejo, a medium-sized town on San Pablo Bay about 30 miles northeast of San Francisco that has never been quite the same since the Mare Island Naval Shipyard — opened in 1854 — shut down in 1996.

Under pressure from union contracts whose terms it simply could not meet, Vallejo came within days of declaring bankruptcy in late February, bailed out only when police and firefighter' unions agreed to trim a contracted pay raise from 10 percent to 2 percent. Firefighters also agreed to relax staffing requirements, allowing the city to operate two fewer fire companies each day than before.

But that might turn out to be only a stopgap measure, as Vallejo is like many other California cities, counties and school districts that will likely see revenue drop this year. State budget cuts already partially in force mean there will be less state money coming to localities in the next year. Falling property values will reduce property tax funds, while the overall near-recession means less sales tax money for everyone and stock market losses will mean fewer capital gains tax receipts.

Every restaurant meal forgone by cautious families, every home repair put off, every new car purchase delayed because of the slumping economy means less money coming into local government coffers just as surely as it means increased pressure on the far more publicized state budget.

Besides Vallejo, warning signals this spring have already come from Orange County, where supervisors warn of a possibly serious shortfall at budget time two months from now. The West Contra Costa Unified School District covering Richmond, El Cerrito, Kensington and several other cities, warns it has enough money to cover payroll and bills through June, but might not meet all its obligations beyond then.

Contra Costa County warns that some local sales tax receipts are down as much as 50 percent so far this year, while property taxes have not risen. But retiree health care costs are skyrocketing, with about 4,000 county employees due to retire over the next 10 years.

In Fresno County, officials warn their retirement plan may soon need to borrow money, just four years after taking a $400 million bailout loan. One consequence is that county employees will pay about 14 percent more into the plan this year than before.

The city of San Diego is putting new limits on retiree pensions in its effort to avoid a brush with bankruptcy. Employees who have not yet retired will no longer be able to collect benefits exceeding their annual salaries and will have to work longer to reach the top benefit level.

The Fresno suburb of Clovis warns it will have a $3 million deficit heading into the 2008-2009 fiscal year. To avoid bankruptcy, that small city will try for an 8 percent across-the-board spending cutback, and will ask for some employee "give backs" and voluntary furloughs.

It all adds up to an entirely new scene for government workers in California and their unions.

The days when savvy labor contract negotiating meant figuring out ways to extract maximum dollars and benefits are gone. Things become more complex when unions have to worry about making sure they don't take so much that they bankrupt their employers, thus forcing them to renege on many longstanding contracts and obligations.

It's almost like Aesop's old fable about the goose that laid golden eggs. The goose was in no danger of stopping until its owners got greedy and decided to check its innards to see if they could mine a large amount of gold all at once rather than settling for one egg per day. They cut it open, killed it and stopped the flow of gold altogether.

Similarly, public employee unions have not been satisfied with excellent jobs, good working conditions, solid pensions and health care plans, but continually press for more. Their greed is one big reason for the looming crisis threatening both state and local governments. Widespread bankruptcies would be the equivalent of the dead goose, as the big payouts public employees now get might quickly dwindle.

So it behooves them to give a little ground in this time of foreclosures and recession or near-recession, or the voting public might turn against them and install elected officials who won't go along with the steady increases to which unions and workers are now accustomed.

Thomas D. Elias writes on California politics and other issues. His syndicated column appears Tuesdays. E-mail him at tdelias@aol.com.


The bottom line of safety
Article Launched: 03/17/2008 06:12:24 PM PDT
http://www.sgvtribune.com/opinions/ci_8606407

PUBLIC safety is always the No. 1 concern of those who live in our region.

Public safety also costs big bucks, more of them every year.

Right now, many local cities are confronted with ever-higher costs for police and fire employees - especially for their retirement packages. After decades of work on the part of these indispensable people and their unions, their salaries and benefits are at extraordinary levels befitting their extraordinary performance.

But there's a point beyond which taxpayers cannot go. While no city wants to sacrifice public safety, many are being squeezed by aggressive bargaining tactics from public safety employee unions on one side, and reduced tax revenues from a slumping economy on the other.

Cities are required to balance their budgets; they can't borrow their way into the black, as the state Legislature and governor do far too often.

That's why it is crucial - today more than ever - for cities to take a strong stand against unreasonable demands for compensation from employee unions. Granting pay raises to police and fire employees that jeopardize fiscal solvency or lead to cuts in other services is foolish and irresponsible. When the budget tilts too much toward employee compensation, police and fire included, we believe the quality of life in the small and medium-sized cities of southeastern Los Angeles County and the San Gabriel Valley deteriorates.

Today, the city of Monrovia, population
Advertisement
39,900, is getting prepared to take a courageous stand for fiscal responsibility. After months of considerate, reasonable negotiations, its City Council is ready to impose a one-year contract with the Monrovia Police Officers Association, albeit one that the union has already rejected.

We think the city has negotiated in good faith. We also see the city's offer of a 5.5 percent pay raise over 3.5 years - 16.5percent overall - as not only reasonable, but generous. Any other employee group in the private sector would be thrilled with such an offer during these troubled economic times. But the police officers' association reportedly wants a 23.2 percent raise.

The one-year offer to be set tonight will hike the salary of a police officer by 4.68 percent and a sergeant by 6.19 percent. Top scale for each would go to $71,064 and $91,512, respectively. The city's offer also increases the city contribution to retirees' medical benefits, which for employees of 25 years or more would be a one-time lump sum of $4,000. The city already offers the most generous retirement benefits of "3 percent at 50," which means an employee of 30 years, multiplied by 3percent, gets 90 percent of his salary upon retirement as part of the CalPERS system.

Again, these are generous benefits. In fact, we're concerned that cities are shortchanging other services to pay hefty salaries and benefits to city employees.

Monrovia's police union has used scare tactics in its campaign to get the largest pay raise possible, telling residents in 11,000 "robo calls" that the city has "ignored" officers' request for "the resources to make our city more secure." By taking advantage of a spate of gang shootings in December and January, the tactic is a new low in campaigning. We're not convinced that more officers is the solution. In fact, some union members have suggested not filling the four officer vacancies and distributing the savings to the existing members through raises, a councilman told us.

If more officers is not an answer, more pay for existing ones is no answer, either.

After 30 or so community meetings, city officials and neighborhood leaders say there needs to be a more comprehensive anti-gang effort, one that Mayor Rob Hammond says should include suppression combined with intervention programs, such as Monrovia's Youth Employment Service or summer job program.

These programs cost money. Expanding them costs money - money that Monrovia would not have if it went above and beyond a 16.5 percent increase.

Monrovia is acting responsibly in its budget decisions. It's time for Monrovia's excellent - and well-compensated - police officers to do the same.

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

Must we keep paying for LASD to make the same mistakes over and over?

Well hopefully we wont be having shootouts in Lakewood anytime soon, but with LASD who knows. Shoot first ask questions later. Correction ....shoot 120 times first then ask questions. I think the sheriff's Office of Independent Review, who concluded that deputies violated tactical and pursuit policies summed up the situation and the LASD in general when they said the scene was "mass confusion." But not to worry. The deputies are on their way to management I am sure and big fat pensions. Meanwhile guess who foots the bill? That's right. Mr. and Mrs. Taxpayer. We pay the Sheriffs AND the victims. Now all we need is to pay for the sheriff's who sue the county for disciplining them when they screwed up. (oh and yes that happens quite regularly in all law enforcement agencies...its called the triple jackpot) Maybe we send all these sheriff's who screw up in shootouts to Iraq. At least in Iraq there are no trial for victims (just ask Blackwater).


http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/california/la-me-hayes8mar08,1,5503103.story
From the Los Angeles Times
Man wins case over L.A. County deputies' barrage of gunfire

Shot at more than 100 times in Compton after a low-speed pursuit, he is awarded $1.3. million by a jury.
By John Spano
Los Angeles Times Staff Writer

March 8, 2008

As a young man in South Los Angeles, Winston Hayes got to know the Compton courthouse well, getting hauled before judges more than a dozen times to answer charges of arson, assault and other crimes.

On Friday, Hayes, 46, was back in court, but this time he walked out $1,326,468.60 richer after a civil court jury decided that Los Angeles County sheriff's deputies used excessive force on him three years ago.

"Justice was done," Hayes said after the verdict, his left eye drooping from injuries he received as a result of his encounter with deputies.

During a four-week trial, Hayes showed jurors nine bullet wounds he suffered when deputies fired 120 shots at him at the end of a low-speed pursuit on May 9, 2005.

A total of 66 bullets struck Hayes' sport utility vehicle. Eleven bullets struck the deputies' own patrol cars, and another 11 pelted nearby residences.

In the end, only Hayes and a deputy were hit. The deputy was wearing a bulletproof vest and was not seriously injured.

"We do hope this verdict acts as a catalyst for building relationships between the Sheriff's Department and the community it serves," said Hayes' attorney, Brian Dunn, whose client had turned down the county's offer of $500,000 to settle the case. County lawyers declined to comment

On the night of the shooting, deputies had been investigating a report of shots fired in a Compton neighborhood when they saw Hayes' vehicle and approached to question him. Hayes, who was high on drugs at the time, said he panicked when he saw deputies and fled.

At the heart of the trial was a videotape shot by an amateur photographer showing the end of the 12-minute, low-speed chase. It showed Hayes in his SUV, his path blocked by squad cars, and a dozen deputies closing in on foot with guns drawn. Deputies testified that they fired at Hayes because they believed he had tried to run them down. Each said he fired to save his own life or that of a fellow deputy.

But to many residents and police observers, the shooting appeared excessive and dangerous, imperiling the safety of deputies and residents.

Sheriff Lee Baca quickly disciplined all the deputies involved with suspensions of up to 15 days. He also made changes to the department's shooting policy.

The incident prompted a report by Michael Gennaco, head of the sheriff's Office of Independent Review, who concluded that deputies violated tactical and pursuit policies. He described the scene as "mass confusion."

After 10 days of deliberations, jurors agreed that only two of the 10 deputies involved -- Michael Haggerty and Vergilian Bolder -- had used excessive force.

It was Hayes himself, his past and his motives that dominated deliberations, jurors said.

When he testified on his own behalf, he sounded defensive as he attempted to explain his past convictions for assault, arson, theft and resisting arrest -- and his use of cocaine and marijuana the night he was shot.

"There was a lot of disagreement," said jury forewoman Julia Christmas of Paramount.

She said she was persuaded from the beginning that deputies used excessive force, but it took 10 days to persuade nine of the 12 jurors -- the minimum needed to reach a verdict.

Christmas said the video was the key evidence.

"The shooting was excessive. At the time, they didn't have a clear shot," she said. "They weren't at a place where they needed to shoot."

Ultimately, the victim was less important than the deputies, she said.

"That's what I had to keep reminding jurors," Christmas said. "This wasn't about" Hayes. "It was about the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department taking responsibility for their actions."

Deputies "should have waited a little bit more," said juror Curtis Martin of Lakewood.

"I would not want this to happen in my neighborhood," he said. "It could have ended in a different way. The police could have had more patience."

john.spano@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

Want to know what state employees make? We did

Well this was too good to pass up. Now we hope this will enlighten the public about where their tax dollars are going. We need databases like this for county and city employees as well as well as a database to tell us how much they will cost us when they retire at 50 with full health care at 90% of their pay. Here is the link to the database. Thank you Sacramento Bee! We need more papers like you.

Public Editor: Public is public and there is just no hiding that
By Armando Acuña -
Published 12:00 am PDT Sunday, March 16, 2008

The fallout from The Bee's decision to post a searchable-by-name database of state worker salaries at sacbee.com continued last week, dominating reader feedback for a second time.

There were, however, a few new twists that weren't apparent in the initial days after the database and the accompanying story about state salaries were published March 4.

While the overall tenor of response from state workers remains critical – though the number of complaints has significantly declined – an increasing number of state employees and just plain citizens say they support the paper's decision to create the database.

And it's more clear than ever that, overwhelmingly, almost every negative response has come from state workers, their spouses or relatives.

The number of complaints from regular folks to my office literally can be counted on one hand.

Meanwhile, the total page views at sacbee.com/statepay have reached about 4 million.

There was also some news as the paper's editors responded to reader requests for database changes.

Added were categories for searches by pay range, job title and agency.

As explained in an editor's note published last Tuesday, you can now "see who makes the most in a department, the pay for everyone in that department with a certain job title, and the number of workers there who make over $100,000 – or under $30,000."

This is an important addition, in my opinion, as it helps satisfy a legitimate complaint that it was difficult to compare and analyze inequities in state salaries on a large scale using the original database.

In addition, new links were added to state worker salary databases in other states, to a searchable database for federal employees and to national data from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics comparing public- and private-sector salaries.

These were all things readers asked for, yet many missed the editor's note about the changes, judging from some of my e-mail.

The paper also has added legislative employee salaries to the database.

In case you were unaware, there was also a protest by about 100 state workers, who picketed in front of The Bee on Wednesday. The protest was organized by one of the public employee unions.

And speaking of the unions, one reader sent a copy of an online newsletter from a unit of the California State University Employees Union. The newsletter tells employees concerned about the database who to complain to at The Bee, including my office.

The newsletter concludes, however, with this: "On the positive side, this should help with researching those equity issues."

It then provides links to The Bee's database and state salary story.

I agree with them. It is one of the positive parts of having the searchable database.

A relatively small but growing number of readers – a few dozen as opposed to hundreds of critical state workers – have sent e-mails or left phone messages supporting the paper's efforts.

Several have been highly critical of the complaining state employees, saying The Bee should also include all benefits – such as retirement contributions, health care, vacations, etc. – to more accurately show total compensation and better compare public- vs. private-sector pay and benefits.

Some want to know whether the paper will expand its database to include the salaries of county, city and public school employees. The answer is yes, though full implementation may take awhile.

A number of responses have come from former and current state workers.

"All of the dust-up over printing state worker names and salaries is a tempest in a tea cup as far as I'm concerned," wrote a reader from Elk Grove. "From 1984 to December 2004, I worked as a staff employee for the Assembly and then for the Senate. About two times a year, a local weekly paper (Capitol Weekly) ran the names, positions and salaries of all California legislative employees. No problem.

"We were – and are – being paid with tax money and our names, positions and salaries were and are public data. We found these printings to be of great interest to see who was being paid what. A real education!"

Wrote a woman who works for CalEPA:

"Please don't paint all state workers with the same brush. I have worked for the state for years and did not complain or comment on the salary database because I think my employers should know how much they pay me," she said in her e-mail. "I work for the taxpayers of California and they are all free to know anything about the work they pay me to do."

A woman from Elverta, who said she's read the paper for 45 years, e-mailed to say, "I feel The Bee's intention in making the information more readily accessible to the public is in the community's best interests."

I've excluded the names of these readers to shield them from some of the vitriol and name-calling directed at me by some of those vehemently opposed to the database that might come their way if they were identified.

It comes with my territory, not theirs.

As this situation continues to play itself out, it's apparent some state employees don't understand, as I tried to explain last week, that an important role of the newspaper is to gather and disseminate public information. That includes making it easier for people to find and use public information.

Last Wednesday, a woman said in her e-mail that she and her husband are state workers. She said they were angry at the paper for, among other things, making public information public.

"The Bee states this (salary database) is public information, then erroneously concludes that since it is public, the public should know."

I will let that speak for itself.


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

Spending ourselves over a cliff

We recalled Gray Davis for this mess? Arnie is Democrat in republican clothing. People need to listen to what presidential candidate Ron Paul is saying. We are spending ourselves over the edge of a cliff. Once we go over thats it. It will make the housing crisis look like a hang nail. In a way I dont blame the State Legislature that much as most people run their own households the same way. Spend more than you make and get into as much debt as possible hoping you can ride the silly housing bubble before it bursts. This irresponsibility cause the sub prime meltdown. Well we all know the bubbles burst. But like Paul said we need to stop the boom and bust cycle and take some responsibility for our greed and spending. And dont think this Indian Casino scam on the ballot this February will save us. It will just encourage more irresponsibility. People just dont seem to care. They keep voting for these silly politicians (and propositions) then give the legislature a pass when these "crises" pop up "unexpectedly" (yeah right). You know as much as people say they care about their kids futures and making sure they have a better life than their parents, saddling their kids with debt is one sure way to make sure their future enslaves them to government for the "Sins of their Fathers".


Budget woes not inherent — governor creates them
Sunday, January 13, 2008
http://www.venturacountystar.com/news/2008/jan/13/budget-woes-not-inherent-8212-governor-creates/
By Sen. Tom McClintock

Abraham Lincoln finally had enough of Stephen Douglas' obfuscations when they met to debate in Charleston, Ill. He said, "Judge Douglas is playing cuttlefish — a small species of fish that has no mode of defending himself when pursued except by throwing out a black fluid which makes the water so dark the enemy cannot see it, and thus it escapes."

Lincoln's cuttlefish story came to mind during the governor's State of the State message when he blamed the state's massive budget deficit on formulas that lock in spending. On the same day, a gubernatorial minion penned a column that claimed, "About 90 percent of the state's budget is tied to spending formulas, contracts and/or statutes, requiring spending to increase by specific amounts each year."

Behind that cloud of sophistry is a species of politician trying to escape responsibility for a budget crisis of his own making.

In fact, virtually all of the "formulas, contracts and/or statutes" can be suspended with the same two-thirds vote that is required to adopt the budget in the first place. Our budget crisis isn't because these politicians can't suspend these "mandates" — it's because they won't.

True, there are a few expenditures required by the state constitution. The state's annual debt payments can't be suspended, although less borrowing can reduce them in the future. Unfortunately, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's borrowing binge has increased our annual debt obligation from $2 billion in 2003 to more than $7 billion today.

The state's pension payments are contractual obligations that can't be suspended, but shrinking the public work force or reforming pensions for new hires can reduce future obligations. Unfortunately, under Schwarzenegger, the state employee rolls have grown at nearly twice the rate of population growth.

In addition, there is one ballot proposition that is beyond the control of the Legislature and the governor to suspend: Schwarzenegger's own "After School Program" that now consumes roughly a half-billion dollars each year.

Everything else can be suspended by the same vote that adopts the budget — including every statute on the books. Even most constitutional mandates provide for their own suspension. For example, Proposition 98, which "mandates" that nearly half of the budget must go to public schools, can be suspended by two-thirds vote. Not only did Schwarzenegger refuse to do so through the last three years of declining public school enrollment, he increased the Proposition 98 base — and, therefore, future budgets — by billions of dollars above what Proposition 98 called for. That is precisely why the governor is now forced to propose school cuts that are far deeper than would otherwise have been necessary.

Similarly, the state Legislature can force virtually any contract back to the bargaining table by refusing to fund it fully in the annual budget act. When Sen. Jackie Speier and I proposed doing so in 2004 in an attempt to bring state prison guard salaries under control, Schwarzenegger opposed it. Now, four years later, the governor proposes releasing 22,000 dangerous felons.

Perhaps the most telling point is simply this: When Senate Republicans desperately warned last summer that the budget was dangerously unbalanced and attempted to enact reforms to avert the crisis, Schwarzenegger campaigned against them.

When the budget was adopted in August, I warned on the Senate floor: "Today, we set in motion events that will require far more difficult and painful decisions starting just five months from now in what is likely to be a much worse economy . For the second time in a decade, this state is being driven to another Gray Davis-sized fiscal crisis."

The same day, the governor said: "I am pleased that the Legislature has passed a responsible budget that protects California's priorities and keeps our economy strong. It was a challenging process but, in the end, our legislative leaders came together to deliver a spending plan that does not raise taxes, creates the largest reserve in history and reduces our operating deficit after the spending vetoes that I have promised."

It's going to require more than a cloud of rhetorical ink to cover that escape.

— Sen. Tom McClintock represents the 19th Senate District in the state Legislature.

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

The Never Ending Story

This story just keeps repeating itself over and over. Of course the falling tax revenues will really be a double whammy for 2008 and 2009 after hears of inflated real estate values which is really going to hit the county the worst as they are the ones who get their hands on that money first. When will the voters hold politician accountable for these actions? Better yet when will we stop them from taking these actions in the first place as they seem unable to muster the will the say no to the unions? If we do not stop the runaway spending on government union employees and silly pork projects that are 3x over budget before they start, there will be hell to pay in the next 10 years. We have yet to see what direct effect this will have on Lakewood but we suspect the same pattern of activity. This "never ending story" will have an end sooner rather than later unfortunately and it will not be a good one. And just like the bursting of the housing bubble it may start and spread much quicker than you think and will also spread much deeper into areas you would not expect, just like the sub-prime mortgage debacle (which we still dont know the full extent of).

Pols engaged in much selective perception in 2007
Article Last Updated: 12/30/2007 10:28:21 PM PST
http://www.dailynews.com/opinions/ci_7844487

If the unremarkable year of 2007 becomes known for anything around Los Angeles, it may be for the irresponsibility of public figures.

That doesn't necessarily mean the many actors who chose to act illegally and foolishly - that's pretty much a standard every year - but the selective perception of local and state governments when it came to looming problems.

The state

At the state level, legislators and Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger ignored what anyone could have foreseen - that the housing crisis would put a severe squeeze on future revenues from property taxes.

But instead of anticipating the downturn in fortunes, Schwarzenegger and legislative Democrats blithely passed a spending plan for 2007-2008 that painted a rosy financial picture. They even predicted a $4 billion reserve that would never be possible.

The real news rolled out just weeks ago, when the reserve was adjusted to a $14 billion deficit, a fiscal emergency declared and a special session of the Legislature called to sort out the financial mess. Never mind that it was a mess created by ignoring what anyone could see.

The city

The lack of foresight demonstrated by Los Angeles city officials will also contribute greatly to establishing 2007 as something best forgotten. Like state politicians, Los Angeles' mayor and City Council failed to adequately plan for the financial future despite clear warning signs.

First, there was the phone tax. The longtime tax had been challenged in court and was likely to be ruled illegal, thus ending an annual $280 million revenue stream, long before city officials suddenly leapt into action with an "emergency" ballot initiative for the February primary election.

Yet even with the fate of those many millions in the balance, city leaders signed off on a 23 percent wage increase for the nation's highest-paid work force over the next five years, not even counting the numerous annual "step" increases for most employees. City officials justified the raises by saying the city could afford them, and the employees deserved them.

But just weeks later they suddenly realized that there was a $300 million deficit looming and they would have to start cutting back services.

And what if voters fail to open their wallets again to support the City Hall money pit by passing the new and expanded phone tax? Prepare for cuts to service - not to the size of the bureaucracy or paychecks, and certainly not to the lavish pay of politicians, their perks or staffs. It will come in the form of hiring fewer cops to protect the public despite promising that higher trash fees would pay for them.

The county

Los Angeles County officials may have not gotten into the same budget mess as the state and the city - not yet, anyhow - but they are also not off the hook for making decisions that will have financial implications down the road.

Property tax revenues collected countywide soared to $4.6 billion in the past five years due to the hot real-estate market. County supervisors happily spent the money on creating an even bigger budget with pay raises, bonuses, pension and health-benefits improvements for the 100,000 county employees.

But when the full brunt of the cooling housing market - plus all those foreclosed properties not paying taxes in the next few months - hits, the county may well be committed to its higher spending plan but with far less revenue.

Things are only looking bleaker for the economy next year. The housing downturn is predicted to slow revenue growth to only 1.3 percent in 2008, though financial commitments to employee contracts are much higher. And if there's a recession, well, things will go from bad to worse quickly. But because of this year of irresponsible financial choices, the city, the county and the state will be in a money bind.

And guess who they will turn to in an effort to bail them out - again?

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

Lakewood outdoes Santa Barbara

Not to be outdone by Santa Barbara entire city of Lakewood is off from Dec 21 to Dec 31, 2008. Great I am sure they will all be working hard on Dec 31 until 5pm(New Years Eve). Then off again on Jan 1. Perhaps they should just stay off Dec 21 to Jan 3. They really dont do much when they are working anyway. The funny thing is that Santa Barbara actually got "concessions" for the TWO extra days off. What did the taxpayers in Lakewood get? Not much from what we can see. What is most predictable is the fact that government employees sit around all day on the internet (on our nickel) looking to see what perks other government employees in other districts cities or counties are getting. Then they demand the same. Politicians cave in as always. I wonder what all the poor folks in the private sector are thinking when they read this? Government could care less what we the "little people" think. They are not elected and cannot be fired and heaven knows government ever down sizes.

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-eve24dec24,1,1758974.story
From the Los Angeles Times
Santa Barbara County workers get holiday eves off
The extra days at Christmas and New Year's are a thank-you for making concessions in latest contract deal.
By Catherine Saillant
Los Angeles Times Staff Writer

December 24, 2007

Government workers in Santa Barbara County can take full advantage of their last-minute holiday shopping this year, thanks to two extra paid days off that the Board of Supervisors quietly slipped into their stockings.

Without comment, supervisors earlier this month gave county government's 4,300 employees Christmas Eve and New Year's Eve off. Since both fall on a Monday preceding a Tuesday holiday, the action created consecutive four-day holiday weekends.

County leaders say it's a one-time deal and that it comes on the heels of hard-fought labor negotiations that resulted in favorable contracts for the county. Giving employees the extra time was a way of thanking them for concessions made in the agreements, said Michael Brown, the county's executive officer.

The county will maintain staffing for emergency services, including police and fire, and the clerk-recorder's office will provide limited services in some locations, he said.

"We had achieved many goals in a responsible way," said Brown, who recommended the days off. "We floated the idea to the board because this year's calendar is unique."

It is not unusual for public employees to get Friday off when Christmas and New Year's Day fall on a Saturday, human resources officials said. But adding an extra day off before a holiday appears to be uncommon, at least among Southern California's public agencies.

Santa Barbara County's action raised eyebrows, and envy levels, of other county government officials asked about the decision. Representatives of Los Angeles, Orange and Ventura counties said their workers would spend the two eves working as usual -- documenting real estate transfers, taking tax payments and prosecuting criminals.

"They got two extra days? Nice," said Judy Hammond, Los Angeles County public information officer. "I've been here since 1991 and we've never gotten either of those days off." L.A. County, she added, will be open for business both days.

The same goes for Orange County, said Jessica Jakary, a spokeswoman for the chief executive's office.

"That's nice for them, but we'll be here," Jakary said. "If our employees want to have those days off, they have to use vacation days."

Ventura County's top administrator was circumspect about Santa Barbara's justification for adding the days off. County Executive Officer Johnny Johnston, who has headed an 8,000-employee workforce for six years, said he knows how difficult labor negotiations can get.

Volume for public services does go down around the holidays, he said. But there will always be someone who waits until the last minute to file a document.

"In the euphoria of the moment, they declared a holiday," Johnston said. "But I'm kind of a Scrooge. We're not here to serve ourselves, but the public."

In a letter to the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors, Brown cited the low demand for services in the last two weeks of the year and said "granting these one-time holidays will not significantly inhibit the county's commitment to service delivery."

The days off, he wrote, were a good way to show "appreciation for the hard work of union leaders, and for the willingness of county employees to address financial concerns for the county."

New three-year contracts with much of the county's workforce include salary and benefit increases averaging 7%. The increases fell within the Board of Supervisors' targets, Brown said.

In addition, the unions agreed to hold off the largest increase until the final year of the contract, easing budget pressures for the coming year .

Andy Caldwell, head of the Coalition of Labor, Agriculture and Business, a citizens watchdog group, said he, too, was pleased with the outcome of the negotiations.

The county gained important concessions, making it easier to contract out some services and put on the table for future negotiations the possibility of switching from current guaranteed lifetime pensions to a 401(k)-type retirement package. In view of that, Caldwell said, the group decided not to complain too much about the days off.

Santa Barbara County workers get 11 holidays in a typical year, plus up to 25 vacation days if they have 14 years of service. Most employees also are allowed 12 sick days a year.

"Typically, we would have blasted the board on something like that," Caldwell said of the extra days. "But when we read the concessions they made, we bit half of our tongue."

Brown said it would cost the county $150,000 to cover extra pay for police officers and other emergency workers who will remain on the job.

But Caldwell said the truer cost is the county's payroll for two days, a figure he estimated at $1 million. He said he would have preferred that employees use vacation days to extend their holidays.

"It costs what they are paying them because they are not getting work for those days," he said.

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™

Bring on the pay raises..to hell with the deficit!

These guys are hilarious: “If you compare it to the private sector, you’d be hard-pressed to find anybody in the top level of management of a company with a $130 billion budget that receives a level of pay like that,” (see quote below) What they fail to point out is that they could never get a management job in the private sector on their own. The reason is that they are inept fiscal managers. You cant run a company into the ground every year (with a $10 billion deficit) and expect a life time job and pension like in the state legislature. Now of course after the legislators get out of office then the public sector will be interested in their value as lobbyists. Then the cash will roll in...cha ching.

December 10th, 2007
State Lawmakers Get $3K Pay Increase
Rene Villaroman/Asianjournal.com

LOS ANGELES - California lawmakers gave themselves a salary increase on Monday despite the threat of a statewide budget squeeze. The raise, about $3,000 plus, would hike the lawmakers' annual salary to $116,208 and higher, according to the Daily News.

The raise is just one of the latest for elected California officials, Los Angeles City and County leaders who have just been granted pay raises amounting to 4.16 percent retroactive to July 1. California legislators are among the nation’s highest paid elected officials. The report said that some elected officials opted not to accept the pay hikes.

The pay raises had come despite dire warnings from Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger that the State is faced with a $10 billion shortfall next year. Los Angeles City officials have likewise called for department cuts, and County officials are bracing for property-revenue slowdowns due to the mortgage industry meltdown.

“I guess it makes perfect sense that the legislative body that has spent the State into oblivion now wants a pay increase,” commented Jon Couple, President of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association. “It’s nothing short of outrageous. They’re the highest-paid, least-effective legislative body probably in America. I don’t see how any raise for this Legislature, which can’t even balance the budget, can be justified.” At least 14 lawmakers have reportedly refused the 2.75 percent raises, Comptroller John Chiang’s office reported.

The rest of the Legislature, however, accepted the increases, bringing their salaries to $116,208 for rank-and-file lawmakers, and $133,639 for the four legislative leaders. The lawmakers also receive about $34,000 a year in per diem payments to cover living expenses. Four lawmakers from the Sacramento area declined the per diem. The Governor’s salary was also raised to $212,179, even though Gov. Schwarzenegger has declined to accept his State salary since taking over in 2003. Insurance Commission Steve Poizner has announced that he would donate his salary increase to charity.

“I’d say everyone should hold back and think twice about any of the raises right now because the State has slipped into a $10 billion structural deficit,” Schwarzenegger said. “I am convinced that they’re interested in getting this mess straightened out in order to show California is fiscally responsible.”

Anthony Portantino, D-Pasadena, a freshman assemblyman, said he declined his increase because as Chairman of the Higher Education Committee he is asking the State’s college and university systems to restrict executive pay raises.

“I’ve been very tough on UC and CSU as Chair of Higher Education for their executive compensation, and I felt it important to do the same. Let’s lead by example,” Portantino said. He added that it was a personal decision and he was not criticizing any colleagues who decided to accept the raise.

Steve Maviglio, spokesman for Assembly Speaker Fabian Nunez, D-Los Angeles, said lawmakers are relatively underpaid compared with executives in the private sector, or with what State lawmakers made 40 years ago, adjusted for inflation. “If you compare it to the private sector, you’d be hard-pressed to find anybody in the top level of management of a company with a $130 billion budget that receives a level of pay like that,” Maviglio said.

“It also speaks to the quality of people we can attract. If citizens only want to attract millionaires to the job, that’s who you are going to get if we don’t compensate them adequately.”

At the local level, Los Angeles City and County elected officials recently received rates of about 4 percent, retroactive to July 1. LA Council members and County supervisors will now be making $178,789. Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, City Comptroller Laura Chick and four Council members have said they will refuse the increases, while two council members will donate theirs to charity. No County supervisors have publicly announced intentions to refuse the raise. Supervisors Yvonne Burke and Don Knabe said they will accept the salary raise. Board of Supervisors Chairman Zev Yarovslasky was reportedly ill and could not give a comment. (www.asianjournal.com)

Lakewood Accountability Action Group™ LAAG | www.LAAG.us | Lakewood, CA
A California Non Profit Association | Demanding action and accountability from local government™

We told you so

We hate saying that but its true. We objected to this free for all spending way back in Nov 2006. Unfortunately elected officials are just like 16 year old girls with their first credit card. Of course as the savings rate in this country is negative 1% I guess we could say that politicians are just a reflection of the nations reckless spending habits which is now going to cost the taxpayers but also the savers. It really is too bad that government no longer responds to or works for the people. It only operates to serve and feed itself. I suggest county Chief Executive Officer Bill Fujioka take the first step and cut his nearly 400,000 yearly salary.

L.A. County awaits fiscal wallop
By Troy Anderson, Staff Writer
Article Last Updated: 11/28/2007 11:58:10 PM PST
http://www.dailynews.com/news/ci_7584881

Los Angeles County officials are bracing for a round of belt-tightening as property tax revenues fall short of expectations on drooping home values and the state prepares to cut off additional funds.

While soaring property values have poured millions into county coffers in recent years, officials say they expect revenues to increase just 2 percent to 5 percent next year - compared with 9 percent this year - as the real estate market cools.

At the same time, California's fiscal woes are worsening as Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has asked all state departments to prepare for 10 percent cuts amid a slowing economy and unexpected setbacks that have created a nearly $10 billion budget shortfall over the next two years.

While county Chief Executive Officer Bill Fujioka said he is optimistic, he is preparing a report on the potential effects on the county budget as the first property tax checks start rolling in Dec. 10.

"We aren't seeing any negatives in that area yet," Fujioka said. "As far as the state budget, it's early ... I've been talking to friends of mine in the Legislature and they are saying the problem is much worse than what is being publicly reported."

In the past five years, property tax revenues collected countywide have nearly doubled to $4.6 billion, helping to boost the county budget to $21.8 billion.

Flush with cash, the Board of Supervisors has approved hundreds of millions of dollars on everything from
Advertisement
pay raises, bonuses, pension and health-benefits improvements for the 100,000 county employees.

Hundreds of millions of dollars also have been spent to reopen jails, hire new sheriff's deputies, probation officers and social workers, and set aside about $100 million to address homelessness in the county.

Financial problems

Still, the county continues to face a variety of financial problems, including a health department deficit expected to hit as much as $854 million by 2010-11 and liabilities to pay for retirees' health-care costs estimated at $13 billion to $20 billion.

"My only observation is, the government will spend every dollar they are given and then some," said Jon Coupal, president of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association.

"There is no discipline to save for the future. The warning signs with the subprime fallout have been there and yet the county and the city continue to spend like nothing is wrong - as if taxpayers have an endless supply of revenues for government needs."

The city of Los Angeles collects about $1 billion in property taxes each year, providing 20 percent of the general fund. So far this year, property tax revenues are still strong and the collection rate is 97 percent, finance specialist Rex Olliff said Wednesday.

"There's no reason to think there will be a big drop in property tax this year. It's (in) the 2008-09 budget that we'll start to see the effect of the real estate downturn," he said.

Collection rates are expected to fall as foreclosures rise. And the big boost in tax receipts generated by home sales and high new prices will slow.

But the cooling market already has had an effect on money generated by the real estate transfer tax, which is a fee charged when a property is sold.

Transfer tax receipts from November have dropped 35 percent compared to the same period last year.

"While the real estate decline has not played out fully in the city of Los Angeles, as it has in other surrounding markets, these latest numbers do not bode well for the city budget or local economy," said Controller Laura Chick.

As the housing market slumps in California, local governments are seeing declines in property tax and sales tax revenues, said Paul McIntosh, executive director of the California State Association of Counties.

"So most counties are starting to take a look at their budgets in the current year to see how they are faring," McIntosh said. "I haven't heard about anybody having to make any cuts, but they are certainly concerned about the next budget.

"And we expect the state to have a $10 billion deficit and look for ways to balance that. Counties are always cautious and concerned when that happens."

Despite a measure that bars California from raiding local coffers, it does allow the Legislature to borrow local governments' property tax revenues in times of need.

While Board of Supervisors Chairman Zev Yaroslavsky said he doesn't see that as likely, he said because the county is a pass-through agency for state and federal funds, any broad cuts could affect health, welfare and other services the county provides.

"The degree of seriousness will vary from county to county and city to city depending on how they have managed their budgets," Yaroslavsky said. "We are better positioned than, say, the city of Los Angeles, or other counties.

"But we will be impacted. If we have to dip into reserves, that will be an impact. If we have to defer capital spending, that's an impact. Those are things we'll do before making cuts."

Values dropping

Meanwhile, although the assessed values of properties in the county rose from $570 billion in 2000 to more than $1 trillion this year, the rate of increase is expected to significantly slow next year.

And as some people who recently bought homes watch the values drop, Assessor Rick Auerbach said he's seen a slight increase in the number of people appealing their assessed values.

Two years ago, 12,172 homeowners appealed their valuations - this year that's expected to hit 13,000 to 14,000.

Auerbach said he doesn't expect to see that increase significantly until 2008, when people get property tax bills reflecting the recent declines in housing prices.

The bills homeowners will receive next month reflect January 2007 assessments.

Meanwhile, the number of foreclosures as of Sept. 29 totaled about 8,800 - or 8 percent of reappraised transactions - nearly triple the 3,184 last year that accounted for 1.7 percent of transactions.

"My general impression is we're lower than most places because most places have had more development in the last couple of years and the areas with more development have had the newer loans, the problem loans, and so there is more chance of foreclosures," Auerbach said.

In an effort to properly assess the value of homes that may have dropped in price, Auerbach said his office will use computer modeling to determine homes that will need reductions for property tax purposes.

"Hopefully by the end of May, we'll be notifying taxpayers for their 2008 assessment if they deserve a reduction in value," Auerbach said.

"Obviously, for most people, a reduction in value means the actual value of the property has gone down in the last year. That's the bad news because, for most people, their home is their largest investment.

"The good news, at least in some small way, is that their property taxes will also go down."

Staff Writer Kerry Cavanaugh contributed to this report.

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™

Not just in LA or Ca anymore..its all over

Sooner or later the voters/taxpayers will wake up. But it will likely be too late. The taxpayers need to take on the government workers and the unions as the politicians sure as hell are not going to do it.

Why L.A. is going broke
City worker costs up 7.5% a year, but revenue up just 5.7%
By Beth Barrett, Staff Writer
Article Last Updated: 11/18/2007 12:52:27 AM PST
http://www.dailynews.com/news/ci_7494599

Online Poll
Do you think city workers are overpaid?
Yes 72.5 %
No 27.50 %

Salaries, pensions and benefits for Los Angeles city workers have soared in the past seven years, outstripping revenue growth and pushing the city toward a serious budget crisis, according to a Daily News study.

Since 2000, Los Angeles workers' costs have surged 53 percent - to $4 billion a year - rising an average 7.5 percent every year.

General fund revenues also grew strongly but only at an average 5.7 percent a year.

The result is a swing of almost $1 billion, pushing the city from a surplus to an anticipated shortfall of $300 million next year.

"It's almost like we're working for them; they aren't there to serve us. The situation has gotten badly out of whack," said Jack Kyser, chief economist for the nonprofit Los Angeles County Economic Development Corp.

Why the large gap between employee costs and revenue growth? It's the power of city employee unions to get politicians elected to office, said Alice Rivlin, a former director of the Congressional Budget Office and now a senior fellow at Brookings Institution, a highly respected think tank based in Washington, D.C.

"It's very hard politically for mayors or city councils to go against (unions)," Rivlin said. "They can turn out the votes and turn out the lights."

One example of city employee unions' clout in Los Angeles is the recently negotiated contract covering most city workers - except police and firefighters, who usually do as well as or better than
Advertisement
other municipal workers.

The contract - which comes at a time when when revenue growth is expected to fall sharply - provides 23 percent wage increases over the next five years. Those increases come on top of regular "step" increases that can add as much as 5.5 percent a year to workers' pay.

The new contract attempts to contain health-care costs long term, but comes after pension costs have skyrocketed 231 percent.

As the city races to keep up with worker costs, its $7 billion budget - including the general fund - gets balanced because of reductions elsewhere. Liability claims, for instance, have declined 11.4 percent this decade.

City Administrative Officer Karen Sisson said officials are now taking a longer view to address the gap as the housing downturn is predicted to slow revenue growth to just 1.3 percent next year.

Sisson said a central element will be working with unions to boost employee productivity - including offering cash incentives in the latest contract - without cutting services to the public.

"Part of that process is to work with the city to make it more efficient and innovative," Barbara Maynard, spokeswoman for the Coalition of L.A. Unions, said of the city unions' recent contract deal.

And that includes trying to reduce costs of health care, which the unions think is the primary driver behind escalating city expenses.

"It's in everyone's best interest to lower insurance costs," Maynard said.

Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa has ordered general managers of all departments to absorb cost-of-living increases but not cut services. He also has asked them to submit budget proposals that contain their plans if faced with cuts of as much as 8 percent.

The city is using a recently approved trash-fee hike to pay for new police officers, and it is putting $16 million more into new police facilities, increasing firefighter-recruit training, continuing extended library hours, and increasing the number of homeless shelters.

About 4,000 of the city's nearly 40,000 positions are unfilled and could stay that way. At the same time, the city is grappling with the potential loss of a telephone-users tax that could sap $270 million a year from the budget.

Two courts already have found that changes in the tax three years ago made it illegal. In anticipation of a definitive ruling next year, Villaraigosa and the City Council last month declared a fiscal emergency and put a new phone tax on the February presidential-primary ballot, where it will need only a simple majority to pass instead of the two-thirds required for nonemergency measures.

"With the crisis in the housing market and other developments in the economy, we can no longer expect to get unanticipated revenue at the end of the year, which means we must budget very, very closely," Sisson said.

"We're going to be forced to continue to deliver services with fewer resources than we've had historically."

City Controller Laura Chick, the watchdog on city spending, warned the city is adopting a crisis mode that will hamstring general managers' creativity.

"What we never do is figure out that if we're increasing the cost of delivering services, where are we getting comparable revenue? How are we delivering services more efficiently and effectively?

"What the city does in a reactionary way to these crises ... (is) we stop hiring, let positions go vacant. We run on a crisis/emergency budget where we slash and burn wherever it's doable - and not necessarily in a strategic way.

"It's a bad situation."

The fact that the city's elected officials are the highest paid in the nation has been a particularly sore point. In the past two years, the mayor, City Attorney Rocky Delgadillo, Chick and council members have seen their paychecks increase 20 percent.

The policy that ties their wages to judges' salaries means they get a 4.16 percent raise retroactive to July1, the fourth boost since early last year.

Meanwhile, workers' compensation also has jumped - from $100 million to $127 million. And the recent deal for workers without police or firefighter status will cost taxpayers more than $200 million. While most of these employees' last contract was for a 6.25 percent pay raise over three years - no raise the first year, 2 percent the second and 4.25 percent the third - their average raises were about 7.7 percent with the step increases factored in.

Maynard said that while some employees got the step increases, others reported they still couldn't keep up with rising costs in Los Angeles.

"Back in the good old days, there was a trade-off: If you worked in government, you didn't get what the private sector did, but you had security and good benefits, and that seems to be tossed on its side," Kyser said.

But Sisson said city officials are now working differently with unions.

The new contract says that if workers can find $25 million in sustainable, verifiable savings, they will get an equal payment in "flex dollars" in the last year of the contract to buy additional benefits or take in cash.

Sisson said the five-year contract provides budget stability. And she said that with six unions participating, it has resulted in standardization of bonuses and other financial items.

It also delays by six months when most new employees get their first 5.5 percent step increase in pay, which amounts to a $4 million to $6 million annual saving.

Sisson said that with stagnant revenues, the city is facing a tough situation. But, she said, it's manageable.

"'Crisis,' to me, implies that you haven't thought about it and you don't know how to get out of it," she said.

"And I think we have thought about it, and we have planned for it, so in that sense, it's not a crisis."


Lakewood Accountability Action Group™ LAAG | www.LAAG.us | Lakewood, CA
A California Non Profit Association | Demanding action and accountability from local government™

The Party's Over Folks

Unless you have been living in a cave over the last month you know we are headed for both inflation AND a recession. This was likely triggered by the sub prime mortgage melt down. Of course it does not help that the dollar is tanking, oil is rising to counteract the falling dollar and China realizes they are holding half of the debt of the entire US. But this is no worry for Government employees. Full speed ahead on the Titanic. Poblem is that when the Titanic goes down only Govt. employees will get lifeboats. Taxpayers will have to go down with the ship. Like the article says below, the slow people, those that only Oprah or entertainment TV (the lowest denominator voter) is starting to at least as questions about the pension issue.

Sutter debates public pensions Its controversial move to boost its benefits echoes statewide fight

By John Hill, Sacramento Bee, September 3, 2007

Sutter County may be a little off the beaten track, but it finds itself at the center of a statewide debate over whether local governments have granted extravagant pensions to public employees.

Three years ago, the Sutter County Board of Supervisors sweetened pensions for county workers, arguing that generous retirements would help the county recruit and retain workers.

The move was controversial from the start, with one prominent local official, Auditor-Controller Robert Stark, objecting that he and the public were given no chance to comment on the dramatic change.

Three years later — this June — the county grand jury called the decision "flawed" and laid out the fiscal consequences. The county’s pension plan had gone from being $38 million in the black in 2000 to $36 million in the red five years later.

"This has gone on all over," said Keith Richman, a former assemblyman behind a proposed initiative to scale back government pension costs by offering a less generous retirement to new state and local employees.

Organizers have not yet started gathering signatures for the initiative, which they hope to put on the November 2008 ballot.

"The fundamental problem is that more and more of government budgets are going to pay for retirement costs, whether you’re talking about the state or local governments," Richman said. "The money is not going to pay for other services like education or health care or public safety."

Public-employee unions counter that the state retirement system is sound, and that if the state and local governments roll back pensions, they will have to compensate by increasing salaries.

Sutter County officials defend their 2004 decision as a sensible way to maintain a qualified work force. They deny that it plunged county finances into a crisis.

"Our pensions are in great shape," said Larry Munger, a lifelong Sutter County resident who ran a market for 22 years and became a county supervisor in 1995.

Munger said he is not worried about the $36 million "unfunded liability" mentioned in the grand jury report.

"You buy a house, you’ve got an unfunded liability," he said.

The controversy, he said, has been kept alive by malcontents who have other bones to pick with the county. Munger said his constituents aren’t worried about pensions but are "sick and tired" of the critics.

Government pensions became a hot topic across California four years ago as state and local governments struggled to meet pension obligations in the midst of a fiscal crisis. The state and many local governments boosted pension benefits during the dot-com boom, when investment returns soared for the California Public Employees’ Retirement System.

Then the stock market tanked, even as the richer benefits kicked in.

In 2005, public-employee unions fought off Richman’s earlier attempt to cut costs by replacing the traditional pension system, which guarantees a set retirement income, with 401(k)- style accounts for new workers. Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger scrapped the initiative after the unions waged a campaign saying it would cut off death and disability benefits for fallen peace officers.

Late last year, Schwarzenegger formed a 12-member commission to come up with a new proposal for dealing with pension costs. The commission is scheduled to issue its report by the end of the year.

In the meantime, local governments across the state have continued to struggle with pension costs. County grand juries and others have criticized the generosity of the benefits and how decisions were made.

Sutter County, Sacramento’s neighbor to the north and home to some 91,000 residents, increased pension benefits in 2004, after the pinch had already been felt in other jurisdictions.

Government pensions are based on a percentage of a worker’s highest annual salary multiplied by the number of years served.

In January 2004, the Board of Supervisors agreed to give rank-and-file county workers 2.7 percent of highest annual salary for each year on the job at the age of 55. That was a substantial increase from 2 percent. That August, safety employees got 3 percent at age 50.

The grand jury report faulted the Board of Supervisors for failing to consult with Stark, the auditor-controller, as required by its own rules.

Citizens got to comment only after the pension hike was a "done deal," the report concluded.

Some of the biggest beneficiaries were in upper management, the same officials who negotiated the deal, the grand jury found.

"The grand jury is not implying that these changes were engineered to primarily benefit those responsible for making them," the report states. "However, if that was their intent, they could not have designed a better process for leaving that impression."

Even though the pension hikes were meant to recruit and retain a county work force, critics say, just the opposite has happened, as workers with richer retirement prospects have headed for the door.

"I defy you to find any pension expert who says that allowing people to retire younger with more money encourages them to stay," Stark said.

The pension payments, meanwhile, take away from other pressing needs, critics say. Busy roads have not been resurfaced for years, said Wade Arnold, who describes himself as a "concerned citizen." The museum and the arts council have seen their budgets cut, he said.

The county’s backlog on maintaining roads is about $50 million, said Robert Mackensen, president of the Sutter County Taxpayers Association.

But Supervisor Jim Whiteaker said the critics are crying wolf.

"We’re very frugal and very conservative in allocating money, and we thought it was justified for our employees," he said.

Since the change, Whiteaker said, the county has filled 19 deputy sheriff positions that had been vacant.

Supervisor Munger dismissed the complaint that the public didn’t have a say. The pension concessions were made in contract negotiations with public employee unions, he said, and those meetings are never open to the public.

But critics say that the public is angry. Mackensen, of the taxpayers association, said he gets stopped on the street or the grocery store and told to keep up the good work.

The pensions can’t be rolled back without approval from public-employee unions. But they can be changed for newly hired workers.

"I think there’s hope because I think the public is waking up," Stark said. "This issue has been in the public’s eye for three years now up here, and that’s practically unheard of for something that for many people is an esoteric thing."


Lakewood Accountability Action Group™ LAAG | www.LAAG.us | Lakewood, CA
A California Non Profit Association | Demanding action and accountability from local government™