Their loss is...your loss

Ahhh we hate to say we told you so..but here comes the bad news (well just for you the taxpayer not for you government workers...and we use the term "workers" lightly). You see as we explained before when "Joe the Taxpayer's" company goes belly up or your 401k drops in value, you learn to live on less in retirement or work much longer. Well that won't cut it for those dedicated government workers on CalPERS. Mr. and Mrs. Taxpayer have (are required) to bail them out too just like the fat cats on Wall St. And no you dont get a vote or a choice or a say in the matter. Gotcha! So when you tell little Johnny he won't be going to college (as your 401k just dropped 50%), tell him its okay as he wont need that education. He can get a government job with short hours, high pay, unending perks, free cars, gold plated healthcare for life and a pension that is better than most on Wall St. get. And then if the economy ever hits the skids he can laugh at all the dummies working in the private sector. Obama could solve the recession issue by just giving us all government jobs. Dont ask who would pay for them. Your kid's kids could figure that out later.

State public worker pension fund takes big hit
The market downturn has walloped the nation's largest pension fund.

Carolyn Said, Chronicle Staff Writer
Monday, December 8, 2008

The California Public Employees' Retirement System portfolio has lost 31.1 percent of its value since peaking last fall, a staggering $81.4 billion drop. CalPERS officials say a "rainy day fund" is helping to defray the losses - for now. But if the market slump continues, they will hit up state and local employers for more money. That's a painful prospect as California struggles through a fiscal emergency and municipalities cope with the foreclosure crisis and economic downturn.

The good news for the 1.6 million CalPERS retirees, workers and family members is that their pension benefits are guaranteed.

"Obviously, if there is a downturn, there are going to be ramifications," said Rob Feckner, president of the CalPERS board. "Our job is to make sure we protect the system and the funds that are there for the pensioners."

The CalPERS portfolio hit a high point of $260.6 billion on Oct. 31, 2007. As of market close on Dec. 4, it had fallen to $179.2 billion - almost back to its value in mid-2000.

The portfolio drop comes amid a time of extraordinary financial turmoil, with wrenching contractions on Wall Street that have wiped out trillions of dollars of shareholder value. The Dow Jones Industrial Average has dropped 39.8 percent during the same period that the CalPERS portfolio fell 31.1 percent, for instance.

Unlike many pension funds, CalPERS can require employers to dig deeper when needed. Since those employers are public entities, their funds come from taxpayer dollars. This fall, CalPERS warned that it might ask for more money from the state starting in July 2010 and from local-government employers starting in July 2011.

If the current losses are sustained, CalPERS said the increases could be from 2 to 5 percent of payrolls. That's a hefty rise on top of the 12.7 percent of payrolls employers already contribute to the pension fund. (Employees contribute from 5 to 7 percent of their salaries.) If losses are more moderate, then the potential increases would be smaller. Although it seems highly unlikely, if the fund finishes the year in positive territory, employers could even see their pension obligations reduced.

"We wanted to give an early warning so they had plenty of time to prepare if the worst were to happen," said Pat Macht, a spokeswoman for the agency in Sacramento.
Long-range focus

She and other experts emphasized that CalPERS focuses on long-range planning.

"It's important to remember that public pension funds exist over decades and their liabilities will come due over decades, which provides the time for markets to recover and funding levels to recover," said Keith Brainard, research director of the National Association of State Retirement Administrators. "Yes, this has been a precipitous market decline, but because (CalPERS and other retirement plans) have plans and mechanisms to smooth out peaks and valleys, the actual effect is likely to be far less sharp."

The nation's second-largest public pension fund is the California State Teachers' Retirement System with 794,812 members. It, too, has sustained heavy losses in the market downturn. Its portfolio fell 20.3 percent, or $32.9 billion from June 30 to Oct. 31, going from $162.2 billion to $129.3 billion.

CalSTRS' defined-benefit pensions are guaranteed just like those of CalPERS. Unlike CalPERS, however, the teachers' fund does not have the authority to ask for increased contributions from employers. Any contribution changes would have to be enacted by the Legislature and approved by the governor. CalSTRS is funded by school districts contributing 8.25 percent of payroll, the state general fund paying in a tad over 2 percent of payroll, and members contributing 8 percent of salaries.

"As a patient, long-term investor, we're built to make it through these ups and downs," said Sherry Reser, a CalSTRS spokeswoman in Sacramento. "We're a forever investor. There is going to be a recovery; we've done this before."

Both funds use various "smoothing" mechanisms to help minimize the impact of market volatility.

During four years of double-digit growth from 2004 to 2007, CalPERS reserved 14 percent of its total portfolio to hedge against drops, Macht said.

"If we had not done this, it would have been considerably worse," she said. "The impacts of today are being softened considerably."

However, that cushion is largely depleted. For the fiscal year ended June 30, 2007, the portfolio was down 5 percent. The "rainy day" funds were used to make up that shortfall and provide the returns CalPERS would have experienced if the portfolio had risen 7.75 percent.

The portfolio fell an additional 25 percent from June 30 to Dec. 4. There are still almost seven months in CalPERS' fiscal year, but if the results are still negative on June 30, then it will ask agencies to ante up.

Hoping for best

California Treasurer Bill Lockyer, who sits on the CalPERS board, said he is hopeful that market conditions will improve by then so it won't have to ask for more money.

But if agencies do have to dig deeper to fund pension obligations, "this would be an added burden," he said. "It means both state and local government employers would be spending more on retirement than on some immediate program needs. Paying the commitments to pension obligation is a high priority, and it would take precedence over many other spendings." (LAAG translation: we pay ourselves first from the trough and you the tax payer gets less in return for your tax dollar by way of "services")

Where would the money come from? Government has just two choices, Lockyer said. "You either cut some other program expenditures or you tax something."

Critics say that underscores their basic gripe with public pensions: Taxpayers end up footing the bill. (LAAG: There's a shocker!)

"This is another example of why, over time, all public entities in California need to think seriously about changing from the defined benefit to the defined contribution plan," said Jon Coupal, president of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association in Sacramento. "With defined contribution plans, which can still be quite generous, the taxpayers' obligation ends when those contributions are made. You don't get in a situation like we have right now, where the economy is heading in a downward spiral and you ramp up taxpayer obligations to meet those pension obligations."

Attempts to change public pensions meet strong opposition from government workers and their unions. In 2005, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger proposed reforming California public pensions with a 401(k)-style plan, but later withdrew the idea.

About CalPERS

Mission: Manages pension and health benefits for public workers from about 2,300 California public entities. Pensions, which are guaranteed by law, are defined benefits determined by a retiree's salary, length of service and age.

Members: 1.6 million public employees, retirees and their families (1,126,133 active and inactive members; 476,252 retirees). Members are drawn about one-third each from state government, schools and local government agencies.

Income: Participating agencies contribute an average of 12.7 percent of payroll. Workers contribute 5 to 7 percent of their salaries.

Source: CalPERS
Possible changes in employer contributions

Depending on investment results when the fiscal year ends on June 30, 2009, CalPERS may request additional contributions from employers, which are taxpayer-funded government entities. So far this fiscal year (from July 1 to Dec. 4), the investment return is -25%. Contribution decreases are smaller with larger returns because CalPERS would hold back some gains as a cushion for future downturns.

2008-09 investment return Change in employer contributions as percentage of payroll
-20% 2% to 5%
-15% 1% to 2%
-10% 0.2% to 0.5%
0 0.1% to 0.2%
7.75% -0.1%
10% -0.1% to -0.2%
20% -0.2% to -0.5%

Source: CalPERS

E-mail Carolyn Said at csaid@sfchronicle.com.

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/12/08/MN1314IRLO.DTL

This article appeared on page A - 1 of the San Francisco Chronicle

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

California moves closer to the egde of the cliff

We are looking for a California debt counter like the one currently on the upper right of our page. I dont think we really need to add much to the statement below which was made on Nov 25, 2008 during the second budget debate this year in the California state legislature. It appears to be code speak for "we have to reform government and get the unions out". State Senator Tom McClintock (R., Thousand Oaks), who is struggling for a Congressional seat in the Sacramento area, ended his state senate seat by stating the following:

"...The recession does not explain why it is that we have spent $11 billion more than we have taken in during this past twelve months...With respect to taxes...the Republican opposition to taxes is not ideological, it is not political, it is practical. As a practical matter, this course has been tried and it was proven to be a disaster. In the first quarter of 1991, the national recession officially ended. In the third quarter of 1991, the Pete Wilson administration imposed the biggest tax increase in the history of this or any state. And in the fourth quarter of 1991, we saw the biggest plunge in retail sales that we had suffered in any time in the prior 30 years. In the following two years, our revenues did not go up; in fact, they declined a billion dollars a year...

The final and most important point that I want to make...is because I want to avail myself of this one last opportunity to try to get through to the majority on this point. I agree with you. Line item reductions, cuts alone, will not bridge this gap. They would have a couple of years ago but we have long past that fiscal tipping point. What we are talking about is redesigning these systems.

Mention was made to the Pat Brown administration. I challenge every one of you to go back and reflect upon what this state produced as services during the Pat Brown administration. We were offering a free university education to every Californian who wanted it. We had the finest highway system in the world...We were producing electricity and water so cheaply that many communities didn't bother to measure the stuff. If you look back at that administration, you will find that we were spending about half, inflation and population adjusted, what we're spending today, about 2/3 as a percentage of personal income of what we we're spending today. You have to look at the way that money was being spent...

We have grossly centralized and bureaucratized and unionized [government's] service delivery systems over the past forty years and that is why we have reached a paradox where despite record levels of spending and record levels of taxes, we can't seem to scrape together enough money to build a decent road system or educate our kids or protect our families from predators...

Please consider that it is not what we are spending but the way we are spending it that has been the problem and that's going to require not reforming these bureaucracies but redesigning and replacing them, and the sooner we get to it, the better.

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

What recession?

As the article from the Wall Street Journal below so aptly noted its never a recession for government employees. Although the article picks in NY California is no different nor is any other state or local government entity. Heathcare and pensions get fatter. Their pensions cant ever really "loose value" in the market because if they do taxpayers bail them out. Their healthcare is gold plated for life. I am sure many federal employees voted against Obama not wanting to share their healthcare with the rest of us "little people". Hiring goes on unabated, raises (not for merit mind you) keep piling up year after year, fattening that pension. Oh and lets not forget that you cant ever be laid off or fired unless you basically want to be or shoot your boss. The point is there is no recession for government employees. Oh and remember they dont pay social security taxes. They are too good for that. Social Security is for "po' folk" pensions. So the next time you wonder how your neighbors are struggling in the recession dont ask your government employed neighbors (likely the ones with the newest SUV's in the driveway) I wonder why in Obama's 30 minute infomercial he never ran across a "middle class" government employee (or retired one) that was "struggling". If Obama really wants to fix things he will federalize every worker in the USA like the TSA did. What is ironic is many of the folks likely crying Obama was a "socialist" during the campaign were likely government employees (I can name two; one shoots Moose).

Take a look at these stats right from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (www.bls.gov) publication entitled: "THE EMPLOYMENT SITUATION: OCTOBER 2008"

Table A shows that all sectors are down except for government employees, which are up 23%. Table A-11 shows that government workers (2.3% unemployment) and people in healthcare and education (also mostly government jobs) (2.7% unemployment) have the lowest percentages of unemployment. It is likely unchanged even in good economic times. Well mining is lower but I dont see people clamoring to those jobs. (gotta keep churning out that greenhouse gas!)






NOVEMBER 18, 2008

The Public Payroll Always Rises
New York spends as if the mortgage boom never ended.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122696844505235511.html

As the recession hits home, all across America businesses and families are having to make hard decisions about what not to buy this year, or whether they can afford a vacation or that plane trip home for the holidays. The exception is the government -- federal, state and city.

As a case in point, consider the nearby chart as an addendum to our editorial last week on New York's imploding finances. City and state politicians want voters to believe that they have been careful stewards of taxpayer money, searching out waste far and wide, and genuinely doing everything they can to control government bloat. Ah, no.

New York City did witness a reduction in public employment in 2002 and 2003, during the last period of slower economic growth. But the city quickly resumed its habit of ever-growing payrolls, and they have kept growing rapidly in the years since -- to an estimated record this June 30 of 313,965 employees on the public dime, according to the Mayor's office. That's an increase of more than 40,000 public workers in a year when Wall Street has been enduring historic losses and laying off tens of thousands of people.

Like most of his predecessors, Mayor Michael Bloomberg has been reluctant to challenge the public-employee unions that drive ever-larger public employment. Now, amid the current downturn, he is once again talking about a property-tax increase or a new commuter tax along with some modest reductions in services. That is merely tinkering with the status quo rather than using the current crisis as an opportunity to drive major reform. As Rahm Emanuel likes to say, a crisis is a terrible thing to waste.

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

Burning through the budget

What is nice about having a catalog of articles that cover a limited range of topics is that you start to see some trends. The first trend is that most people have very short memories and second that politicians NEVER learn from their mistakes or take advantage of "institutional memory". Here is an article from July 2007 that warns of the problems with fire costs and the phony "made for TV" air water drops. Yet we plow ahead with runaway fire costs. True we need to save homes when we can (those that are truly defensible) but when it comes to fires that do not threaten homes we need to cut way back on costs given our current budget tsunami.

editorial
Burning through money
Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger says Californians shouldn't worry about firefighting costs, but the state's fiscal situation indicates that we should.
November 18, 2008

As fires continued to engulf homes and threaten more Los Angeles and Orange County neighborhoods over the weekend, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger said Californians shouldn't worry, for now, about the $11 billion that the state has to find in taxes or program cuts in the current fiscal year. Despite the almost incomprehensible budget problem, he said, California won't have to skimp on fighting fires because of a $1.7-billion reserve built into the budget for exactly this kind of emergency. That's enough to keep the water-dropping aircraft flying and the firefighters on the front lines fully equipped.

The "extra" cushion of $1.7 billion is reassuring, but only up to a point. That fund is needed for all kinds of contingencies, and as this year's fires burn through acreage, they are burning almost as quickly through the fund. State fire suppression costs since July 1 already reached $304 million by the end of September, well before the most recent and destructive Sylmar, Freeway Complex and Montecito fires. Compare that with the $206-million cost for the entire year of 2006-07.

Schwarzenegger built this year's reserve on cuts from the general fund. Each of those cuts hurt, depriving seniors, for example, of their full share of renters' assistance and keeping counties from being able to test water quality at beaches. The state now faces deeper and more fundamental cuts. They can be avoided only by raising taxes -- or by leaving the state unprepared for an earthquake, terrorist attack or more fires. The fast-moving blazes that began during the weekend and are still burning should remind lawmakers, now meeting in special session, that they can not simply shrug their shoulders and hope that things work themselves out. Disaster won't wait for the state's fiscal situation to improve.

Deadlock on the budget last year helped divert attention from a Schwarzenegger proposal to fund emergency response with assessments on homeowners through their insurance policies. The plan needed some work, and the governor and some lawmakers were giving it their attention. But with the time-frittering nonnegotiations about whether to tax or cut, the work didn't get done.

California will have more fires. Development continues in fire-prone wilderness areas, and prolonged drought keeps much of the state tinder dry. There have been on average just under 6,000 fires each year in areas served by Cal Fire, the state firefighting agency, but this year there already have been 9,600. The state has to respond with better fire codes and a just way to spread the financial costs. But more than anything, it needs to get its fiscal house in order.

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

LASD Crime lab busts no one but taxpayers

Every time we hear a story like the one below we hear the same line of BS from Baca...oh its not the lazy incompetent LASD employees its lack of "resources" (aka "money") Well lets see. The Sheriff's just opened a new $102 million dollar (11 million over budget) crime lab in LA county in May 2007 that was hailed as a "CSI like" facility and is touted as the largest municipal crime lab in the nation. Well just more proof that TV cop shows are nothing like reality. You see the CSI crime lab is similar to the one we the taxpayers built for LASD...the difference is that in CSI the TV show the crime lab employees really care about their work and are diligent about solving cases. But again thats the fantasy part. With respect to all the backlogged DNA I like how the headline is "may" be untested. They dont even know? Scary. Funny they did not just dump all the samples.

Also in 2004 voters passed Proposition 69 which requires convicted felons, some misdemeanor offenders and those arrested on rape or murder charges to provide a sample of their DNA, usually taken via cheek swab. This work is also backlogged.
Under Proposition 69, the funding to pay for processing all these new samples was supposed to come from the criminals themselves, through an increase of $1 on every $10 misdemeanor fine. This was expected to produce $25 million a year for the state “penalty pot,” but it has only yielded $7.5 million.

So once again voters are duped into voting for "solutions" (or needed "resources") that sound good on paper or in speeches but never quite turn out to be as good as promised by law enforcement as they are the ones who fail to make them work. Dont blame the taxpayers for trying.

Update 4-24-09: PBS "Now" show did a really good expose on this issue called "Justice Delayed". Mostly dealt with LAPD but they also mentioned the problem with LASD. It really makes you realize the scope of the problem on a human scale. Basically billions has been spent on the problem with very little to show for it. I guess we need more criminalists than cops on the street as the cops on the street are not the ones that solve crimes. Just ask the CSI TV folks.

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-dna13-2008nov13,0,279193.story
From the Los Angeles Times

L.A. County sheriff's officials acknowledge that genetic evidence in 5,635 rape cases may be untested

The department plans a case-by-case review to see which sexual assault kits remain unexamined. The revelation follows reports of a similar DNA backlog at the LAPD.
By Joel Rubin

November 13, 2008

The Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department, under pressure from county supervisors and watchdog groups to account for its handling of DNA evidence from sexual assault cases, acknowledged Wednesday it did not know whether genetic evidence from more than 5,600 rape cases had been examined.

In response to an inquiry by the Board of Supervisors last month, Sheriff's Department officials tallied 5,635 sexual assault evidence kits -- semen and other DNA samples collected by authorities from victims -- sitting in freezer storage facilities, Cmdr. Earl Shields said. The department must now manually compare that inventory with records from its crime laboratory to determine which kits remain unexamined, Shields told the board Wednesday.

"The bad news is we have 5,635 kits in a warehouse," Supervisor Zev Yaroslavsky said. "The good news is we now know what has to be done."

The true size of the county's DNA backlog is probably significantly larger, said Sarah Tofte, a researcher with Human Rights Watch who has been pressing local law enforcement agencies around the country to address backlogs. The total announced Wednesday does not take into account the unknown number of sex crime kits that are in the hands of the more than 40 small police agencies in the Los Angeles area that rely on the sheriff's crime lab for analysis, she said.

Under a new policy ordered by Sheriff Lee Baca, all sexual assault kits gathered in the future will be tested -- a departure from a long-running practice in which the sheriff's crime lab analyzed evidence only after detectives handling a case requested it. Shields also said the department would analyze evidence from all kits currently in storage that are found to be untested, although he warned that such an effort would require additional funds to hire more analysts as well as outsourcing testing to private labs.

Unexamined kits hold potentially crucial information. Through a complex scientific process, DNA analysts can extract a person's genetic code from the collected samples and compare it to those of known felons that are kept in federal and state databases. When the DNA sample collected at a crime scene or from a victim's body matches a DNA profile of someone in the database, it offers prosecutors nearly irrefutable proof of their guilt. The evidence can also be used to confirm that someone has not falsely confessed to a crime or link someone to other unsolved cases.

The scrutiny of the Sheriff's Department comes on the heels of a similar look into the DNA backlog at the Los Angeles Police Department, where DNA evidence from roughly 7,000 rapes and other violent crimes remained untested.

A recent audit of the backlog by City Controller Laura Chick found that 200 potential sexual assault cases had not been prosecuted because LAPD officials failed to meet legal deadlines to test DNA evidence.

In response to the mounting criticism, city politicians and LAPD Chief William J. Bratton last month approved a plan to pay private labs for more testing and to hire additional staff for the LAPD's crime lab. Several million dollars more would be needed in coming years to meet the LAPD's goal of eliminating its backlog by 2013, officials said.

Sheriff's officials in recent months have tried to downplay the size and seriousness of their backlog and resisted comparisons to the LAPD, where the crime lab has fallen behind on requests from detectives to test DNA evidence from about 500 rapes, homicides and other violent crimes.

The Sheriff's Department has only "10 to 20" such cases, Shields said.

Department officials have said they suspect that nearly all the untested evidence kits are from cases in which the detectives have not felt the need to ask for DNA analysis.

"We still believe we will find that untested rape kits are untested because they are of no probative value," said sheriff's spokesman Steve Whitmore. "But we want to make sure what we believe to be right is right."

Shields conceded to supervisors, however, that the Sheriff's Department would not know for certain the status of each rape investigation until it completed its case-by-case review. In cases where there is untested evidence, department officials plan to contact the investigators to find out which have been solved already without the help of DNA and which remain open. As the department attempts to clear the backlog, genetic evidence from cases at risk of expiring because of state laws or from cases still under investigation would be among those tested first, officials said.

Tofte and other advocates for rape victims praised Baca for the changes to his department's DNA policy, but urged the sheriff to hire more investigators to avoid being inundated with new leads in cases as the DNA backlog is cleared.

"Every day we see new victims come in, and we wonder whether that person had to be raped because evidence of their attacker is sitting there in storage," said Gail Abarbanel, founder of the Rape Treatment Center at the Santa Monica-UCLA Medical Center.

Rubin is a staff writer.


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

Vote NO on Measure "L" the Utility Users Tax: Tell the City Back to the Drawing Board

Measure "L" Utility Users Tax: The Tax Grab Broadens its Reach

This November 4 election will not only involve a new President but many state and local measures which are making a grab for your wallet. Clearly the Utility Users Tax (UUT) "increase" (or rather broadening in reach and scope) could not come at a worse time given the current economic "meltdown".

As it typical with Lakewood city government, the city is not telling voters the whole story on the UUT tax increase in Measure "L". (Lakewood kept LAAG's "No on L" argument off the November ballot while accepting the "Yes on L" argument) They claim Measure L is simply “updating” the existing tax ordinance but in reality it is a broadening of the ordinance in order to make the tax apply to more services and utilities likes calls made over the internet. That was the whole reason why this UUT in Measure L required another vote. The City does not want to do this again so they are broadening the ordinance to not only bring in more revenue (by taxing more types of services and utilities like VOIP phone service, and other future technology like femtocells etc.) but to make it easier in the future to tax "yet unknown" or unforseen sources of revenue ...without a further vote by the taxpayers. All while duping the taxpayer into not thinking they are getting a tax increase just because the tax "rate" is not increasing.

So for right now they are claiming that internet access, email and related content and services are not being taxed under Measure L but this is only due to the fact that Federal law prevents it at this time. But if that changes in the future then Lakewood could use Measure L to tax those new services, without asking for your permission or taxpayer approval via an election.

The city claims the 3% rate will not increase without a vote but nothing in Measure L prevents them from further broadening the application of the tax to other "services" or "utilities" without taxpayer approval.

Another very sneaky tactic is telling voters that the funds will be used for a certain service, project or activity when the proposed ordinance does not mandate such use. The reason the city has done this is it knows that voters are less likely to approve a “general slush fund” tax especially when the money can be funnelled to special interests (like those entities or their representatives who signed the ballot argument in favor of Measure "L"). Voters are more likely to approve a tax that is earmarked for “specific services”. However it takes a 2/3 majority vote in order to pass a “special tax”, whereas a “general tax” (such as this proposed UUT) only needs a simple majority to pass. Deceptively, the voter booklet voters are provided with tells voters:

"Shall an ordinance be adopted to ...fund law enforcement, gang and drug prevention programs, after-school activities, senior transportation, parks, street and traffic signal maintenance and other essential services, ... regardless of technology used, annual audits, public review of expenditures, no rate increases without voter approval, and local control of revenues?"

If you want to read the entire 15 page ordinance of Measure L please click here (PDF)

Again they city has attempted to enumerate those uses that they know will garner votes for the measure but fail to explain to voters that the tax revenues can be used for what ever the city council decides to use them for. That is there the sneaky phrase "and other essential services" above comes into play. What does that mean? Only the city council will decide. For example if the city council decided to use the revenues to redecorate their offices, there is NOTHING in Measure L that prevents that.

There is nothing in Measure L that governs the use of the taxes. That includes even restricting where this tax money cold be used. For example it could be used outside the city of Lakewood. This ordinance does not change anything with respect to existing law on such matters.

Another feature the city likes to tout in Measure L is the "public review of expenditures". Nowhere in Measure L is there any change to existing law with respect to the "transparency" that they city will allow or promoting the use of the internet to increase public awareness of the use of tax dollars like this. There is nothing in Measure L that increases public review or accountability or even visibility. Ask yourself this: if the city council is so transparent why have they never posted the full city budget on line or the audits and budget expenditures of all the prior $35 million (the city's figure) collected since 1992 under the existing UUT? Because they dont want to to know where the money goes and they dont want you to know what is going on with your tax dollars. The devil is in the details! Other city’s UUT ordinances specifically allow for citizen oversight on the utilization of the new funds. Not Measure L.

There are other problems with Measure L. Lets say you use a cell phone, a land phone and VOIP all together. You will be taxed on all three devices, so there is overlap in the tax. The tax is regressive in that it is a greater burden on low or fixed income residents and the more you use the phones and other services the more you will be taxed. However as we all know utilties are now mostly taxes and have very high minimum monthly fixed charges. This tax feeds off those minimum charges. Also if your neighbor only uses a land line and not other technologies he will only be taxed once. So the fairness of Measure L is not as big a selling point as the city makes it out to be.

Also do not assume that 3% is a "low" tax rate. Take a look at your utitlty bills with 10 or so different taxes on it and see which one is higher than 3%. Likely none. So why is 3% deemed reasonable? Especially when Measure L will now be covering more of your services and utlities. The problem of course is the cumulative effect of all these "low" taxes on your overall bill. That is why utility bills are always advertised without all the taxes, which can add as much as 15% to the total. And we have all seen how these taxes are wasted.

Lets not forget the other tax increases on the horizon either; the 0.5% county and 1% state sales tax increases that combined will increase LA County’s sales tax to 9.75%, the highest in the country. This is another tax grab when voters can least afford it.

Also voting NO on Measure L leaves the old tax in place. It does not eliminate the old tax or the revenue. If this were not a chance to get more revenue why would the city and the Sheriff's department be in favor of it?

Dont buy the City's deceptive tax grab. Tell the city to get this right by increasing oversight and accountability provisions to prevent abuse of your hard earned dollars. (Just like the Federal bailouts) VOTE NO on Measure "L"

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

Got Towing Fees?

Fortunately in Lakewood no ones car is ever towed as their is no parking enforcement and even when there is, LASD is not involved in it in any way, especially enforcement. It is the city civilian "parking enforcement staff" who have to call the city council to get an ok to write a parking ticket (for fear of pissing of one of the 2500 people that elects the council). This is a good idea given what we have to pay cops per hour to do this. (only problem is the parking enforcement people dont even pay for themselves with the fines collected; but I digress). Oh one other point... the parking staff leaves at 5pm when all the parking violations occur (once people come home form work). At that point you have to call LASD to complain about a parking problem. Perhaps if the violation is parking in front of a cops driveway you might get someone to respond.

The stories below are really a sad commentary on the greediness of law enforcement. Here are people who we pay very well to enforce the law yet they take advantage of their position to rip off the taxpayers even more. According to a high ranking cop I know the argument for paying police extremely high salaries in CA was to prevent corruption. Well I guess it has not worked at LASD. Even sadder is the fact that the LASD sheriff retired before being accused (caught). So he was making the top pay scale when he "allegedly" ripped off the city. What do you think the chances are this will ever get to court or that this cop will refund the money off his 100k a year pension benefits we are paying? Not likely.

LAAG hopes to revisit this story but we are pretty sure we will not hear of this story again. What is even sadder is this has likely happened before and never made it into the press. Also the LASD is also "reviewing several other internal policies" where I suppose graft and corruption could exist but that have not even been looked at yet. Very sad. I wonder if there are any investigations going on in Lakewood? Surely not (an no one in this city questions anything LASD does) and if there were you can be sure we will never know about it. Wonder if the city ever finished this "investigation"? Where are the results?

Probe of alleged theft prompts L.A. County sheriff to review impound policies
Lee Baca says he plans to have tow-truck operators collect the fees instead of department officials. Investigators are looking into the alleged theft of $400,000 by a sergeant.
By Richard Winton
October 23, 2008

Los Angeles County Sheriff Lee Baca said an investigation into allegations that a sergeant stole more than $400,000 in car impound fees has prompted a review of the way his department handles such transactions for the dozens of cities it patrols.

Baca said he plans to have the towing operators collect the administrative fees directly from motorists, rather than involving sheriff's officials in the process.

"I don't see the need for the department to be a cashier," he said. "The system has to be tightened."

Sheriff's officials initiated the review after La Puente officials reported a significant shortfall in the fees that were supposed to have been collected by the Sheriff's Department, authorities said.

The sergeant retired from the department in May shortly after he was placed on leave as a result of the ongoing investigation, authorities confirmed this week. He could not be reached for comment. No charges have been filed in the case.

"Our residents have been stolen from," said La Puente Mayor Louie Lujan. "This is a large amount of money. It will have a direct impact on our city budget."

According to authorities, the sergeant supervised La Puente's car impound program and also ran the drunk driving task force and other programs that led to impounds.

John Stites, president of the Los Angeles County Professional Peace Officers Assn., said a union attorney was ready to rebut any allegations made against the sergeant.

"They have been playing around with this for about a year and they have yet to present anything," Stites said.

As part of the investigation into the missing funds, Baca said, detectives have seized money but "not enough to cover the shortfall." He did not say from whom the money was seized.

Michael Gennaco, head of the Office of Independent Review, which serves as the Sheriff's Department watchdog, said the way the cash was handed to deputies by vehicle owners at the Industry Sheriff's Station was problematic.

"That is not a good practice. There is a need for systemic change to avoid this kind of problem," he said.

Gennaco said other stations have had issues. Compton, for example, had accounting discrepancies, but authorities did not establish that money had been stolen, Gennaco said.

Winton is a Times staff writer

richard.winton@latimes.com


Sheriff's department re-thinking towing fees
By Tania Chatila, Staff Writer
Article Launched: 10/24/2008 10:55:17 PM PDT

The Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department is reexamining how it collects towing fees after allegations emerged a former traffic sergeant took nearly $500,000 from the city of La Puente.

Sheriff's spokesman Steve Whitmore said while several potential policy changes are on the table, Sheriff Lee Baca wants to take the department out of the collection process completely.

"The sheriff has a strong feeling that the sheriff's department should not be a cashier," Whitmore said.

The department has been reviewing their policies for the past few months, Whitmore said. It stems mostly from an ongoing investigation into allegations former Industry station Sgt. Joe Dyer was stealing tow money from La Puente.

The department's Internal Criminal Investigations Bureau has been investigating Dyer since the beginning of the year.

Officials believe he was collecting towing fees intended for La Puente, but not turning over all of those fees to the city.

La Puente is supposed to receive $168 each time a car is impounded.

That fee is paid to the sheriff's Industry Station, which issues a receipt that the driver must provide to reclaim his or her vehicle at La Puente-based Haddick's towing company. The driver then pays a separate fee to Haddick's and the car is released.

La Puente Councilwoman Lola Storing said officials believe Dyer was only dropping off a portion of those fees and receipts at City Hall - which were never reconciled with the Haddick's records.

Dyer retired in May. He did not return calls seeking comment.

"Let's just say that this has been a wake-up call for the department," said Michael Gennaco, chief attorney for the Office of Internal Review.

The OIR is an independent agency that reviews alleged policy violations within the Sheriff's Department. They are aware of the allegations against Dyer and expect to receive a copy of the case once it is submitted to the District Attorney.

"It's still an ongoing investigation," Whitmore said. "But once it's done we will seek prosecution."

There has been one other case within the department involving mishandled tow fees, Whitmore said.

The incident took place in 2007. It involved a deputy in Compton who was suspended for 10 days after failing to follow the department's money handling procedures, Whitmore said.

Gennaco said that while there was initial concern this deputy might have stolen money, the evidence didn't bear that out.

"There was no evidence of any funds missing," Whitmore said. "Apparently he was not doing the paperwork properly. There was no money involved."

The incident is chronicled in an OIR quarterly report released earlier this year.

Gennaco said strides have already been made at the sheriff's Industry Station to reduce the potential for theft.

"The way things are done now in Industry are totally different," he said.

The department is also reviewing several other internal policies and will consult with the Board of Supervisors, Whitmore said.

Other options include taking the department to a cashless system, he said.

"One of the difficulties is we've got 40 cities and each city kind of has its own way of doing things," Whitmore said. "The whole key here is to encourage people to be honest."

La Puente officials are also reviewing their own cash handling procedures.

Staff Writer Frank C. Girardot contributed to this story.

tania.chatila@sgvn.com

(626) 962-8811, Ext. 2109

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

Bailouts for CA pensions next up

I knew this was coming. You could see the writing on the wall 3 years ago or more. So we the taxpayers bail out the banks and Wall St. Then we bail out AIG. Now we are going to have to bail out the pension funds of those hard working cops who bring lawsuits upon us taxpayers (when the shoot and taser people "accidentally") as well as all their "hard working" civil servant cousins. Yes that's right Joe Taxpayer. You go to end of the line. Too bad your 401k just ate it in the last two weeks. No one to bail you out. But who will pay the cops $100,000 a year retirement and gold plated healthcare for life with cost of living when Wall St. dented their pension funds? YOU WILL of course. Wake up private sector zombies! You better get in line for your bailout before its all gone! You know what rolls down hill...and guess who is at the bottom. You cant really have a bigger train wreck can you? Idiots in government running a pension fund the size of a small country and when they screw up they get bailed out.

Like I say all the time. The solution to the problem is that we all go work for the government and leave the private sector jobs to third world (soon to be first world) countries. Next we will nationalize the banks. Ahh socialism is great ain't it? Well it is if you are a public employee. The rest of us have to pay for it.

Retirement system bailout feared
By Troy Anderson, Staff Writer
Article Launched: 10/08/2008
http://www.dailybreeze.com/ci_10674612

The Wall Street meltdown has siphoned tens of billions of dollars from local and state public pension systems over the past year, and elected officials and taxpayer groups expressed worry Wednesday that taxpayers might ultimately have to bail out the plans.

The state retirement system has lost about $50 billion in investment value since June 30, 2007, a drop of about 20 percent in just over a year.

Los Angeles County's system has dropped 8 percent, from $40.9 billion down to $37.8 billion, during the same period.

The city of Los Angeles Fire and Police Pension System dropped 13 percent, to $12.1 billion.

And the state teachers retirement system has also dropped 8 percent, down to $158.6 billion.

Former Assemblyman Keith Richman, who heads a foundation seeking pension reform in California, said the drop in assets "is going to put a severe financial strain on the taxpayers."

He noted that state taxpayers already are on the hook for several hundred billion dollars in unfunded liabilities for public employee pensions and retiree health care plans.

"The public employee pensions were going to place a heavy cost on the taxpayers before the drop in the stock market and it's going to be even more costly now," said Richman, president of the California Foundation for Fiscal Responsibility.

Jon Coupal, president of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, said the drops in the funds, especially the $49.2 billion drop in CalPERS, are "Exhibit A" in why state lawmakers should have adopted Richman's plan a few years ago to shift new state employees into 401(k)-type retirement plans.

"So not only do private employees see their own 401(k) retirement accounts shrinking, they are now also on the hook to pay additional costs for public sector pensions that are unfunded," Coupal said. "This is highly unjust."

But California Public Employees Retirement System spokeswoman Patricia Macht said the system has experienced heavy losses before, only to recover fairly quickly. After the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, the fund lost about $50 billion but ultimately rebounded with a $120 billion gain, she said.

CalPERS holds about 56 percent of its investment portfolio in the stock market, she said, but no more than 0.5 percent of that in any single public company, with additional diverse investment in bonds, real estate and commodities.

"One lesson we learned in the early 2000s was the need to hold back some of our gains - to spread our gains over a longer period of a time," she said.

Macht said the taxpayer contribution to CalPERS won't need to be increased in the fiscal year starting July 1. But she said CalPERS will have to wait to see how the market does before determining if the taxpayer contribution will need to be increased in future years.

Les Robbins, chairman of the Los Angeles County Employees Retirement Association, said the board has plenty of money to pay for county employees' pensions.

"We haven't seen anything like this since 1929," said Robbins, a retired sheriff's sergeant. [is this not inconsistent with his prior statement...never mind he is a cop already on the dole...LAAG Editor] "But we're in this for the long haul. We work in 30-year cycles. We are a conservative fund." [Yes and so were my 401k stocks..again public employees in denial of reality]

Michael Perez, general manager of the city's Fire and Police Pension, said the fund has dropped significantly and he's gotten lots of calls from worried members.

"It's affected us as it has every other public pension system," Perez said. "We're a well-funded and well-diversified plan and we smooth asset values over a five-year period. We've been in existence since 1899 and have been through a lot of market cycles."

At Tuesday's Board of Supervisors meeting, Supervisor Zev Yaroslavsky expressed concerns about a recent LACERA report noting the fund has exposure to several large investment banks that filed for bankruptcy, received a federal bailout or were purchased by another bank, including Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc., American International Group Inc. and Merrill Lynch Co. Inc.

LACERA Chief Investment Officer Lisa Mazzocco wrote that the fund has more than $150 million invested in companies that could be at risk.

"The magnitude of this week's events is incomprehensible," Mazzocco wrote. "In a matter of 10 short days, the country's financial system has been dramatically altered."

Supervisor Yvonne Brathwaite Burke said LACERA had initially estimated it may lose $84 million.

"We had a lot of warning," Burke said. "And so I was really surprised that there was such a difference in terms of the approach of the county and the approach of LACERA as it related to some of those investments."

But Yaroslavsky said the $84million is "pocket change" compared to what the losses may eventually total. Yaroslavsky said the county may ultimately have to bolster the LACERA fund with hundreds of millions of dollars.

The annual taxpayer contribution to the fund has risen from $194million in 2001 to $752 million last year.

"The real impact is going to be when we have to make up what could be in the nine figures on the retirement contribution - to make up the difference between what they lost in earnings and what has to be put in to meet the requirements of funding the pension plan," Yaroslavsky said.

troy.anderson@dailynews.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

California headed over a cliff

People used to joke about California falling into the ocean after the "big" earthquake. Well given what has happened on Wall St. this last week and given our unprecedented late budget, California may fall into the ocean all right. An ocean of debt. Tom McClintock, who is termed out this year and is running for congress sadly summed up California's predicament at the conclusion of the budget process on September 15-16 (11 weeks beyond the Constitutional deadline of July 1...but hey that's just the state constitution...its meaningless). We felt this needed to be aired as surely the mainstream press will not cover this as it needs to be covered:

Sen. McClintock: "I believe we've now also passed the point where conventional budget reductions can restore our state's finances. I believe we've reached a terminal stage of a bureaucratic state where our bureaucracies have become so large and so tangled that they can no longer perform basic functions. This fiscal crisis will now only get worse until we are willing to tell the Prison Guards Union, sorry but we're putting our wardens back in charge of our prisons. It can only get worse until we're willing to tell the Teachers Union, sorry but we're putting our teachers back in charge of their classrooms and we're putting our principals back in charge of our teachers. The bureaucratization, and the centralization and the unionization of our service delivery systems have simply priced our government beyond our economy's ability to support...

...I close my 22 years in this legislature tonight with this final warning. California's budget crisis will only worsen until the public elects a legislature and a Governor willing to restore the governing principles and practices under which this state once flourished, or until the credit market finally stops lending the state money..."

When McClintock concluded his statement there was utter silence from the Legislature. Not one democrat or republican said anything in opposition.

So is California headed the way of Vallejo and Lehman Brothers? I guess we will know next time this year.

For the remainder of McClintock's budget statement read below:

http://republican.sen.ca.gov/web/mcclintock/article_detail.asp?PID=346
Debate on the State Budget
Senator Tom McClintock
Date: August 29, 2008
Publication Type: Press Release

Mr. President:

Last year, when some in this chamber assured us that the budget was not only balanced, but included the biggest budget reserve in the state’s history, others of us issued an urgent warning that the budget was dangerously unbalanced and that we were fast running out of the time needed to implement reforms.

The State Controller reports that during last year we received $96 billion in revenues – a new record -- but spent $107 billion. And now we’re running out of money.

I am concerned that conventional budget reductions alone will no longer bridge the fiscal gap without severely impacting delivery of vital services.

We have centralized and unionized and bureaucratized our service delivery systems to the point they can no longer adequately perform the basic tasks for which they were designed.

Simply stated, we have created a bureaucracy we cannot afford.

We cannot afford spending 1/3 of a million dollars per classroom when only a fraction of that actually trickles into the classroom to educate our kids.

We cannot afford spending $42,000 to house a prisoner when Florida does it for $18,000 and the federal government for $26,000.

We are going to have to clear away the massive bureaucracy in our public schools that does nothing to educate our children and instead put teachers back in charge of their classrooms, put principals back in charge of their teachers – including the authority to hire and fire -- and put parents back in charge of their principals through their local school boards.

We are going to have to rescind the sweetheart labor contracts in our prisons, restoring management authority to the wardens and contracting out at least 50,000 prison beds.

We are going to have to replace the massive bureaucracy in our health system with a simple prepaid refundable tax credit to bring within the reach of every family a basic health plan of their selection.

This is the only way we are going to be able to maintain vital services without bankrupting the state. But if the consensus does not exist to enact conventional budget reductions, it certainly doesn’t exist to enact a fundamental restructuring.

During my 22 years in this legislature, I and others have laid out all these proposals, but they have fallen on deaf ears. There is some bitter irony in the fact that those who have voted against these proposals year after year accuse Republicans of not offering alternatives when that is all we have done year after year. But at some point very soon, these reforms, or others like them, will have to be enacted.

Senator Ducheny tells us that the budget before us is a baseline budget; that it merely continues business as usual. The problem is that business as usual produced $11 billion of red ink and we cannot afford to do so again.

Nor can I agree that the path to fiscal recovery is through taking the highest sales tax in the nation and raising it still higher with the second biggest tax increase in the state’s history. In that respect, I agree with Barak Obama who last night said: “In an economy like this, the last thing we should do is raise taxes on the middle-class.” And yet that’s the first thing this budget does.

I was here in 1991, and I warn you that raising the sales tax did not improve our finances – it made them worse.

The census bureau reports that in the last two years, a half million more people have moved out of California than have moved in. The historic migration FROM Oklahoma and Arkansas TO California in the 1930’s has now reversed itself in an historic outmigration of Californians TO those states with lower taxes and vastly less burdensome regulations (including Oklahoma and Arkansas). The difference is that the dust-bowl migration was caused by an act of God – the new migration is caused by acts of government – OUR government.

Those acts are fully within our power to reverse – but that will mean reversing the policies that have wrecked the once Golden State of California.

I would conclude with an observation on process. It is good that for the first time since the budget deadline we finally have a formal budget proposal on the Senate floor to begin deliberations. But it is unfortunate that this did not arrive on our floor in May. And it should have stayed on this floor day after day until it cleared the 27 votes needed to send it to a conference committee.

So I would ask those of you who voted to send an empty budget bill directly to the conference committee earlier this year to contemplate the damage that was done by bypassing the entire legislative process. And I would express the hope that the next session of the Senate finally return to the traditions and procedures that served this state so well for many, many decades and that produced relatively balanced and relatively punctual state budgets.


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

Remember this little gem from 2002? You will now..

Like it or not property taxes will go up in LA county this year due to a little remembered Measure B passed in Nov. 2002 that basically gave the County Board of Supervisors a blank check and a way to bypass Proposition 13's limits on property taxes. When will the voters learn? These cute little measures passed in good times (using the typical scare tactic ads that ER care will dry up if you dont pass it) come back to haunt voters years later when they can least afford it. Well voters, the next time you pass a measure like this, think ahead a few years. And remember its not the cost to the taxpayers that is the real rub...its the waste of tax dollars built into the system that is the problem. To read the arguments pro and con on the 2002 Measure B (to refresh your recollection) click here

EGP News Service
http://www.egpnews.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=browse&id=%3C!id!%3E&pageid=1270

Property taxes in Los Angeles County were raised last Tuesday, Aug. 12 in an effort to bail out the Department of Health Services.

The county Board of Supervisors approved the increase of Measure B taxes by 0.0072 cents per square foot of improved property to raise an estimated $45.2 million annually, which will be used to help alleviate the department’s massive budget deficit.

Supervisor Michael Antonovich cast the sole dissenting vote, though Supervisors Zev Yaroslavsky and Don Knabe both expressed frustration that the department’s request for more tax money was not accompanied by a plan for eliminating its structural deficit.

“To me this just represents a shell game. It’s not really dealing with the systemic issues with the department,” Knabe said. “You still have not given us a deficit management plan.”

Health Services faces a budget deficit of $93.7 million over the coming fiscal year, which is projected to balloon to $484.9 million the following year due to federal and state funding cuts as well as expected rollover of debt, according to a DHS memo.

“I think Supervisor Knabe’s frustration is shared to one extent or another by all of us, but that doesn’t change... the fact that in a global sense, something needs to be done,” Yaroslavsky said. “We need this now. We need this in this fiscal year.”

Faced with the possibility that two of the four county-run hospitals might have to close their doors, Measure B was approved by voters in 2002 to raise funds for the county’s beleaguered health care network.

Measure B previously taxed improved property at a rate of 0.03 cents per square foot, generating $142 million annually, according to a report from county Chief Executive Officer William Fujioka.

With the tax hike, the owner of a 1,500-square-foot home or business will wind up paying $10.80 more annually, or $55.80 total per year.

Non-reimbursed trauma and emergency costs at county hospitals have increased about 11 percent annually--totaling $103.3 million--since 2003. Continual funding shortfalls have been plugged with one-time funding allocations that have since dried up, leaving a structural deficit in their wake, Fujioka said.

County officials will direct $36.8 million of the money generated annually through the tax hike to offset the costs of unreimbursed trauma and emergency services, with the remaining $8.4 million to be devoted to non-county trauma hospitals and bioterrorism preparedness.

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

Are there any more tax or budget "tricks" left?

The true scope of the recession is now becoming clear. The recession in the so called "private sector" is finally starting to hit home in the public sector. Here come the tax increases. And new taxes in areas or on items you have not seen before. You see while people in the private sector and at home learn to do with less, the little piggies in the public sector can't as they have never learned how to do that. Every year must bring new ("well deserved") raises, more pension goodies and more perks like cars and blackberries. Well its going to be really hard to "sell" these new state and local tax increases to people in the private sector now netting less money (due to inflation, energy and food prices, and home devaluations). The private sector is saying "Hey why should we be financing you fat government cats when we dont get the same". Good question. I guess it finally will be the sour economy that gets the taxpayers to stop swallowing the BS. Quite frankly I could do with less government "social" programs at the state and local level. Use what money you have for infrastructure. And lets cut way back on the billion wasted on forest fires. As you have surely read from the latest news posts on this we are pouring money down the fire department "overtime rathole" when it some to fighting the wildland fires that are not endangering homes.


August 2, 2008

State, local governments flirt with fiscal disaster as budgets grow bigger

http://www.delawareonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080802/OPINION11/808020312/1004/OPINION

State and local governments in this country seem to be running out of budgetary tricks.

In June Delaware's General Assembly had to swallow hard and cut deep into the state budget.

In California this week, Gov. Schwarzenegger escalated his fiscal battle with the Democratic Legislature by cutting the pay of 200,000 state employees. In New York, Gov. Paterson called the state's revenue situation dire, asked for federal help and suggested privatizing the New York City subway.

The economic slowdown is hurting revenues. In addition, expenses at the state and local levels are mounting across the country.

USA Today estimated on Friday that state and local governments are likely to spend $3 trillion in 2008. That's about 13 percent of the country's gross domestic product.

On top of that, many state and local governments are in hock for pension and post-employment health benefits they have promised an ever-growing number of public employees. In addition, every state has seen mounting costs for the state share of Medicaid health and nursing costs.

The federal General Accountability Office warned earlier this year that those bills will come due within 10 years as the employees begin retiring in large numbers and more older citizens need long-term care paid for by Medicaid.

The scramble is on for extra sources of revenue. And that's where the tricks are starting to miss. Maryland, for example, just raised its tax on cigarettes by $1 a pack. But so many people have simply stopped smoking that despite the tax increase the state will be short $40 million t0 $60 million in revenue this year.

The rise in gasoline prices forced Americans to cut driving so much that the Highway Trust Fund is near bankruptcy. Fewer driven miles translates into fewer dollars collected from gasoline taxes. The downturn in the financial markets is crippling New York's economy and reducing revenues in every state, including Delaware, that depends on the credit industry for revenue.

The housing slump has cut revenue from real estate transfer taxes. Likewise, the high cost of gasoline and the shaky economy have depressed the market for cars. That, in turn, means fewer autoworkers.

Help from the federal government is likely to be limited. Just this week it was announced that the 2009 budget deficit will be $482 billion. That is beginning to worry a lot of investors.

Some of these developments may turn out to be temporary. But others won't. The long-term outlook, at least, calls for an end to tinkering with budget. Cuts are in order. So are better management and, unfortunately, increased fees and taxes where appropriate.

Most of all, the tricks must stop.

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

Can LAAG get on the grand jury?

Oh man LAAG loves it when common taxpayers are given power. Go Grand Jury go! Don't mind those politicians paid off by the unions...they won't bite you. The quotes and statements in the article below would be hilarious if they were not so alarming and true. City councils for the most part don't have time for independent thought and even if many were capable of such thought I would not want to hear their thoughts. Their job is to represent the taxpayers of the city. All of them. And to conserve tax dollars and hold down spending. Not to kiss the staff's a__ and suck up to rank and file union members. Gov. Schwarzenegger already does that, all the time claiming he is a republican. (don't forget his failed initiatives)

Grand jury slams Live Oak over pension OK
By Robert LaHue/Appeal-Democrat
July 12, 2008 - 10:32PM
http://www.appeal-democrat.com/news/jury_66291___article.html/pension_increases.html

The Sutter County CA grand jury targeted pension increases in its latest report, but not the long-disputed pensions of county employees.

Instead, the jury scrutinized pension increases approved for Live Oak's workers.

In the annual report released this month, the grand jury said the City Council didn't do enough independent research into the long-term impact of pension increases and did not make a strong enough attempt to inform the public — findings disputed by the city manager.

The council in March approved an increase in the pension, from a 2.5 at 55 benefit to a 2.7 at 55, meaning employees receive 2.7 percent of their salary for every year worked and are eligible to receive full retirement at age 55.

The council approved the increase 4-1. Vice Mayor Judy Richards dissented.

"The recent, and highly publicized, pension increases enacted by Sutter County should have informed the City Council as to the significance of the issue and all the variables surrounding it," the grand jury wrote.

"If the importance of their decision was evident to the City Council, it wasn't evidenced by their efforts to fully inform the public or engage the citizens of Live Oak in a meaningful dialog."

City Manager Tom Lando said the city held "two or three separate public meetings" on the pension increases, and allowed the public to speak on multiple occasions.

"The City Council deliberated over a number of sessions about an appropriate compensation package for employees," he said.

The pension increase was requested by city employees, who aren't represented by a union. Lando also noted staff members took the pension increase instead of a cost-of-living increase in pay.

"In terms of net impact on the city and its budget, it was better for the city and it's what the employees wanted," he said. [we dont care what the taxpayers want; LAAG]

The grand jury also noted concerns about the fact-finding efforts of the City Council. Public Employees' Retirement System actuary Richard Santos told the jury "he was disappointed that not even one question was asked of him by any member of the Live Oak City Council."

The panel also noted testimony by Mayor Diane Hodges about her reason for supporting the pension increase.

"Her response was, 'Staff thought it was a good idea and that's why they're there for,'" the grand jury wrote. "Asked if she had an independent thought as to the wisdom of the increase, she replied, 'No.'"

The grand jury labeled Hodges' response an admitted "rubber stamp" of the pension increases.

Hodges could not be reached for comment Friday. Lando defended Hodges and other council members as "diligent" in their deliberations about the pension increases.

"I have found the mayor to be very good about doing her homework on each issue," Lando said.

The grand jury said it wasn't passing judgment on whether the pension increases should have been enacted, saying its "focus is on the process that preceded the decision."

However, the jury also noted that costs of public employee benefits "have become a significant area of concern in recent years."

Lando said he could say "with certainty" the approval was not a rubber stamp.

"We will provide an official response to the grand jury report, but in my opinion it was well thought-out with the City Council," he said.

Contact Appeal-Democrat reporter Robert LaHue at 749-4713 or rlahue@appealdemocrat.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

One factor explaining increased cost of the Lakewood Sheriff's 2008-9 contract

The report below makes the increased cost of LASD (sheriff) service make sense. Look at this brilliant taser incident right here in Lakewood. What will that cost? Of course dont forget the cost of wrongful shootings like this one and the settlement costs of crashing into hapless motorists while drunk on the job.

The report notes that the in-custody claims are increasing and are more costly to resolve. We think it is likely due to the fact that juries see these in custody injuries or deaths as less justifiable than other injuries or deaths.

I think part of the reason for these incidents is poor on the job training, a "don't care attitude", (as deputies are not personally at risk for bad behavior) and just plain lack of smarts and common sense. Lets face it you are giving a gun (and tremendous power and unquestioned authority) to some guys that barely have a high school diploma. (yes some do go to college on our nickel once on the force to boost their salary)

The only good thing to be said about sheriff's "contract" service is that the pain of the cost of these settlements is spread over the whole county and all contract cities and not just Lakewood (which it would be if Lakewood had its own police force). The sore point however is that we are getting close to the tipping point of LASD costing more than they are "worth" in terms of achievements. We need more individual deputy legal responsibility. But that will happen when hell freezes over thanks to public unions and their mafia like grip over elected officials.

From the July 2008 report of Special Counsel Merrick Bobb (click on image to enlarge):





Read the full report here from the semiannual reports of Special Counsel Merrick Bobb and staff discussing the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department (LASD). These reports are prepared at the direction of the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors pursuant to its appointment of special counsel to conduct ongoing monitoring and critical review of the LASD's performance.

Report: LA Inmate Deaths, Injuries Costing Millions In Settlements

POSTED: 12:35 pm PDT July 11, 2008
http://www.knbc.com/news/16856328/detail.html

LOS ANGELES -- Deaths and injuries to people in custody in Los Angeles County jails continue to cost the county millions of dollars in lawsuit settlements, according to a report released Friday.

While the number of lawsuits filed against the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department has dropped in recent years, the total amount of money paid out due to litigation has increased, according to an internal investigations report released by Merrick Bobb, special counsel to the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors.

When looking at three-year averages over the past six years -- from 2001 through 2004 as compared to 2004 through 2007 -- the number of lawsuits closed dropped from an average of 300 a year to 233 a year, but the total amount paid rose from an average of $9.9 million a year to $10.5 million.

The average amount paid for lawsuits during the earlier period was $33,000, and jumped to $44,800 over the second three-year period.

Of the 69 lawsuits against the department in which the county was required to make a payout over the last fiscal year, 17 resulted in awards greater than $100,000.

Of those, six cases involving in-custody death or injury accounted for $5.6 million in payouts -- more than half of the department's total civil liability for the past year.

"Lawsuits relating to in-custody injury and death that have resulted in significant payments to plaintiffs are not a relic of the past but rather point to an ongoing and continuing source of liability," according to the report. [snip]

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

What budget crisis?

What is ironic is on the same day the new (appointed not elected) OC Sheriff just gave up some perks LA Times posts the story below on county vehicles being doled out like candy. As noted in today LA Times: "Further distancing herself from the practices of her indicted predecessor, Orange County Sheriff Sandra Hutchens said she wouldn't use a team of deputies to protect her -- or even a driver to chauffeur her to public appearances. Acting against the advice of some colleagues, Hutchens said she intended to drive herself to meetings in a county car, her only protection the Glock 9-millimeter handgun holstered at her waist."

But not here in good ol' LA county. We waste tax dollars just like they were water (come to think of it we waste water too) What do you think the gas bill is for these gas guzzlers that the taxpayers are also paying? Where is it written that people in government should get free cars, gas and chauffeurs? Did I miss that line in the state constitution? Oh wait, they use the line in the constitution that says "once elected you can do what you want as long as too many of the 'little people' (to quote Leona Helmsley) don't revolt"

I say dump 50% of the county cars. All should be 4 cylinder or natural gas. No freebies for elected officials period. None. Most of those elected "officials" (aka royalty) are millionaires before they get elected anyway.

The Grand Jury report on this issue is available here (the part about vehicle use starts on page 89 of the report)

County officials reaping unintended benefits from vehicles
By Troy Anderson, Staff Writer
Article Launched: 07/10/2008 09:38:08 PM PDT

At a time when many Los Angeles County residents are grappling with the squeeze of an economic downturn, dozens of top county government officials are tooling around in "unjustified luxury vehicles" costing taxpayers as much as $50,000 each.

More than 1,400 county workers are given take-home cars, even though some don't have official authorization to drive them, and at least 30 employees aren't paying the required taxes on the vehicles.

Meanwhile, county employees were involved in 1,852 accidents in their take-home vehicles over the past few years - with 830 accidents in 2005-06 alone that cost taxpayers $6.7 million.

The findings are among hundreds outlined in a recently released Grand Jury report that uncovered broad department inconsistencies and lax oversight of the county's $433 million, 12,780-vehicle fleet.

"I think this certainly demonstrates that the county has a long way to go to convince taxpayers that it has a revenue problem and not a spending problem," said Jon Coupal, president of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association.

"Its chronic problems with mismanagement of its vehicle fleet is particularly frustrating given that those perks are something that most county taxpayers will never see in their own jobs."

Chief Executive Officer Bill Fujioka said Wednesday that his staff is still reviewing the Grand Jury's findings and will address all problems and issues that have been identified.

"We are meeting with the CEO next week to go over all the recommendations by the Grand Jury and then we'll develop a response to those recommendations," Auditor-Controller Wendy Watanabe said.

In the report, jurors identified 51 "unjustified luxury vehicles" costing more than $30,000 each that could be considered "excessive for routine county business."

Twenty of those vehicles were being used by employees in the county's health department, eight among the Board of Supervisors, seven in the public works department, three for librarians and 13 in other departments.

Jurors wrote that they also received information that some county departments were purchasing luxury sedans and high-end sports-utility vehicles for top executives.

"A review of departmental vehicle inventories indicates that some departments have purchased luxury vehicles for the department director or other senior managers," jurors wrote.

"Without clear direction from the Board of Supervisors, departments do not have a strong incentive to purchase vehicles that more closely meet the business needs of the departments and are priced at a lower cost."

Supervisors Michael D. Antonovich, Don Knabe, Gloria Molina, Zev Yaroslavsky and Yvonne Burke could not be reached Thursday for comment.

But a spokesman for Antonovich said the board is still reviewing the findings.

"Yes, we are reviewing and we will look at the report and act accordingly, once we've had a chance to review it in its entirety," said spokesman Tony Bell.

The most expensive vehicle identified in the report was a 2007 Acura MDX worth $49,511 that is the take-home vehicle used by Assessor Rick Auerbach.

Auerbach said he paid $10,511 of his own money for the vehicle to help offset its cost, and also uses his monthly vehicle allowance, plus $50, to pay for the vehicle.

"I looked for a car that was the safest, best car I could get that would meet the requirements of what I use it for," Auerbach said.

"I drive approximately 25,000 miles a year throughout the county. I don't have a driver. I spend a lot of time on the road. So I looked for the car that would best meet my needs, realizing I'm driving a lot and it's been written up as a very, very safe vehicle."

Other expensive vehicles included Antonovich's 2007 Cadillac DTS at $31,663, a 2003 Lincoln LS costing $48,192 and a 2007 Toyota Highlander hybrid SUV costing $38,322.

But Bell, Antonovich's spokesman, said the jurors failed to note that Antonovich's car is among the cheapest driven by the five supervisors.

"It was purchased used with 12,000 miles on it and he pays a portion of the monthly costs," Bell said. "We're operating on the premise this is an expensive car. The audit is flawed. It's obviously not compared to the costs of the other cars."

According to information from the Board of Supervisors' Executive Office, Knabe drives a 2008 Hybrid Chevy Tahoe that costs $57,134, while Burke drives a 2006 Chrysler 300 that cost $37,854 and Molina drives a 2007 Buick Lucerne that cost $32,409.

Yaroslavsky drives a 2000 Buick Park Avenue, Internal Services Department fleet car.

Jurors found the county's largest departments have 1,471 take-home vehicles, including 75 for deputies and other employees of the Board of Supervisors.

While many of the take-home vehicles are for employees who may need to respond to an emergency after normal work hours, others are a benefit as part of an employee's compensation package.

Generally, senior department managers are given county vehicles for personal use to drive home and to work.

But jurors wrote some departments have inconsistent take-home vehicle policies, which also places the vehicles at heightened risk of abuse or theft.

"Without formal justification, some take-home privileges may not be appropriate since there is minimal review and oversight to ensure adequate business need," jurors wrote.

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

"Someone has to start justifying this to us."

Anyone that reads this article below and feels that the Sheriff's aren't a greedy petty bunch of spoiled children just does not understand the problem, how to remedy it or what the long term consequences are of ignoring this. And as the article points out this practice is just as out of control at LASD. I think the biggest problem is that the overtime is not justified and is handed out like candy by supervisors. Reading below it seems like OT is mostly spent watching TV. Again apparently those in control politically cannot be trusted to mind the candy store which in this case is stocked with your tax dollars. And with the lucrative retirement benefits looming on the horizon don't think this pain is going to end any time soon. When it comes to public safety you DON'T get what you pay for. The reason most taxpayers look the other way is due to some fanciful vision of public safety workers and very little understanding of what the job really entails or the safety factor (which we reported on earlier here)

Search through this database of 2006 and 2007 salary data for Orange County Sheriff's deputies

Friday, June 13, 2008
Overtime policies push 100 sheriff's officers over $150,000
By NORBERTO SANTANA JR. and NATALYA SHULYAKOVSKAYA
The Orange County Register

Over the past decade, Orange County officials transformed the post of sheriff's deputy into a six-figure job based on the belief that overtime was cheaper than hiring new officers.

The department's reliance on overtime enabled mostof its sworn officers to earn more than $100,000 in 2007. More than 100 earned over $150,000.

That cost $41.7 million in overtime, on top of the $318 million the county spent on deputy salaries, health insurance and retirement benefits. The overall budget and salaries have doubled since 1997, but overtime expenditures have tripled.

Acting Sheriff Jack Anderson defended the spending, saying overtime is 9 percent cheaper than hiring additional deputies and paying their salary and retirement. The department says overtime saved it $9.7 million last year.

"What you can't negate is the fact that you are actually saving money," Anderson said. "Overtime is cheaper than paying full salary and benefits."

But a Register analysis of payroll records, public documents and extensive interviews has found that:

•The department calculated its "savings" using the salary and overtime rates of the most expensive deputies. If the department had assigned new deputies to work even half of the overtime accrued by deputy sheriff II's in the jails, it could have saved more than $500,000 per year. If officials had replaced half of jail deputies with more basic law enforcement officers – such as special officers or correctional officers – they could have saved as much as $10million.

•Policies allowing deputies to work a three-day workweek and to retire early have dramatically boosted overtime costs. After enhanced pensions led to large numbers of retirements, deputies with four days a week off were happy to fill up the empty shifts with overtime.

•The huge amount of extra hours and the large payouts have contributed to culture and discipline problems in the department, especially at county jails. Despite the six-figure earnings, some deputies slacked off on the job. Now, efforts by sheriff's officials to transfer deputies out of jail assignments and into patrol jobs have fueled union grievances and lawsuits.

Last year, the Orange County Sheriff's Department spent about 12 percent of its salary budget on overtime. That's similar to the overtime percentage paid by Los Angeles County, which is the largest sheriff's department in the nation.

But Orange County's overtime spending is higher than similar-sized departments. San Diego and Ventura, for instance, spent about 9 percent of their salary budget on overtime.

Because of conflicting responses from sheriff's officials about whether the cost of overtime vs. new hires had ever been studied, the Register filed a request under the California Public Records Act asking for copies of any internal studies. That triggered a different response.

"There have been no overtime studies conducted as described," Capt. Mike James replied in a May 15 letter.

"Overtime has become a part of the culture of the public safety folks," county CEO Tom Mauk said in an interview.

"(But) the notion that overtime is cheaper than hiring more deputies is just a best guess. It needs to be carefully analyzed."

County officials across Southern California balance their budgets by keeping unfilled positions on their books.

That's how sheriff's officials can say that excessive overtime spending doesn't matter because they stay within their budget. If those officials removed the vacant positions from the budget, the sheriff's departments would go over budget virtually every year.

A new Orange County sheriff, former Los Angeles County Sheriff's division chief Sandra Hutchens, was appointed by the board Tuesday and will take office in the next few weeks. Hutchens has promised to conduct an immediate review of departmental operations.

Whether the overtime payouts are good policy or bad, deputies are worth every dollar, said Wayne J. Quint Jr., a sheriff's sergeant who is president of the Association of Orange County Deputy Sheriffs.

"It is a dangerous job. It is a tough job," Quint said. "It is public safety. It is hard to put a price tag on that."

The human cost

When the 2006-2007 Orange County Grand Jury noticed the large overtime payouts at the Theo Lacy jail, it sounded alarm bells. Grand jurors noted that there are advantages to using overtime – no additional pension or health care benefits must be paid.

But they added, "This savings is offset by the additional costs of overtime pay, and the stress that overtime work could, in the long run, result in an increase in sick leave and poorer job performance."

That same year, an Orange County Register investigation revealed that deputies had been watching TV and text-messaging while a Theo Lacy inmate was slain in the cellblock below.

When the district attorney empanelled a special grand jury to get to the bottom of the problems, prosecutors uncovered an undisciplined atmosphere at the facility. They found that deputies watched television, surfed the Internet and dragged mattresses into guard stations to sleep while on duty.

Acting Sheriff Anderson fired one deputy, placed five others on leave and forced out two assistant sheriffs.

Within weeks, two more deputies were fired during an investigation into whether a Taser stun gun was used to kill a cat.

And last month, prosecutors charged Deputy Jason C. Brant with falsifying reports on property crimes. Officials said he reported that citizens had refused to cooperate with investigations when in fact he had never even called them.

Records show Brant had earned more than $19,300 in overtime in 2007.

Anderson said the department has policies limiting overtime, but acknowledged they seldom have been enforced.

"We know when people are fatigued their decision-making can become fuzzy… . Somehow, their work ethic changes," he said.

$100,000-plus in extra pay

The sheriff's pay is set by statute; assistant sheriffs who have accrued seniority often earn more than the sheriff, even though they don't collect overtime.

But huge overtime payouts to deputies, investigators and sergeants have allowed some rank-and-file officers to come close to or exceed the earnings of top brass.

The top earners in the department last year were assistant sheriffs Charles Walters and Jo Ann Galisky – both earning just under $225,000.

But close on their heels was Theodore R. Harris, an investigator assigned to Dana Point, who made $220,869, or $5,000 more than former Sheriff Mike Carona. The largest portion of Harris' paycheck, $119,855, came from working overtime.

Three of the top-five rank and file earners were stationed at Theo Lacy, with each earning close to $200,000.

Richard D. Ostrow, a deputy sheriff II at Theo Lacy, made $208,745. His overtime earnings, $116,226, considerably outweighed his salary.

William S. Motodera, a deputy sheriff I stationed at Lacy, was paid $196,534. Well over half of it, $106,740, was for working overtime.

Jesse M. Oller, another deputy sheriff II from Theo Lacy, was paid $191,840. The overtime portion of his earnings was $98,842.

The Register sought comment from these deputies, delivering letters to their workplace. None responded to the Register's inquiries.

Quint said the deputies wouldn't comment because the department has a policy prohibiting most deputies from speaking to the media. He also said Harris has been warned by sheriff's officials that he was exceeding departmental limits and has promised to curtail his overtime.

The Register analysis shows that in 2006 and 2007, at least 80 deputies were paid for more overtime than the 24 hours per week the policy allows.

There are no state limits on how much police officers can work. A 2002 national survey showed that only one quarter of large departments limited their officers' overtime. On average, the limit was a little over 21 hours a week.

Around the country, police departments started reining in overtime after noticing that senior officers used extra hours to boost their retirement benefits, which are usually based on the final years of an officer's earnings.

In Orange County, retirement calculations do not include overtime, except for two small instances – time allocated for briefings and for care of service dogs.

The absolute limit that an officer could work without affecting his health is 80 hours a week, said police fatigue expert Bryan Vila, a criminology professor at Washington State University, Spokane.

The Register analysis showed that five officers exceeded that limit.

According to sleep research, the effect of long hours on reaction and decision-making becomes similar to the influence of illegal levels of alcohol in blood.

"Cops don't come to work drunk and nobody would put up with it if they did," said Vila. "But they do come to work just as impaired by fatigue."

On average, the department's top-ranking deputies – deputy sheriff II's – worked 415 extra hours and made $23,757 in overtime in 2007. Sergeants averaged 304 hours and $20,864. Deputy sheriff I's, the entry-level deputies who mainly staff the jails, made $17,221 per deputy in overtime. They averaged 339 hours of overtime. Investigators made $14,131 from overtime, or about 254 hours per person.

Even Quint, who is on formal leave from the department to concentrate on his union duties, boosted his paycheck with $35,908 in overtime in 2006 and $38,548 in 2007. The Register analysis shows that Quint is always paid for the identical number of overtime hours – 20 per paycheck.

Under the union contract, the Sheriff's Department continues to pay Quint's salary. The union reimburses the county for the salary, overtime and benefits.

Quint, who became association president in 1999, said his overtime payouts are approved by the union's board of directors. His predecessor received 6.5 hours per week. As a union president, Quint asked the board to increase overtime payments to 10 hours per week about 8 years ago.

Before he was the union representative, Quint said, he was a sergeant who tried to work at least 16 hours of overtime a week, mostly in patrol.

"I work clearly more than 10 extra hours a week. … If I were to bill the association for the actual hours I work, our bills would go through the roof," he said.

The 'Killer' threes

County supervisors contributed to the spike in overtime costs by enacting two policies that simultaneously shortened workweek for deputies and encouraged a wave of retirements among senior deputies.

In January 2000, former Sheriff Carona approved a 3/12 workweek for deputies. That was a perk long sought by the deputies union but one former Sheriff Brad Gates had resisted because of the difficulty in managing it.

Every two-week pay period deputies work six 12-hour shifts and one eight-hour shift. That leaves them seven days off every two weeks.

"It's difficult to manage," said Former Assistant Sheriff Dan Martini. "It's a killer."

Then, in December 2001, county supervisors enhanced deputies' retirement benefits by allowing them to retire at age 50 with 3 percent of pay for each year served at the department. A deputy with 30 years' service could get 90 percent of his pay at retirement. Under federal law, no one can receive more than 100 percent of pay.

According to figures from the Orange County Employees Retirement System, retirements in the Sheriff's Department jumped from 29 in 2001 to 93 in 2002. Retirements since 2002 have remained at more than 50 a year since, twice the pre-2001 levels.

Anderson said the large number of retirements is creating vacancies that are difficult to keep up with because of the time it takes to find recruits and get them through the academy. "We have an issue with people retiring. We're constantly hiring behind those."

After increasing from $20.8 million to $29.6 million in 2001, overtime costs stayed stable at about $25 million until 2005.

That year, county supervisors contributed again to the overtime payouts when they opted to staff the expansion of Theo Lacy jail in Orange with overtime hours. The overtime budget rose to $33 million.

"Everyone knew we were building a jail," Anderson said of the 2005 expansion of Theo Lacy. "The board (of supervisors) decided not to fund it….So the sheriff decided to open up the jail on overtime."

'Keeping it green'

With all the free time triggered by the 3/12 work schedule, the vacant shifts and little management tracking, deputies began to see overtime as a normal part of their check.

Deputies and managers alike have a nickname for the biggest earners: "overtime whores."

Retired Deputy Simon Kim – who described himself with that nickname – said the sergeants know which deputies like overtime and contact them to fill shifts.

"When you have seven days off, what do you do? I worked overtime."

In recent years the department also became adept at "keeping it green."

That slogan reflects the practice of actively seeking out contract services to keep the hours flowing. One favorite post under the Carona regime was the Orange County Fair, which switched its patrol contract to deputies soon after the sheriff's wife was appointed to the board of directors.

"Every July, it's Christmas for everybody," Kim said. "Even the lieutenants get into the action."

While Kim was eventually sanctioned for excessive overtime, sheriff's officials confirmed they did not have a way to regularlytrack the overtime payouts and hours worked by individual deputies.

That changed in May after the Register's inquiry.

Anderson said a new program had been instituted that sends electronic reports to managers each pay period to allow for individual tracking of overtime.

Resistance to change assignments

The overtime payouts have changed deputies' preference in assignments.

Most deputies have become so accustomed to the schedules and paychecks of jail duty that they are resisting efforts to move them into patrol assignments.

Anderson sought to encourage transfers and promotions out of the jails and into patrol assignments. The deputies sued in court, albeit unsuccessfully, to stop him.

Court filings show approximately 180 deputy sheriff II's in the jail who are eligible to request transfer to patrol. Only ten have done so.

"That leaves 170 eligible personnel who have chosen not to seek a transfer to patrol," county lawyers said in a court filing. "This creates operational problems for the sheriff."

Anderson's plan was to offer promotions to deputy I's who agreed to transfer into patrol. Five deputies took the deal.

Anderson is also fighting the deputies union over a change to the 3/12 work schedule that he says could save taxpayers $500,000 annually.

He wants jail deputies to start their eight-hour shift early in the morning and work through the day instead of starting in the afternoon and working at night, when all inmates are asleep.

Meanwhile, the union is arguing that officials are actually underpaying overtime amounts, saying that the four hours above 40 in the second week of the 3/12 schedule should be paid as overtime.

And another deputy action, known as a "donning and doffing" lawsuit, seeks to recover overtime for the time that deputies spend dressing and undressing from their uniforms.

"Government entities should be paying their workers the legal wage they are entitled to," Quint said.

Anderson has also suggested hiring correctional officers instead of deputies, arguing it could save as much as $10 million each year.

A departmental spokesman argued Thursday that switching assignments to lower-paid officers may not be possible because of different training requirements and the union contract.

But County Board of Supervisors Chairman John Moorlach and county CEO Mauk both said they want the county's new performance auditor to take a look at overtime spending patterns.

"Someone," Moorlach said, "has to start justifying this to us."

Contact the writer: Contact Santana at 714-796-2221 or nsantana@ocregister.com; Shulyakovskaya at 714-796-7024 or natalya@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