The truth about pensions

LAAG has a better idea than the ones below. Lets do to the govt employees pensions the same thing the private sector has done. Let the govermnet entities file bankruptcy and let the bankruptcy courts do what the political hacks cannot or will not do (due to vote pandering to/by the public employee unions)

The truth about pensions
A former politician speaks out about unsustainable benefits.
Article Launched: 02/27/2007 07:32:54 PM PST
http://www.presstelegram.com/opinions/ci_5318170
Long Beach Press Telegram

Keith Richman, a moderate Republican who was among a very few politicians in California willing to tell taxpayers the truth about the state's impending public pension disaster, no longer is in office. But fortunately, he's still telling the truth.

In speeches and in a recent article in the Orange County Register, Richman reminds us that the huge deficits have not gone away. The shortfall for public employees in Orange County alone is $1 billion for retirees' health care and $2.3 billion for lavish pensions.

For state employees, the shortfall is $140 billion for retiree health care, and $100 billion for pensions. Compare those numbers to the state's budget deficit of only a few billion dollars, which politicians struggle over and still can't quite seem to cover.

The State Employees Association belittles Richman's warnings as a crisis that doesn't exist. Oh, come on. The deficit numbers come straight from the California Legislative Analyst.

These plush benefits bear no resemblance to the real world of nongovernment jobs. That's bad enough from a taxpayer's view, but the more important point is that the benefits are unsustainable.

Politicians, who solicit money from government employee unions to finance their careers, show no interest whatever in negotiating more sensible contracts.

Richman offers a better solution: Continue the benefits for existing employees, but stop offering them to new nonsafety employees. Raise the retirement age to 65, which would cut pension costs by 50 percent and medical costs by a third. The retirement age for new public safety employees, who are subject to greater risk of physical disability, would be 55.

As Richman says, there is no defensible reason why government clerks, diesel mechanics, cooks, bureaucrats and the like should retire 10 years earlier than their private-sector counterparts.

We'd like to see Richman back in public office. But in office or out, we're grateful that he keeps speaking the truth.

TSA Union

Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2007 10:50:20 -0800
To: Senator@boxer.senate.gov, "U.S. Senator Barbara Boxer" , Adolfo_Bailon@boxer.senate.gov, Leannah_Bradley@boxer.senate.gov, Joy_Freiberg@boxer.senate.gov, Corey_Jackson@boxer.senate.gov, Brian_McLafferty@boxer.senate.gov, Aaron_Rosenthal@boxer.senate.gov, Gina_Semenza@boxer.senate.gov, Eram_Siddiqui@boxer.senate.gov, Kate_Simon@boxer.senate.gov, Judith_Vasquez@boxer.senate.gov, senator@feinstein.senate.gov, richard_harper@feinstein.senate.gov, mark_karesh@feinstein.senate.gov, "U.S. Congresswoman Linda Sanchez" , bill.grady@mail.house.gov, lauren.ross@mail.house.gov, iram.hasan@mail.house.gov, john.brodtke@mail.house.gov, clint.carte@mail.house.gov, romulo.rivera@mail.house.gov, karen.minatelli@mail.house.gov, rachel.potucek@mail.house.gov
From: updates@LAAG.us
Subject: Sept. 11 anti terrorism bill and the TSA union issue

Dear Senators Boxer and Feinstein and Representative Sanchez:

I dont agree with 90% of what Bush does however I do agree with his threatened veto on the Sept. 11 anti terrorism bill over the TSA union issue (see story below). There has been almost no media coverage of this provision (typical). That sort of a provision (almost as bad as an "ear mark") does not belong in this bill as it is anti taxpayer (as all public employees unions always are). For more on that issue and how public employee unions are causing the public pension system to collapse see www.LAAG.us and http://www.pensiontsunami.com/ Also unionization will have no effect on passenger safety and arguments could be made that it could decrease safety for taxpayers and only increase benefits to TSA employees. Quite frankly the screeners never should have become federal employees to begin with. It was slipped in while voters were in a state of hysteria (just like we over-reacted on Iraq) Federal requirements should have been put in place for private screeners. Federalizing thousands of jobs was a giant mistake and quite frankly the job TSA has done so far has been abysmal, especially with all the stories on the hundreds of missing uniforms. Surely that would be something that the Union would help them on. You loose a uniform you get fired. Union would prevent that. VOTE NO ON PUBLIC EMPLOYEE UNIONS AND BAILOUTS! Just because the federal govt. is infested with other unions is no reason to keep piling them on. This type of "give everyone the same sweetheart deal" thinking is what has led to our current pension and federal wage inflation problems. Search for "pensions" here

LAAG.us
Lakewood CA 90712

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
WASHINGTON (AP)--U.S. President George W. Bush probably would veto a Sept. 11 antiterrorism bill if it includes a Democratic-sponsored provision to let federal airport screeners unionize, a Republican senator said Tuesday.

"The president's message on the bill is going to come out tomorrow. I think that it will contain a veto threat on the TSA collective bargaining position," Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, said, referring to the Transportation Security Administration.

Collins said Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff told her of the impending veto threat.

A White House spokesman didn't immediately respond to a request for comment.

Such a veto threat would be an effort to flex Bush's political muscle with the new, Democratic-led Congress on the old battleground of labor rights. It also could throw an obstacle into talks over how to debate and pass the recommendations of the Sept. 11 Commission.

For now, senators are eager to follow the House and pass a bill enacting the commission's recommendations to tighten the nation's security. The House bill also includes a provision that would let TSA screeners bargain collectively.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada and Republican leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky had reached a tentative agreement Tuesday to conduct the debate over the next 10 days without the distraction of Iraq.

The sense of urgency on the 9/11 recommendations was conveyed to both leaders in a letter Tuesday from families of those killed in the terrorist attacks on that day in 2001.

"This legislation is far too important to be politicized by...controversial amendments and debate, particularly those relating to Iraq," wrote Carol Ashley and Mary Fetchet of the Voices of September 11th.

Reid and McConnell said the Iraq debate would wait for next month, after passage of the 9/11 bill. The arrangement would allow the Senate to debate legislation bolstering antiterrorism security measures on railroads and airlines without being distracted by the furor over President Bush's buildup of troops in Iraq.

"We have got to finish this bill," Reid said as he opened the Senate session. He read parts of a letter from relatives of people killed in the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks asking the Senate to consider the legislation "without complications regarding Iraq."

Even minus an Iraq debate, provisions in the antiterrorism bill or planned amendments make the legislation contentious.

The administration vigorously opposes a measure that would give TSA screeners the same collective bargaining and whistleblower rights held by most other federal employees. The White House also opposes an amendment that would let states delay adopting standardized drivers' licenses.

Senate Homeland Security Committee Chairman Joe Lieberman of Connecticut said screeners have been denied the most basic employee protections since joining the federal payroll after the Sept. 11 attacks.

Collins said Chertoff delivered a staunch defense of the administration's position during the GOP caucus' weekly policy lunch Tuesday. She said she nonetheless plans to try to attach an amendment that would delay requirements for states to adopt national drivers license standards.

Many states have complained about the cost of the program, and civil libertarians are concerned about privacy issues.

Other measures in the bill would improve rail and aviation security, provide funds for state and local emergency communications systems, improve intelligence sharing between federal, state and local officials, and expand a visa waiver benefit for favored countries.


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Screening for Unions
February 21, 2007; Wall Street Journal Page A16
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB117202953048414561.html

Democrats figure they owe Big Labor for helping them take Congress, and now comes the payback. Tucked away in House and Senate bills that purport to implement the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission is a provision that the Commission most assuredly did not recommend: collective bargaining rights for the Transportation Safety Administration's 43,000 airport screeners.

Congress created TSA in 2001 without union rights on common sense grounds that the agency overseeing airport security was more like the Defense Department than, say, Agriculture. Unionization, with its myriad work rules, would make it harder for the executive branch to hire, fire, train and reassign workers to best meet changing terrorist threats.

Democrats haven't stopped trying to overturn that decision, and in 2002 they forced a showdown with President Bush over union rights as part of creating the Department of Homeland Security. Mr. Bush opposed the effort by Senate Democrats who were then in the majority, and the dispute helped the GOP gain Senate seats that November. This may explain why Democrats are now trying to unionize TSA sotto voce, under the cover of 9/11 Commission "reforms," and so far the press corps has barely noticed.

The Bush Administration has caught on, however, and opposes the change in TSA rules. Democrats are betting the White House won't have the nerve to veto an otherwise popular, if ill-understood, bill over this single provision. Our guess is that if Mr. Bush did veto such a bill, he'd find public sympathy for an argument that he was protecting a vital national security function from being corrupted by union politics.

Twelve to study public pension costs

Given that this panel is chocked full of govt. employees and govt. union reps. LAAG sees very little progress via this "committee" on the pension shortfalls other than "Damn the private sector taxpayers....Full speed ahead towards the pension iceberg"


Editorial: Pension puzzle
New commission has its work cut out for it


Published February 23, 2007
Story appeared in EDITORIALS section, Page B6
http://www.sacbee.com/110/story/127583.html

Faced with a politically intractable problem, elected officials invariably turn to blue ribbon commissions -- panels of distinguished citizens they hope will come up with palatable solutions.

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger appointed such a commission early in his first term to deal with the state's burgeoning prison crisis, to little or no avail. The panel made sound recommendations, which the governor ignored, and the prison crisis has deepened.

Now the governor, together with legislative leaders, has created a new commission, this one to deal with another intractable state problem: the soaring cost of retiree pension and health benefits. Like the Corrections Independent Review Panel, the individuals named to the Public Employee Post Employment Benefits Commission have impressive credentials. They include academics, public employee union officials, financial experts and former pension fund managers.

But will panel members be able to persuade elected officials to force the kind of sacrifice from politically powerful constituencies -- specifically, public employee unions -- that fixing the state's retiree health and pension problems will inevitably demand? There's reason to be dubious.

The Legislative Analyst's Office laid out the health care part of the panel's challenge in a special report last year. Under new federal accounting rules, state and local governments are required to disclose their health care obligations to current and future retirees. The LAO study pegged the state portion of those costs at between $40 billion and $70 billion.

Those obligations are paid out of the general fund now, a $1 billion annual expense and mounting. To place the obligation on an actuarially sound footing, the LAO recommended that the Legislature and the governor begin setting aside billions more into an investment fund for future obligations. The LAO also recommended cutting benefits for future hires.

On the pension front, courts have consistently ruled that the state cannot borrow to finance its unfunded liability. So general fund contributions to the state pension fund are likely to rise sharply as well.

In his charge to the new panel, the governor correctly outlined what's at stake: "Rising pension and retiree health care costs," he predicted, "means less money for ... education, public safety, environmental protection and health care." That means a much diminished California.

The panel can guide lawmakers to the right answers. But the governor and legislators must do what they failed to do on the prison front -- make the hard decisions necessary to fix the problem. Doing that would be notable -- worthy, in fact, of the proverbial blue ribbon.

Twelve to study public pension costs
Panel selected by state lawmakers, governor to issue report by 2008

http://www.thedesertsun.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070221/NEWS01/702210323/1006
Keith Matheny
The Desert Sun
February 21, 2007

Twelve Californians have been appointed to lead a state group to examine and suggest solutions to the rising cost of public employees' post-retirement benefits.

State pension systems for government workers and teachers - CalPERS and CalSTRS - have a combined unfunded liability of $49 billion. And California may owe between $40 billion and $70 billion in promised but currently unfunded long-term retiree health care for state workers.

A four-day Desert Sun investigation in December revealed:

Coachella Valley cities' pension savings were wiped out in the dot-com stock market bubble that burst in 2000. The cities now face a collective unfunded liability of $51 million and rising. That's money that could go toward education, public safety, transportation and other public services.

Cathedral City's population increased almost 70 percent since 1990. Its emergency fire calls tripled in that time. The cost to run the city's fire department jumped almost $1.7 million in the past five years alone.

Yet the city's number of firefighters has remained virtually unchanged for nearly two decades because city officials see the cost of new hires' salaries and benefits as prohibitive.

Palm Springs and Cathedral City fire departments often run engines with only two firefighters, instead of the recommended four or five. It can cause delays in responding to emergencies.

The valley's three school districts have a combined $114.5 million retiree health care liability.

Governments such as Palm Springs and Riverside County are turning to borrowing millions in bonds to pay off portions of their worker retirement obligations.

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, a Republican, appointed six members to the new commission. Assembly Speaker Fabian Núñez and Senate President Pro Tempore Don Perata, both Democrats, appointed three members each.

The positions do not require Senate confirmation, and the commission members will not receive a salary.

The panel will determine the full extent of unfunded health care liabilities owed by California governments to their workers and propose plans to address those obligations and promised pensions. The commission is to draft a report for the governor and Legislature by Jan. 1.

Perata in a statement praised the "high quality of experts" convened in the commission.

"This group is clearly capable of undertaking the important and difficult task of weighing public employee benefits and finding ways to manage costs without undercutting workers," he said.

Nùñez said the Legislature would pay close attention to the commission's "process and progress over the coming year."

"We need a careful review of pension issues that is fair and responsible to workers and taxpayers alike," he said in a statement.

Researching retirement benefits
Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, a Republican, appointed six members to a new commission to study the rising costs of post-retirement benefits for public employees. Democratic Assembly Speaker Fabian Núñez and Senate President Pro Tempore Don Perata appointed three members each.

"Soaring obligations of this type remain one of the biggest problems facing governments everywhere, for the simple reason that rising pension and retiree healthcare costs mean less money for other government programs such as education, public safety, environmental protection and health care,"
Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger said in a statement Monday.

Named chairman of the commission was Gerald Parsky, 64, of Rancho Santa Fe, chairman of the Aurora Capital Group, a Los Angeles-based investment firm.

Parsky, a Republican, served in the 1970s as an assistant secretary with the U.S. Treasury Department, and has served as a member of the University of California Board of Regents since his appointment in 1996.

In addition to Parsky, members appointed to the commission by Schwarzenegger were:

# Matthew Barger, 49, San Francisco, Republican, asset management advisor for an investment firm.


# Paul Cappitelli, 49, Rancho Cucamonga, Republican, a member of the San Bernardino County Sheriff's Department since 1978, currently serving as commander of the West Valley Detention Center.


# John Cogan, 59, Portola Valley, Republican, senior fellow at the Hoover Institution and a professor of public policy at Stanford University.


# Connie Conway, 56, Tulare, Republican, vice-chair of the Tulare County Board of Supervisors.


# Curt Pringle, 47, Republican, Mayor of the City of Anaheim and former Assembly Speaker.


# Appointed by the Legislature to the commission were:


# Ronald Cottingham, Bonsall, Republican. President of the Peace Officers Research Association of California and a lieutenant with the San Diego County Sheriff's Department.


# Theresa Ghilarducci, Democrat. A national expert on employee pensions, trustee on General Motors Retiree Health Fund and a past presidential appointee to the advisory board of the Pension Guaranty Corp. Director of the University of Notre Dame's Higgins Labor Center.


# Jim Hard, Democrat, president of California's largest union of public employees, Service Employees International Union Local 1000, representing nearly 90,000 workers.


# Leonard Lee Lipps, Democrat, public school teacher and regional manager for the California Teacher's Association.


# Dave Low, Sacramento, Democrat, assistant director of governmental relations for the California School Employees Association.


# Robert Walton, Willows, Independent, retired in 2005 after 34 years in state government, including more than 30 years with the California Public Employees Retirement System, or CalPERS.


The positions do not require Senate confirmation, and the commission members will not receive a salary.

LASD: cannot control costs; project restrictions looming

Yet another example (below) of wasted taxpayer dollars. When will taxpayers ever realize that we just don't get our moneys worth from any public agency and that the Kings and Queens of LA County (The Board of Supervisors) are not really beholden to the taxpayers but public employee unions?


2/21/07
Sheriff's project goes awry
By Pam Wight Staff Writer
Whittier Daily News
http://www.whittierdailynews.com/news/ci_5270158

WHITTIER - The county Board of Supervisors is facing $6.4 million in cost overruns stemming from a relocation project run by the Sheriff's Department.

As a result, the supervisors are weighing whether to restrict the department's ability to manage future capital projects.

The board was supposed to take up the issue of the Special Enforcement Bureau relocation project at Tuesday's meeting, but the matter was continued until Feb. 27.

The relocation project's aim is to create a centralized area for homeland security training and response, according to the board's agenda.

To do that, officials decided in 1999 to upgrade the sheriff's Biscailuz Regional Training Center in Monterey Park in order to relocate the Whittier-based Training Academy and the East Los Angeles-based SEB to that site.

However, project costs began to rise when builders encountered old landfills at the Monterey Park site, which meant making significant changes to the original grading, drainage and site preparation plans.

Heavy rains in 2005 exacerbated the situation, officials said.

Sheriff's officials authorized cost increases and other changes without first getting the board's approval - a violation of county procedures, according to the agenda materials.

Now, the county's Chief Administrative Office is recommending that from now on Public Works should manage any capital projects that cost more than $1 million and involve "building new structures."

Supervisor Don Knabe said in a written statement that cost changes need to be "determined by the Board of Supervisors through approval of change orders and not validated after the fact."

Meanwhile, Sheriff's Department officials are conducting an internal investigation to identify where the management problems occurred and will issue a report to the CAO within 60 days.

"Even though the work we did was all reasonable and necessary, protocols were not followed," said Sheriff's Department spokesman Victor Rampulla. "And so we're doing an inquiry into the decision-making process. We can't just say everything's fine. The public doesn't expect that. We have a responsibility to follow procedure."

According to Knabe, when the board first approved the project it was supposed to be overseen by Public Works. The project was given to the Sheriff's Department in 2004 in an attempt to stay within budget.

Officials expected that moving the training academy would save the department $1 million annually, money that otherwise would have been spent on leasing office space.

The first of two phases of the project was the SEB relocation, which is nearly complete. Moving the training academy from the Sheriff's Training and Services Center from South Whittier will be the project's second phase.

Original cost estimates for each phase were approximately $9 million. Now, Phase I will cost more than $16 million and Phase II is expected to be $19.3 million, including "improvements and refinements" to the original plans.

Sheriff's officials are asking that the Board of Supervisors allow them to take $6.4 million from the Phase II account and spend it on completing Phase I. The money will go in part to contractors and consultants for work that is already done.

In the meantime, officials will re-evaluate Phase II, said Rampulla.

"While I am certainly unhappy with the way this project has been managed," Knabe said, "I am pleased that the cost overruns are being absorbed by the Sheriff's Department within their existing budget as opposed to this board bailing them out with additional general fund dollars."

pam.wight@sgvn.com

(562) 698-0955, Ext. 3029

LAAG Privacy Policy

Note our separate Mission Statement and Editorial Policy

We have been asked by subscribers to clarify our privacy policy. So here it is subject to being expanded or modified as time goes by.

1. We have no connection or "cozy arrangement" with the City or any other government agency. We receive no government or quasi government "kickbacks" or political "slush fund" money what so ever. LAAG is a voice of change and that means oftentimes we are against the government, the "establishment" and the status quo. We are not some radical organization but we do seek the betterment of the City and local government, which is sometimes not aligned with the interests or will of politicians or government employees. We are on the side of taxpayers. For that reason rest assured that we will not divulge private information about you or from you (like your name, contact information or address) unless we have your permission or a court tells us we must disclose it. We understand how easy it is for government entities and politicians to "punish" those who speak out against them and we developed this site to protect against that.

2. We have no problem conveying information from you to government entities at your request in an anonymous fashion if you wish so as to protect your identity, maintain your privacy and protect against government retribution.

3. Our email or other address list will not be sold or provided to marketers or anyone else that might use it for bad purposes. If you do get email from laag.us and it appears to be spam it likely did not come from us but was a spammer using our address. Finally the privacy policy of Feedburner.com (the company that sends out our email is here) Also emails are sent out in a "blind" fashion so others receiving it cannot see your contact email and no one knows who is getting what information.

4. Any communications sent to or from a public official or public employee is fair game for posting on this site. If there is a record that we obtain from a government entity (or someone who obtained it from one) as a public record we may post it on this site. Things created with taxpayer money should be shared with the tax payers as long as they are public records under the California Public Records Act or Federal Freedom of Information Act.

5. We get questions from readers about what type of an organization we are. Well LAAG is "California Non Profit Association" (just like we say in the title of all our pages, emails and postings). We are registered with appropriate state agency that registers such entities. We are not an IRS 501(c) entity (and are not registered as such) as we do not take charitable or other types of donations at this time.

6. The identity of people that post articles on this site is not relevant. We do not work in Government. We are not receiving government subsidies. We are taxpayers and long time residents of Lakewood and Long beach. Thats all thats really relevant. We don't have a hidden agenda. Our "agenda" if you will is well spelled out on all these hundreds of stories. Its not about LAAG... its about the city, its management and the issues before us and having a voice on those issues.

7. We ask of you the reader is that you not disclose who the members of are unless you have permission from those members. Most of us have real jobs and seek not to have them jeopardized by people (even in the private sector) who could read this blog and then try to extract some sort of workplace retribution from individual members of LAAG for expressing opinions different than theirs. Yes Virginia that has been known to happen...And as we are not full time paid journalists we need our day jobs.

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

click here to receive LAAG posts by email

Unions' cozy seat in talks puts state in a funding crisis

By Dan Walters / The Bee's capitol bureau
Fresno Bee
http://www.fresnobee.com/204/v-printerfriendly/story/27963.html

02/04/07 05:59:40

When then-Gov. Jerry Brown and the Legislature handed public employee unions their long-cherished goal of full collective bargaining rights three decades ago, they probably didn't intend that financing pensions and health care for government workers would become a major headache.

If we've learned anything about California politics, however, it should be that decisions by voters and politicians often have unintended, long-term consequences. And the looming crisis in pensions and health care for current and retired public workers could not be a better example.

At the time, extending collective bargaining to public workers was portrayed as merely giving them the same rights private-sector employees had long enjoyed. But, unlike those in private employment, public unions can often circumvent the traditional contract bargaining process by applying direct political pressure on those in charge of the public purse.

That political factor mangles the arm's-length theory of labor negotiations. Quite often, politicians who are negotiating and approving union contracts owe their political careers to those unions — a phenomenon as evident in local governments and school districts as it is in the Capitol.

In the main, salaries have not been terribly distorted since politicians are constrained by the amount of money available to pay operating costs in any fiscal year. But in lieu of granting big pay raises, politicians and unions have steadily enlarged the array of fringe benefits whose costs can be hidden and/or delayed indefinitely.

The city of San Diego is the poster child for such misconduct, having boosted city pensions to satisfy its unions without making any provision to finance the future costs. It got into legal hot water only because it lied about its pension obligations in filings on city bond issues. It's apparently all right to conceal pension costs from voters, but not from Wall Street bankers.

So how big is our pension and health-care headache? Immense.

The Center for Government Analysis in Newport Beach, in a new study for the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Foundation, says state and local government pension costs nearly doubled in the six-year period ending in 2004, to $10.2billion, but the state's 130 public pension systems saw their unfunded liabilities grow even more. The study found an actuarial surplus of $14.5 billion in 1998 had become a $50.9 billion deficit six years later.

Gov. Schwarzenegger's administration has declared that the California Public Employee Retirement System and the California State Teachers Retirement System together have $49billion in unfunded liabilities.

The Legislature's budget analyst has estimated that the state has an unfunded liability for retiree health-care costs between $40billion and $70billion and needs to set aside up to $6 billion a year for the liability.

The problem could grow worse as the baby boom generation begins to retire and takes advantage of the generous benefits that governors, legislators and local officials have extended in recent years, ranging up to virtually full salary retirements for police officers and firefighters.

So is anyone going to do anything about it? Schwarzenegger has appointed a commission to study the problem and make recommendations.

But that merely indicates that he is gun-shy after seeing a pension reform proposal shot down in 2005 and knowing that unions would resist any changes in the status quo.

It may take a San Diego-like disaster to move this political ball.

Dan Walters writes for The Bee's Capitol bureau. E-mail: dwalters@sacbee.com; mail: P.O. Box 15779, Sacramento, CA 95852.

Fireworks: unsafe, insane

Fireworks: unsafe, insane

Whittier Daily News, CA - 1/25/06
http://www.whittierdailynews.com/opinions/ci_5087604

FIREWORKS is an explosive issue right now in Whittier.

However it is also a no-win issue.

And, it can be a politically, good ol' boy type of issue.

It is kind of like the question: "Have you stopped beating your wife?"

Well, you get the idea.

Even as this editorial is written, we find ourselves occasionally stopping and wondering if those we have chosen to criticize actually may make more sense than we think.

We fight off that moment of ambiguity and proceed straight ahead.

So where is straight ahead?

We find ourselves standing unequivocally in favor of safety for all living things and protection of property.

We believe that to vote in favor of lifting Whittier's 20-year fireworks ban is to approve of a certain amount of unnecessary risk to local life and property. And this is to say nothing about the terror that fireworks strike into the hearts and psyches of our beloved house pets and the flora and fauna in the Whittier Hills we claim to hold so dear.

We can't have it both ways, folks.

Tuesday, we watched oral communications at the Whittier City Council meeting on television and saw a significant parade of residents go to the podium to speak against legalizing "safe and sane" fireworks. One opponent brought a petition against fireworks signed by 17 people. Only one man, employed by a fireworks company, spoke in favor of lifting the ban.

Mayor Cathy Warner and council members Bob Henderson, Greg Nordbak and Joe Vinatieri voted to lift the ban and allow the sale of fireworks from

9 a.m. to 10 p.m. from June 30 through July 4, and allow the use of the fireworks only on July 4.

Only Councilman Owen Newcomer opposed the motion, citing essentially the same reasons that we do.

Proponents of bringing back local sales and use of fireworks cite patriotic tradition and righteous celebration of the birth of the nation as well as nostalgic recollections of their own family fireworks traditions as reasons to lift the ban.

They also see a financial benefit to the local non-profit organizations that will be able to obtain permits to operate 10 fireworks sales booths as well as fees brought into the city to pay for increased law enforcement to locate violators who use "unsafe and insane" (read: illegal) fireworks.

As far as we are concerned, that fundraising "benefit" is no longer worth the risk to people and property.

We would much prefer for the city to bring back a city-sponsored, city controlled July 4th fireworks event in a park or on a school campus.

The bottom line, all-important point to be made is this: Whether Whittier continues with a fireworks ban or not this county will "explode" with illegal fireworks before, after and during July 4th until more violators are caught and receive stiff penalties.

Until we get serious about controlling the illegal fireworks traffickers and users in this county and in all of our cities, lives and property will continue to be lost to this childish folly.

As far as we are concerned, the blatant, uncontrolled, noise and extreme hazards created around July 4th make no more sense than a riot.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Editorial: Creating more risks
Article Launched: 01/30/2007 07:10:22 PM PST
http://www.pasadenastarnews.com/opinions/ci_5119804

"Don't confuse me with the facts; my mind is already made up" is an old adage that we have all heard many times.

At the Jan. 23 Whittier City Council meeting, this attitude was in evidence on at least one matter. The proposal to lift the ban on fireworks in the city and allow legal sale and discharge of so-called "safe and sane" fireworks was passed without meaningful discussion.

A majority of the council members seemed unconcerned about the physical jeopardy to both persons and property that this action might cause. Whittier needs concerned care, not opportunities for carelessness to wreak harm upon its citizens and their property.

The rather flimsy and shallow reason offered for this action was that "we need a way to express our patriotism," as if mimicking the sounds and sights of war is an intelligent way to show our love for the democratic institutions that insure our cherished freedom and independence.

We all know that the practice of war is a manifestation of man's failures and that killing and destruction is sure to lead us to oblivion. Some of us counseled against starting up a war in Iraq four years ago, but what good did it do?

As reports of injuries from "legal" fireworks come in, some can say, "I told you so." But what good would that do? When the first reports of property damage come in, some can say, "I told you so." But what good would that do?

At this same council meeting, the county fire chief recommended that his new permitting ordinance not be passed. But what good did that do?

Some suggested that a lifetime of

professional experience and education dictated that placing our lives and our property at needless risk is unwise. But what good did that do? There are enough risks in our everyday world. We do not need to create any more for the sake of a few cheap thrills.

Robert J. Cantrell

Whittier

Fireworks ban in Calaveras district

http://www.recordnet.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070125/A_NEWS/70125001

By The Record
January 25, 2007 6:00 AM

MOUNTAIN RANCH - The Fourth of July should be a little quieter and safer this year in this mountain hamlet.

That's because the board of the Central Calaveras Fire and Rescue Protection District adopted an ordinance that took effect Jan. 15 to ban fireworks.

The ban covers both "safe and sane" personal fireworks and the larger varieties used in commercial productions. Large events such as community celebrations can still use fireworks but will require a permit from the fire district.

Central Calaveras Fire Chief Robert L. Gill said he proposed the measure because the many homes in the heavily wooded district are extremely vulnerable to fire. The Central Calaveras fire district serves Mountain Ranch, Sheep Ranch, Rail Road Flat and Glencoe.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Fiscal prudence urgently needed in coming years

KERN COUNTY
Fiscal prudence urgently needed in coming years
Investments considered as more boomers retire

BY JAMES BURGER, Californian staff writer
e-mail: jburger@bakersfield.com | Saturday, Jan 27 2007 10:55 PM
http://www.bakersfield.com/102/story/96754.html#

Last Updated: Saturday, Jan 27 2007 10:58 PM

Paying for retiree health care used to be easy for the county of Kern.

The county paid a little. The employee paid a little. The money was invested. That was enough.

Now it's not.

"Historically we have been able to fund this just fine," said County Administrative Officer Ron Errea.

But he said the cost of health care has climbed dramatically in recent years and a substantial chunk of county employees, many from the baby boom generation, are rushing to retire in the next few years. Paying for all that takes taxpayer dollars.

Now new rules from the Governmental Accounting Standards Board are forcing governments across the nation to tell the public how much those retirements are going to cost them.

Kern County hasn't finished crunching the numbers yet. An actuarial report is expected to be released in February.

It seems likely that there will be a lot of red ink in that report.

The county won't have to pay up immediately. In fact, there is no legal requirement that it set aside money now to pay for future retirement costs.

But to avoid bad credit and weaker bonding muscles, the county is looking for the best way to invest enough moneyeach year -- over 30 years -- to pay for estimated cost of retiree health care.

"It's a serious problem. It's constantly coming to the forefront," said Supervisor Ray Watson. "We are amortizing our liability. We smooth that by paying off that deficiency over 30 years."

In June 2005, actuaries estimated the county's retiree health care account was short by around $78 million.

This year the county will contribute $1.7 million to that account. Next fiscal year the amount the county contributes is proposed to more than double to $3.9 million in an effort to catch up with its looming debt.

County employees currently contribute eight-tenths of one percent of their base pay toward their retirement health benefits.

Next year the county wants to bump that to 1.85 percent, according to county officials. County unions would have to agree to that.

Errea said fiscal prudence demands that the county look for a way to fund the rising cost of health benefits.

If it doesn't deal with it, county officials say, its official debt level could burgeon and its bonding capacity could suffer.

But the county won't be able to establish concrete solutions until it has updated actuarial numbers.

Right now, the only plan is to pour more money from taxpayers and county employees into the retirement investment fund, they said.

Watson said the county and its unions need to talk about a way to provide health benefits to retirees without breaking the county's bank.

That may mean the county funds a lower level of defined benefits and have employees pay more in contributions to buy increased coverage, he said.

Chuck Waide, spokesman for the Central California Association of Public Employees, said the union is watching closely to see what the impact might be to county employees the union represents.

"All of us recognize that the cost of health insurance has skyrocketed," Waide said.

He said the hope is that employee's increasing contributions to their post-employment health care will control the costs.

"Our members are feeling it because (the contribution) keeps going up," he said.

But Waide said the issue isn't just about how Kern County deals with rising retirement costs.

The rising cost of health care, and retiree health costs, are national problems, he said, and they need a national solution.

Unfortunately, Waide said, nobody has come up with one yet.

City Council decides to ban fireworks in Fontana as of July 5, 2008; some city councils have guts

Apparently some city councils actually have guts and some fire and police departments are willing to take on the money grubbing local interests that worked so hard against us in the November 2006 election (and spent $40,000). Note this was a 5-0 vote in Fontana. Apparently they are also smarter than most voters in Lakewood. And of course John Kelly, again front and center, and once again protecting TNT's right to peddle toxic smoke and flames. Oh don't forget the "California Fireworks Safety and Education Program". That looks suspicous. Ill bet that group is packed with fireworks industry prople.

This will never happen in Lakewood if left up to the voters, the lame city council and the fireworks peddlers (the so called sports clubs in Lakewood). Score one for the little guy.

City Council decides to ban fireworks in Fontana as of July 5, 2008

http://www.fontanaheraldnews.com/articles/2007/01/25/news/01newsfireworks.txt

By MARIA ELENA KENNEDY

After listening to presentations from public safety and nonprofit groups, the Fontana City Council voted 5-0 on Tuesday to ban on the sale of fireworks within the city limits of Fontana.

The ban will not go into effect until July 5, 2008, which gives nonprofits two more years of selling fireworks.

The proposed ban had caused an outcry by nonprofit organizations, which are dependent on the income they receive from selling fireworks during the Fourth of July season.

At the Jan. 23 meeting, the City Council heard from numerous nonprofits how the proposed ban would adversely affect them and their ability to deliver needed services to the community. There are 45 nonprofit groups in the city which sell fireworks.

John Kelly, vice president of public affairs for TNT Fireworks, which supplies fireworks to approximately 80 percent of the nonprofits that sell fireworks in Fontana, claimed that a ban on fireworks will not stop the real problem -- the misuse of illegal fireworks.

"We are curious what the city hopes to achieve with the ban," said Kelly, who added that his company offers a "safe and sane product" that undergoes rigorous testing. "We offer a product that is approved by the state of California. The fireworks that are causing the problem are illegal fireworks."

Dennis Revell of the California Fireworks Safety and Education Program reiterated that the problem does not lie with the sale of legal fireworks, which he refers to as fire marshal approved fireworks, but with the sale of illegal fireworks.

"California has the strictest standards in the nation," he said, referring to the controls over legal fireworks. "We also have the biggest problem with the illegal fireworks."

Kelly noted that the city's attempt to ban the sale of legal fireworks would harm the nonprofits.

"We all know the problems on the 4th of July are caused by lawbreakers using illegal fireworks. Such a ban would only punish Fontana citizens who look forward to celebrating patriotic traditions, legitimate businesses, and the 45 nonprofit groups in the city that depend on fireworks sales to fund vitally needed services," Kelly said. "It seems fundamentally unfair to punish all the people who abide by the rules for the criminal actions of the few who knowingly break the law."

THE BAN was proposed by the Fontana Police and Fire departments.

Police Captain Tim Newsome said the problem of illegal fireworks has rapidly escalated in the city, especially over the past five years, to the point that "it's out of control."

In a report to the City Council, Newsome said that complaints from residents about fireworks on July 4 skyrocketed from less than 100 in 2002 to 333 in 2006.

He said that despite prolonged efforts to educate the public about the dangers of illegal fireworks (particularly ones that are purchased in Nevada and Mexico and smuggled into California), many residents still do not know the difference between legal and illegal fireworks.

He said the line between the two has become so blurred that legal fireworks are now just as much a part of the problem as the illegal ones. A ban on all fireworks is necessary to ensure public safety, Newsome claimed.

When asked if the nonprofits which benefit from the sale of the fireworks would be helped in finding alternative sources of income, Lt. Bob Ramsey said that the city was exploring funding possibilities for nonprofits such as the Fontana High School Marching Band, the Fontana A.B. Miller Marching Band, and the Bloomington Boosters 4-H club.

Judie Brown of the Bloomington Boosters 4-H club said that the ban would add up to a loss for the children.

"It's going to hurt the community services we provide. The money we make at the fireworks booth we return to the community. There will be a lot of children impacted," she said.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Editorial:
Fontana right to forbid sale of fireworks
Article Launched: 01/29/2007 12:00:00 AM PST
http://www.dailybulletin.com/opinions/ci_5107984

Fontana has joined the growing number of cities in San Bernardino County to see the light and ban fireworks.

After two more Fourths of July, this year and next, there will be no more legal fireworks in Fontana. The city apparently was willing to risk two more flash-and-burn holidays.

The City Council last week unanimously voted to ban all use of fireworks, except for professional and civic displays, effective July 5, 2008.

Better late than never.

The action will leave Chino as the only Inland Valley city to permit the sale of fireworks.

Fontana officials chose to put public safety first, even ahead of fundraising for nonprofits, service organizations and high school activities.

Councilman Frank Scialdone, who once served as the city's police chief, said, "I can't rationalize raising money and putting people in jeopardy."

Setting off fireworks is a dangerous pastime, resulting in loss of limb and property. In Fontana, fires around the Fourth of July, mostly caused by fireworks, resulted in at least $1 million in response costs and property damage last year.

No one wants to see civic groups or schoolchildren forced to scale back on worthwhile activities because of the loss of revenue from fireworks sales. But there's got to be a safer way to raise money.

Fontana council members, who acknowledge the pain it will cause local groups to do without the money raised from fireworks sales, plan to schedule a meeting with nonprofits to discuss other ways to come up with needed funds.

"Being one of the last cities in this county, in this region, offering fireworks, somebody's doing some fundraising other than fireworks," said Fontana Councilwoman Acquanetta Warren before the council fell in line.

Public safety has to come first.