"Show Me the Spending" coalition

Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2007 16:55:33 GMT
From: "National Taxpayers Union"
To:
Subject: Tell State Politicians: Show Me the Spending!

Dear LAAG:

State governments dole out billions of tax dollars every year through grants, contracts, and other forms of spending. Where's the money going? Our newly formed "Show Me the Spending" coalition believes you have a right to know.

The National Taxpayers Union and our coalition partners are working to pass legislation in all 50 states requiring a so-called "Google government" website that would allow you to see how the state government is spending your hard-earned money. Please help us now by visiting the coalition's homepage, www.showmethespending.org , and telling your legislators to "Show Me the Spending!"

As you may know, last year President Bush signed the Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act into law. Originally sponsored by Senators Tom Coburn (R-OK) and Barack Obama (D-IL), the bipartisan legislation is creating a searchable online database that the general public can use to track hundreds of billions of dollars in federal grant and contract expenditures.

Taxpayers deserve this kind of openness from state government too. The cost would be small, and the result would help to hold all elected officials accountable for state spending. While more than a dozen other states have limited versions of disclosure websites for grants and/or contracts, only one (Kansas) has created the kind of cohesive, comprehensive database envisioned in the federal legislation.

Providing an easy-to-use tool like the searchable website would enable you and your fellow residents to make sense of how your tax dollars are being parceled out, and make your own determinations of government's spending priorities.

The coalition's new website, www.showmethespending.org , features a constantly-updated legislative status center for all 50 states, model legislation for officials, research on the benefits of state spending disclosure, and a grassroots action center that gives citizens like you the ability to petition your legislators.

Conservatives, liberals, and everyone in between ought to agree that transparency of and public access to government information is vital to the health of our political system. Wherever you stand on the issues, please click over to www.showmethespending.org and speak out today!

Sincerely,

John Berthoud

--------------------------------------------------

Please forward this message to at least 3 of your friends and
get them involved today!

http://ga1.org/join-forward.html?domain=ntu_action&r=27xnuWY1f4j9

L.A. County violated state's open meetings law

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-secrecy21apr21,1,6492712.story

From the Los Angeles Times
Legal experts say L.A. County violated state's open meetings law
By Jack Leonard and Susannah Rosenblatt
Times Staff Writers

April 21, 2007

The Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors, long criticized for conducting public business behind closed doors, violated the state's open meetings law earlier this week when members privately selected a headhunting firm to find a new top manager, according to several open-government experts.

The board unanimously voted during a closed meeting on Tuesday to negotiate a recruitment contract with Ralph Andersen & Associates. Legal experts said the state's Ralph M. Brown Act requires such discussions to be held in public.

The board's decision was made as the district attorney's office investigates a separate allegation that supervisors violated the Brown Act three weeks ago. Prosecutors launched their probe after a member of the public complained that the board tried to discuss in private the federal government's decision to continue funding for Martin Luther King Jr.-Harbor Hospital.

"I think their track record as to recognizing their responsibility to the public is really a miserable one," said Rich McKee, an open-government activist who has successfully sued the county and other public agencies for violating the Brown Act.

Supervisor Zev Yaroslavsky, who chairs the board, said he and his colleagues relied on the advice of their county counsel, who told them their actions were legal. He noted that supervisors ultimately discussed the hospital funding issue in public.

"I think that the board has expended a lot of time, energy and resources to comply with the Brown Act," Yaroslavsky said. "It doesn't mean that you're perfect, but I think the county has done a far better job than it has done in the past and a far better job than many local government entities are doing."

The controversy comes at a time of growing concern about secrecy in California government. Open-government activists complain that a recent Supreme Court decision has prompted closings of police disciplinary hearings, and an attorney general's opinion has limited the information prosecutors can release about criminal cases.

There are few sanctions for public agencies that break the state's open meetings law. Prosecutors rarely file charges against public officials accused of discussing public matters in secret. The usual remedy is for prosecutors or members of the public to file suit to invalidate the vote. A judge can order the guilty agency to pay a plaintiff's legal fees.

County supervisors have a mixed record on Brown Act compliance. In 2001, they voted in closed session to instruct lawyers to block a ballot initiative that sought higher wages for workers who cared for disabled people. McKee and The Times sued. A state appellate court ruled that the board broke the law and tried to conceal it.

In 2004, Dist. Atty. Steve Cooley concluded that supervisors violated the law when they met privately and decided to close the trauma center at Martin Luther King Jr./Drew Medical Center. The Times sued again.

But a Superior Court judge disagreed with Cooley, ruling that the board was justified in privately discussing the trauma unit's fate as it grappled with threats from federal health inspectors to pull about $200 million in funding.

In the most recent episode, county supervisors met Tuesday morning to privately discuss the choice of a recruitment firm to find candidates to replace Chief Administrative Officer David Janssen. Earlier this year, the county offered the CAO job to two candidates, only to be rejected by both.

Some supervisors had criticized the county's approach to finding candidates. So, though the board rarely interviews recruitment firms, Janssen said supervisors wanted to be involved. Officials from two headhunting firms spoke during the meeting before the board made its selection, Janssen said.

The Brown Act prohibits elected bodies from privately discussing issues that involve an independent contractor, unless the contractor is working as a county employee.

County Counsel Raymond G. Fortner Jr. said the county's decision complied with state law because the recruitment firm will perform work similar to that of a county human resources employee. "They're doing essentially what county staff are doing or can do," Fortner said. "It's a short-term, temporary item."

But several 1st Amendment lawyers said they doubted such an explanation would hold up in court and described the board's action as a violation of the law.

"I think that the county counsel's position is dead wrong," said James Chadwick, a partner with Sheppard Mullin in San Francisco. "It's one of the clearer examples of a violation of the Brown Act that I've heard."

Terry Francke, author of a book about the Brown Act and general counsel for Californians Aware, a nonprofit open-government group, agreed.

"If they knew they were going to talk about independent contractor recruiting firms," he said, "they should have recognized right away that that should have been in open session."

jack.leonard@latimes.com

susannah.rosenblatt@latimes.com

Ontario CA increases "safe and sane" posession fine to $1,000

http://www.dailybulletin.com/news/ci_5692002

Fireworks fine pricey
Ontario approves $1,000 penalty to streamline process

By Jason Newell, Staff Writer
Article Launched: 04/17/2007 11:36:57 PM PDT

ONTARIO - Buying, using or transporting fireworks in the city is about to become a whole lot more dangerous - for wallets, that is.

Starting next month, the city will slap a $1,000 fine on anyone caught with the devices, which are outlawed within city limits.

The City Council approved the stiff penalty Tuesday night, hoping to reverse what officials said was a surge in fireworks-related emergency calls in recent years.

"This gives us a solid tool to begin to combat these flagrant violators," Mayor Paul Leon said before joining the unanimous vote.

Like most cities in the Inland Valley, Ontario has banned the possession or use of all fireworks, even the so-called "safe and sane" variety - which don't explode or leave the ground.

Across the region, only Fontana and Chino permit the "safe and sane" types, though Fontana has agreed to ban them starting July 5, 2008.

Currently, people caught with fireworks in Ontario already face fines of up to $1,000, but the city has to go after the offenders in court.

The new policy cuts the judicial system out of the process, making it easier and less time-consuming for the city to hand out fines and collect the money.

The policy will be a stronger deterrent to what has become a growing problem in recent years, Ontario Fire Chief Chris Hughes said.

"Last year, especially, was extremely busy for us," he said.

Since the start of 2006, emergency dispatchers in Ontario have received more than 700 calls about fireworks, including more than 400 complaints in July 2006 alone.

Each time, police and firefighters have been tasked with responding to the calls, investigating, seizing any fireworks and handling any medical emergencies - at a cost of thousands of dollars to taxpayers.

Additionally, firefighters have had to extinguish about 20 brushfires caused by fireworks during the past year alone, Hughes said.

While many of the fireworks that end up in Ontario come from Nevada and Mexico, plenty of them are purchased right next door in Chino, Hughes said.

Many Ontario residents don't know that they're breaking the law when they bring fireworks from Chino into the city, he said.

"That's part of our challenge," Hughes said. "When people do go to the fireworks booths in Chino, they (need to) know that they can't bring them across the border."

As part of the changes approved Tuesday night, the city will spend about $15,000 a year on signs, banners and other materials to publicize the city's fireworks rules.

"A big part of it is education - letting people know that it is illegal in Ontario to use any fireworks," City Manager Greg Devereaux said.

The city expects the fines to offset at least a portion of the education campaign, officials said.

The changes approved Tuesday night will head back to the City Council for final approval May 1, then take effect two weeks later.

Staff writer Jason Newell can be reached by e-mail at jason.newell@dailybulletin.com, or by phone at (909) 483-9338.

State delays perchlorate hearing for 2 months

http://www.pe.com/localnews/inland/stories/PE_News_Local_D_perch18.3bf7e41.html

10:00 PM PDT on Tuesday, April 17, 2007

By JENNIFER BOWLES
The Press-Enterprise

A hearing to determine those responsible for the Inland region's most significant water pollution problem has been delayed once again.

Tam Doduc, chairman of the State Water Resources Control Board, postponed the hearing for two months to give attorneys more time to file rebuttals. The hearing's aim is to assign blame and cleanup responsibility for a massive underground plume of perchlorate, a rocket fuel ingredient linked to thyroid ailments, that has tainted 16 wells in Rialto and Colton.

The hearing, which was set to begin May 8, will now start July 9 and run an additional five days through the month, said William L. Rukeyser, a spokesman for the state water board. The hearing will be held in the Rialto area, Rukeyser said.

Regional water-quality officials, who have been investigating the case, say they believe the lengthy plume was mainly caused by three companies that have used a 160-acre industrial lot in northern Rialto. Pyro Spectaculars Inc., a fireworks company, currently uses the site. Two defense contractors -- Goodrich Corp. and Emhart, which is a subsidiary of Black and Decker -- used the site in the 1950s and 1960s. All three companies have denied any role in the pollution.

Community activists said they were disappointed to see another delay.

"As long as there is no cleanup plan, the water supply to the residents is in danger," said Davin Diaz, who is with the Center for Community Action and Environmental Justice. "We were all looking forward to some type of closure, and it just keeps feeling like it's dragging on."

Rukeyser said the agency wants all parties to have a chance to present and defend their case so there will be no grounds to appeal any decision reached by the state board.

"We as well want an expeditious conclusion to this process," he said. "But, we also want to make sure that there are no arguments or claims that anybody was in any way deprived of due process."

Reach Jennifer Bowles at 951-368-9548 or jbowles@PE.com

Lake Elsimore CA ban on fireworks is strengthened

http://www.pe.com/localnews/inland/stories/PE_News_Local_S_sfirework11.409a020.html#
10:00 PM PDT on Tuesday, April 10, 2007

By MARY BENDER
The Press-Enterprise

LAKE ELSINORE - The city's ban against fireworks, including so-called safe and sane varieties, had long been condensed to a single, generally-worded paragraph in the Lake Elsinore Municipal Code.

On Tuesday night, the City Council tossed out that old version and replaced it with Riverside County's longer and more specific fireworks ban, which will become law in Lake Elsinore when the ordinance takes effect in 30 days.

The City Council introduced the seven-page ordinance at its March 27 meeting. On Tuesday, the council adopted it unanimously and without comment.

"This gives us the tools to provide better enforcement," city spokesman Mark Dennis said after the meeting.

The fireworks ban imposes fines ranging from $500 to $1,000 for anyone convicted of using, possessing, storing, manufacturing, selling, transporting, igniting, discharging or exploding any fireworks, whether they be illegal varieties or others sold in many Southern California cities.

Offenders also could face a one-year term in Riverside County jail if convicted.

Further, under the ordinance, a property owner also will be held responsible if he or she allows people to engage in any of the banned activity on his or her property.

The ordinance will be in place by summer, when fireworks usage peaks.

Earlier this year, the Western Riverside Council of Governments urged local cities, including Lake Elsinore, to incorporate Riverside County's detailed fireworks ordinance into their own municipal codes, Dennis said.

The new regulations will enhance the "preservation of the public peace, health (and) safety," the ordinance states, citing the danger of injury, especially to children. "Fireworks are often stored without safety precautions in residential neighborhoods," it said.

"Fireworks often come from countries where safety regulations for making fireworks are not as stringent as those for fireworks manufactured in the United States," the code states.

The ordinance spells out specific ingredients that are banned, including arsenic sulfide, phosphorous and boron, and types of fireworks that fall under the new prohibitions, including skyrockets that "rise into the air during discharge," Roman candles or similar devices that "discharge balls of fire into the air," chasers that "dart or travel about the surface of the ground during discharge," and any sort of firework made to explode in a manner unexpected by the user.

The ordinance allows a few categories of people to use fireworks -- most notably licensed pyrotechnic operators who have been granted a permit from the fire chief and the sheriff to stage a public fireworks display, such as those sponsored by cities on Independence Day.

On the permit application, the pyrotechnician must detail the site where the fireworks will be discharged and make a diagram of the area, showing the location of trees, telephone lines, buildings, roads and spectators.

Reach Mary Bender at 951-893-2103 or mbender@PE.com

Lomita CA plans to extinguish fireworks this Fourth of July

http://www.dailybreeze.com/news/articles/7077331.html?showAll=y&c=y

Lomita plans to extinguish fireworks this Fourth of July
They already are illegal, and officials promise to get tougher. A new ordinance will make violations punishable by fines and jail.

By Nick Green
STAFF WRITER

Last year Lomita Mayor Mark Waronek stood at a friend's house in Rolling Hills Estates on Independence Day looking down on the city.

Despite a ban on fireworks enacted in Lomita in 1986, the night sky above it was ablaze with cascading showers of sparks.

"I was amazed, it looked like Fallujah," Waronek said. "It's like a war zone. ... It was an eye-opening experience, it really was."

So eye-opening, in fact, that Monday, at the urging of Waronek, Lomita approved an aggressive ordinance that toughens the punishment for anyone using fireworks in the city. In the past sheriff's deputies have simply confiscated fireworks. Now violators will be slapped with a misdemeanor and face six months in jail and a fine of up to $500.

To enforce the tough ordinance, a Fireworks Eradication Team consisting of four sheriff's deputies and four plainclothes officers or volunteers will fan out across the city citing offenders and confiscating fireworks.

"We're serious -- there's a new sheriff in town," City Manager Tom Odom said. "If we catch you, we're going to prosecute you."

The tough new stance against fireworks marks a complete turnaround for the mayor, who last year urged the City Council to discuss lifting the ban so charitable groups could once more cash in on the sale of fireworks.

But that effort fizzled rapidly.

Odom noted in a report to the City Council on Monday that municipal employees receive a "barrage of complaints" every year over illegal fireworks.

"Animals go crazy, kids get hurt and it has just become a real problem -- it puts senior citizens on edge," Odom said. "Based on the complaints we get, there are more citizens against them than for them."

In the South Bay, only five cities -- Carson, Inglewood, Gardena, Hawthorne and Lawndale -- still allow so-called safe-and-sane fireworks.

Lomita's ordinance will be officially adopted in 30 days and become law 30 days after that, just in time for fireworks season.

The strict ordinance is essentially an admission that previous efforts to stop people setting off fireworks in the city have failed.

The city formerly attempted to educate residents on the dangers of fireworks by focusing on the fire danger created.

Last year the city spent just $1,069 on fireworks enforcement; this year that bill will rise to about $20,000.

Lomita plans an all-out public relations blitz to discourage fireworks.

Electric signs along roads, public service announcements on cable, warnings in utility bills and other measures will alert the public about the new ordinance.

Parks personnel will set sprinkler start times to 9 p.m. from July 1 through July 7.

And the Fireworks Eradication Team will prowl city streets from 8 p.m. to midnight around the holiday looking for people who dare to wave so much as a sparkler around.

"The main thing is enforcement," Waronek said. "I love fireworks, but you've got to do it in a safe-and-sane manner. I'll go to another city and enjoy the Fourth of July."

nick.green@dailybreeze.com

LA County $21 Billion (thats billion) budget starts July 07

When you think of "B"illion dollar budgets you think federal, not county level. Once again robing Peter to pay Paul. The Supes must be saying to themselves "Perhaps we can work some magic again and push all these tough issues onto the next administration or at least until we can scurry out of office". We love the part about the falling property tax revenues for 2007-08. We have not seen the bottom yet and they plan for a 6% increase. Full speed ahead! Oh and don't forget about that Measure B we passed a few years back..remember that?

http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/california/la-me-budget17apr17,1,6732162.story?coll=la-headlines-pe-california
L.A. County to boost public safety funds
Its budget earmarks money to revamp jails, add deputies to streets and target gang crime. But the healthcare deficit remains a challenge.
By Jack Leonard and Susannah Rosenblatt
Times Staff Writers

April 17, 2007

Spurred by the last year's increases in home prices, rising property tax revenues will help fund a boost in public safety spending in the coming fiscal year as Los Angeles County seeks to refurbish its aging and dangerous jail system, put more sheriff's deputies on the streets and target gang crime, officials said Monday.

The 2007-08 proposed budget, unveiled by Chief Administrative Officer David Janssen, also earmarks money to redesign juvenile camps, overhaul camp management and upgrade security in an effort to fix the county's troubled juvenile detention system. The U.S. Department of Justice has demanded improvements to the county's three halls and is investigating conditions in its probation camps.

Janssen's $21-billion budget plan, which would take effect July 1, most likely marks his last as the county's top fiscal officer. Janssen officially retired in January. But after a failed search for his replacement, he agreed to remain for the rest of the year.

The budget is a far cry from Janssen's first in 1997. At the time, the county faced painful job cuts as it struggled to cope with a ballooning deficit in its health system and the aftermath of a recession.

Still, Janssen, known for his fiscal caution, raised some warning flags Monday about the county's future finances, citing the looming healthcare deficit and concern over the cost of retired employees' healthcare benefits. In addition, he said the slowdown in home sales will undoubtedly cut into rising property taxes. He estimates a 6% increase next year rather than this year's 10%.

"We have challenges," Janssen said. "I think we've demonstrated over a number of years now our capacity to deal with budget challenges, so I'm not exercised or concerned about whether or not we're going to be able to deal with those challenges."

The most intractable problem remains the public healthcare system's deficit, which is projected by some county estimates to reach $794 million over five years. The new budget does not cure the problem. Indeed, Janssen said that he employed "very optimistic assumptions" in drafting the healthcare budget and that the gloomy financial forecast could eventually lead to cuts in health services.

Supervisor Don Knabe said in a statement he was concerned that the health department's fiscal outlook was "quickly reaching a day of reckoning," and he voiced concern about the uncertainty of federal funding.

Supervisor Zev Yaroslavsky underscored the fragility of the health department's finances, but said the county had previously been able to cobble together needed funds with a combination of federal, state and county dollars.

"Every year we get to the brink," Yaroslavsky said, "we're able to patch things together."

The health department will receive $190 million to help complete a state-of-the-art medical center that is replacing County-USC Medical Center in East L.A. along with upgrades at two other county hospitals.

Similar construction funds have been put away for the county's beleaguered jail system, which has been beset over the last few years with violence and overcrowding that forced the Sheriff's Department to release inmates early.

The budget includes $245 million to add much-needed jail beds to house inmates, including barracks for women at the Pitchess Detention Center in Castaic, and to refurbish the empty Sybil Brand Institute jail for women in Monterey Park. It will take several years to finish the project.

Under Janssen's plan, the Sheriff's Department also could add 165 deputies to patrol jail corridors and hallways where inmates have taken advantage of limited security to attack one another. An extra $16 million will pay for a redesign of the aging Men's Central Jail.

Melinda Bird, senior counsel for the ACLU of Southern California, said that she welcomed the proposal but that the jails need even more deputies.

"Our inmates-to-deputy ratio is far too high," she said. "It contributes to violence, inmate rape and generally poor and unconstitutional conditions."

Sheriff Lee Baca applauded the budget for adding more than 100 deputies to patrol unincorporated areas of the county, which suffered staffing cutbacks during lean times a few years ago.

"With this additional amount, it's quite a recovery," Baca said. "It should be exactly where we were before, and it could be beyond it."

Gang suppression efforts will also receive an additional $6.4 million.

But Supervisor Mike Antonovich said the extra funding was not enough, given the scope of public safety problems.

"This budget severely shortchanges the Sheriff's Department's ability to properly address the gang problem and jail security," Antonovich said in a statement.

Like most public agencies, the county has done nothing to deal with the growing bill it will face in future years for retiree health benefits. Rather than putting money away, the county simply pays the cost of retiree benefits each year ($377 million this year).

The projected cost over the next few decades is likely to be a lot more. A grand jury estimate two years ago put the figure at $9 billion. But Janssen, whose office has conducted informal estimates in preparation for a more comprehensive study due in the next month, said that figure could be low. "I'd be happy if it wasn't more than $14 billion," he said.

The county, he added, must quickly put money aside to meet its commitments. He suggested starting with $400 million in surplus pension funds and $17 million from next year's regular budget.

Janssen is expected to present the budget to the Board of Supervisors today. Hearings start May 9.

jack.leonard@latimes.com

susannah.rosenblatt@latimes .com

Canyon Lakes, CA bans fireworks

City Connection: Council meeting recap

http://www.thefridayflyer.com/FF-2007-4-13/FFS-6558.htm
By Shannon Weatherford
Reporter

The Canyon Lake City Council’s regular monthly meeting was held last Wednesday, April 4, with all members of Council present.

[snip]

Fireworks ordinance
In an effort to maintain continuity of prohibitions and penalties throughout Riverside County for the use and possession of illegal fireworks, the City of Canyon Lake adopted Ordinance No. 97 Prohibiting the Use of Fireworks in the City, mirroring County of Riverside Ordinance 858 Prohibiting Fireworks. Included are prohibitions on the possession, storage, use and discharge of defined fireworks. Manufacturing of fireworks without special permits is also expressly prohibited and penalties for all aspects are specified as well.

California public employees gain generous benefits while public sleeps

LAAG could not have said this any better than Mr. Boren. Kudos. Maybe the politicos are starting to listen to the natives beating the drums?

California public employees gain generous benefits while public sleeps
http://www.scrippsnews.com/node/13986

By JIM BOREN
The special interests usually have their way when the public doesn't pay attention to policy decisions on issues that seem arcane to most taxpayers. Quite simply, the ones paying the bills get ripped off because government bores them.

Then they wake up one day to find they've been funding political giveaways for years, and that's threatening their favorite programs. Elementary school music is being cut; a fire station is being closed; a program for seniors is being eliminated. Now they're mad, but often it's too late.

Generous public employee pensions in California and excessive health benefits for the retirees are examples of the public not giving a thought to costly programs that could fundamentally change the mission of public agencies. But who cares about actuarial tables and unfunded liabilities? Besides, we have a short attention span and the problems won't be felt for a generation.

It's interesting to see what upsets the public. Californians started an election rebellion over paying an excessive car tax, but they didn't say a word about lucrative pension programs that may give public employees more money in retirement than they were paid for working.

The high car tax in California helped to get Gov. Gray Davis recalled in 2003, but a more serious Davis misstep _ heaping benefits on public employees that the state couldn't afford _ didn't make the voters' radar.

But decisions on employee benefits at all levels of government threaten the ability of agencies to provide the services they were created to perform. In school districts, for example, money is being sucked out of the classroom to pay for health benefits. The biggest problem is the increasing burden of retiree benefits.

School trustees in the Fresno Unified School District began controlling these costs last year and the retirees responded by suing them. Even though they were being asked to contribute a tiny amount toward their health care, they've rebelled.

Unfortunately, they think the money to pay for health benefits somehow magically appears. One retiree said the other day that it doesn't matter what the actuarial tables say, the state will bail out the school districts.

But this could be a house of cards, and one day retirees may have nothing at all as the government agencies supporting them go bankrupt. Who will they sue then?

A new report underscores the problem in California. Local governments and school districts in California face rising retiree health care costs and that could divert money from community services, according to the California HealthCare Foundation.

New federal accounting rules are beginning to reveal the huge liability that has been mounting in most public agencies in recent years. The rules, which will be phased in beginning next year, will require public agencies to report the cost of retiree benefits.

That should draw "increased attention to retiree health care spending," according to the CHCF. "This report is intended to stimulate a frank conversation about this important issue," said Mark D. Smith, the CHCF's CEO.

But a frank discussion will only occur if the public pressures elected officials to deal with the problem. In the current environment, public employees control the political agenda.

The Center for Government Analysis estimates that retiree health care costs for public employees in California will be $31 billion per year by 2020.

Pensions for public employees are another big problem. San Diego was the poster child for the problem. The city's pension fund was nearly $2 billion upside down last year, and it threatened every city program, including public safety.

In Fresno County, a grand jury investigation said the county faces "insurmountable debt" if retirement costs aren't contained. The report said the county couldn't afford to pay retirement benefits owed to its 4,000 retirees and 7,000 current employees without going to the taxpayers for more money.

The problem was magnified in Fresno because the county allowed retirees to manipulate the method for calculating their pay. The "Fresno method" resulted in some retirees getting more money in retirement than they earned while working. A judge ruled in 2004 that the Fresno method was improper and the pensions of about 600 employees had to be recalculated.

Employee unions continually push for increases in benefits, even when it's not financially wise. But unions take no responsibility if government agencies give benefits when they shouldn't.

Consider this union response in an Associated Press story last week: "If they haven't been looking at the numbers, shame on them," said John Abraham of the American Federation of Teachers.

That's another reason taxpayers should be paying attention to public employee benefits. Unfortunately, they're more interested in the latest antic of Paris Hilton.

Jim Boren is The Fresno Bee's editorial page editor. E-mail him at jboren(at)fresnobee.com or write him at 1626 E St., Fresno 93786.

Highland CA plans to vigorously promote its ban on fireworks

Does not look like a new ban but rather putting some teeth into an existing ban

10:00 PM PDT on Wednesday, April 11, 2007
http://www.pe.com/localnews/inland/stories/PE_News_Local_S_bfireworks12.40610b2.html

By JULIE FARREN
The Press-Enterprise

Highland plans to vigorously promote its ban on fireworks over the next three months through fliers to all homeowners, notices in utility bills and magnetic signs on city-owned vehicles.

The Highland City Council voted 3-0 Tuesday night to approve the public awareness campaign. Councilman John Timmer and Councilwoman Jody Scott were absent.

According to a staff report, complaints by residents and City Council members about fireworks are increasing.

"It's been an ongoing problem in this community for years," said City Manager Joe Hughes.

The public awareness campaign will cost $8,000 for printing, addressing and postage for the notice mailed to residents and community organizations, the staff report said. The notice, printed in English and Spanish, also will be included with June utility bills and on mailers sent home with students.

The Highland sheriff's Citizens on Patrol volunteers will go door-to-door to notify residents of the citywide prohibition, according to the staff report.

Overtime has been approved for additional law enforcement officers to enforce the policy leading up to the Fourth of July holiday and immediately afterward.

Highland will notify neighboring cities of the effort and city officials plan to coordinate all the citations for one court date to minimize overtime costs.

The city must get serious about ensuring that anyone violating the fireworks policy is held responsible, Mayor Ross Jones said.

"It's going to have no value unless we enforce it," Jones said.

Anyone caught using fireworks could receive a citation and fine of up to $500, or could be arrested, Highland sheriff's officials said.

Reach Julie Farren at 909-806-3066 or jfarren@PE.com