LAAG's reply to the City's comments in the Press Telegram 12-15-08

Most of our loyal readers (and many new ones) saw the 12/15/08 Press Telegram feature written about our site. Of course the city of Lakewood was queried about the site. LAAG wanted an opportunity to address some of the comments made by Councilman Rogers in the article. And of course as we have many times before, we offer the city space on our pages to offer rebuttals to what they feel is inaccurate on our site. To date the city has not taken us up on that offer.

With respect to the March 2009 city council election candidate filing dates not being not well publicized, on that issue, Councilman (excuse me, vice mayor) Todd Rogers says there was an announcement about incumbents seeking re-election on the front page of the Lakewood Community, a Chamber of Commerce Publication that goes to every home in the city. "It clearly told everybody in town that there was an election," Rogers said.

We found the November 2008 issue of the Lakewood Chamber of Commerce newspaper. (we are not sure of the date when it was actually distributed) Again this is the paper that most people throw directly into the trash after it sits on their lawn for a few days. Each month it has a puff piece written by the "mayor" (or likely some ghost writer) or some other councilperson talking about some "issue" (a real or fake one). In November one small article was about how the three incumbents were "kicking off" their March 2009 re-election "campaigns" with a 100 person dinner (wonder who paid for that?) at city hall (attended by you guessed it all the politicos and fireworks sellers that would have been voting for them in March 2009, along with our special friend Sheriff Baca!) NO WHERE in the article did it mention any deadlines for nominations or anything about that rather complicated process whatsoever. The Press Telegram ran no story at all (as they had no reporter for Lakewood at the time) nor was there any hint of a deadline on the city website. Why? Well if you are running for re-election the last thing you want to do is call a deadline to the attention of your potential opponents (like LAAG did) So yes there was hint of an "election" in the air, but as we said the city did everything it could to "hide" the nomination deadline to insure the three candidates would be a shoe in. And it worked.

Rogers, stated in the article that "city government is 'open', despite some of the assertions he has read [on LAAG]" and that "The city of Lakewood doesn't do anything in secret...". Well if hidden in the clerks office is your definition of open then I guess it is "open" (but only from 9-5 pm) But most folks dont walk into city hall every day for their news. They read news papers and now the web. So if you dont want people to know something just post it on a bulletin board in the clerks office. How many of you have read the bulletin board in the clerks office in the last year? LAAG believes in transparency in government as its our money they are wasting. "...Sunlight is said to be the best of disinfectants..." [Justice Louis D. Brandeis] We have a whole section devoted to government transparency. The reason governments dont want to post too much on the web is that people might actually see it, copy it (like LAAG) and start asking questions which politicians find "hard to answer". I think Long Beach Councilwoman Gerrie Schipske agrees.

Rogers also stated in the article that what the city does is "...based on the surveys and feedback we get from the community..." Well I saw two surveys on the Lakewood website and only very brief summaries at that with no specific questions asked. The last survey date we saw was 2006. LAAG plans to do some surveys as well and you can be sure when we do we will post them. The point being that only about 2,700 people vote in city council elections out of 80,000 residents. So how many of those polled do you really think are clued in about specific problems in the city?

As Campbell Brown recently said on CNN.com: "It goes without saying, the media is annoying. It is the media's job to be annoying. Especially those members of the media assigned to cover the president. Or in this case the president-elect. Their role is not to support [the City council] President-elect Barack Obama, but to challenge him, to do their best to hold him accountable."

If you want to read cheerleader "puff pieces" about the City and the City Council then read the city's website or those from the Lakewood Chamber of Commerce "throw away" "news"paper that comes out once a month. There are plenty of places to find that kind of news. Not here.

We don't think Lakewood is a bad city nor the city council the worst. There are much worse. But there are much better too. We need to strive for improvement. We think this site is one way of encouraging change by trying to make the city more "transparent" or calling foul when everyone else is too afraid to or have given up on dealing with city hall as it is. And who could blame them.

Mr Rogers concluding dismissive comments about LAAG in the Press Telegram article: "...[LAAG's] views are out of sync with the majority of residents. As an example, he cited [LAAG's] suggestion at a City Council meeting to look into the possibility of creating a city police department.." Well again you have to realize that Rogers is a sheriff captain (top person in the substation) in Carson and it sends shivers down his spine when you dare to criticise the sacred cow that signs his paychecks. The point LAAG was making (the context of which is when LASD totally dropped the ball on the Dunrobin explosion in March 2006 by its own admission) was that the city just accepted what the LASD fed them. It was the city council that had to hold the LASD accountable. It clearly had not and LAAG felt that the reason was that the LASD offered Lakewood its services on a "take it or leave it basis" and to get some competition on LASD's 9 million a year contract the city should get bids from other police agencies that offer contract law enforcement. Of course carving out a piece of LASD "territory" would be about as likely as Rogers "Lakewood school district" fantasy becoming a reality. Talk about out of sync.

We agree that LAAG is out of sync with the status quo and we aren't going to change one bit!

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

Web site keeps watch on Lakewood government

from the Long Beach Press Telegram
12/14/2008 edition

Steve [the LAAG editor] does not consider himself an investigative reporter.

"I am not a great writer," he says. "I kind of hack my way through it."

But he sees a place in the local media landscape for his not-for-profit news Web site, www.laag.us.

The site is the online voice of Lakewood Accountability Action Group, a residents group that organized in the aftermath of a March 2006 house explosion caused by an illegal fireworks stash.

"I am not a true news source," Steve, a former City Council candidate, says. "We're sort of a commentary site."

Indeed the site's slogan, "Times change, politics don't," is a play on the Lakewood city motto, "Times change, values don't."

Commentary aside, there is plenty of information - some would call it citizen journalism - on the LAAG site.

A recent post bemoans how no one challenged three City Council incumbents seeking re-election in March 2009.

Another story asks questions about the delay of the Costco store planned for Lakewood Center.

Favorite topics include government pensions, public employee unions, travel by public officials, the L.A. County Sheriff's Department, redevelopment, noise, zoning, traffic safety, utilities and, of course, one of Lakewood's oldest issues and most explosive issues - legal fireworks.

"That's why I support independent journalism," Steve says. "Everyone talks about national and state politics but no one talks about local issues."

Content comes from LAAG e-mail and phone tips from residents, business owners and city sources.

"People come to us to see if we can help them with problems," Steve, says.

A Lakewood resident since 1964, Steve says he started the site because public information that should be easily accessible sometimes is not.

"I say they like to hide stuff in plain view," he says. "One of my big topics is open government. I'd like to see more transparency."

An example, LAAG says, is the spring election.

LAAG says the candidate filing dates were not well publicized.

On that issue, Councilman Todd Rogers says there was an announcement about incumbents seeking re-election on the front page of the Lakewood Community, a Chamber of Commerce Publication that goes to every home in the city.

"It clearly told everybody in town that there was an election," Rogers said.

Another LAAG post on the topic criticized the city's low voter turnout, saying it amounted to government appointments made by the community's most influential members.

"Even Iraq has elections!" the post states.

LAAG is nonpartisan, and the organization does not consider itself liberal or conservative.

"We're anti-stupid spending," Steve says. "We like small government, which is what Lakewood is supposed to be, as a contract city, but we don't like waste, and we don't like secrecy."

Rogers, the city's vice mayor, counters the notion of secrecy. He says that city government is open, despite some of the assertions he has read online.

"I think our City Council does a pretty good job, and we have a history of honest, stable, responsive government," Rogers says. "And that's not going to change any time soon."

In addition to original content, LAAG picks up news stories from the Press-Telegram, Los Angeles Times and other media, but national and global topics are avoided.

Lakewood City Hall has taken notice.

"The biggest visitor to my site is the city of Lakewood," LAAG says of its online tracking that shows a few hits from City Hall on a typical day. He gets about 100 hits every week day.

Lakewood city spokesman Don Waldie says that LAAG's viewpoints are welcome in the "marketplace of ideas."

"In an open, democratic society with robust political institutions, local government wants to hear every opinion," he says.

Before the electronic age, Waldie says traditional media have challenged City Hall positions. The now-defunct Lakewood Clarion was known to take shots.

"LAAG's blog fits into a long tradition of talking about what local government does and why it does what it does," Waldie says.

But most important, Rogers says, is that constituents are, in his estimation, pleased with city government.

He believes LAAG's views are out of sync with the majority of residents. As an example, he cited LAAG's suggestion at a City Council meeting to look into the possibility of creating a city police department.

"The city of Lakewood doesn't do anything in secret, based on the surveys and feedback we get from the community," says Rogers, who is a captain at the Sheriff's station in Carson. "I think we're tuned into what the community wants, what the community values are, and they seem to trust and be happy with their government."

Rogers says he responds to inquiries from LAAG and is comfortable with criticism that goes with being on the council.

But he doesn't always like what he reads on the LAAG site.

"I think Lakewood's pretty transparent," he says. "I think a lot of his criticisms are unfair, and some of them are not true."

LAAG does not accept advertising.

"We're not interested in taking ads from some local businesses," says LAAG, a corporate consultant by day. "Every time you start taking ads, you get into the issue about advertisers complaining about things."

john.canalis@presstelegram.com, 562-499-1273


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

Musical Chairs at the Mall

One store out, one store in. Forever 21 Inc. and Kohl's Corp. won a joint bid to move into 46 soon-to-be-empty Mervyns stores (out of a total of 149). Mervyns filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy (Reorganization) protection in July and subsequently decided to liquidate. As Lakewood already has a Kohl's near Carson and Paramount the Lakewood Center Mall Mervyns and the Los Cerritos Center Mervyns will become Forever 21 stores. Forever 21 is a store primarily for women under 25. Perfect as they are 80% of Mall shoppers. I guess we are leaving it up to teen women to pull us out of the retail slump!

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

KB Toys in Lakewood Center to close

KB Toys filed for chapter 11 Bankruptcy on 12/11/08, even before the Christmas holiday shopping season ended. It will be closing its Lakewood Center Mall location. For a toy store to close a few weeks before Christmas tells you how bad things are. It has been said that the next waive of the recession will affect credit cards and commercial real estate. Bad news for Lakewood Center Mall. Costco also reported flat earnings this week, so expectations are really low for the delayed opening of Costco Lakewood Center in mid February 2009 (if they can even meet that date). KB's spokesperson stated: "In order to maximize value of the assets through the store closing sales, it is imperative [KB] be authorized to conduct the store closing sale ... as soon as possible in order to take advantage last two weeks of the holiday selling season," KB filed bankruptcy three years earlier. Same-store sales have fallen 19.77% compared with last year. KB has 277 mall-based stores, 114 KB Toys Outlet stores, 40 KB Toy Works, and about 30 temporary holiday stores.

I guess someone will need to keep a tally sheet for Mall and store closings after January. Likely all the Costco opening will do in February 2009 will be making up for other store closings with no net gain or even a loss in sales tax revenues for the Mall.

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

Why bother with Elections?

The City Clerk reported on 12/10/08 (via email) that only the three candidates completed the nomination process making them eligible to run in the March 2009 city council election. Mayor Steve Croft, Vice Mayor Todd Rogers, and Council Member Diane DuBois - the three incumbent council members - were the only candidates who sought to fill the three available seats when the nominating period ended on December 5 2008. We alerted Lakewood residents of this impending deadline but given the abysmal turnout in Lakewood city council elections (usually less than 3,000 votes for 41,000 registered voters or 7.3% turnout) it does not surprise us that no one but the incumbents threw their hat in the ring. LAAG felt that by at least notifying residents of the deadline (which the city failed to do) potential candidates would at least not be blindsided by the deadline. Now, since the number of candidates at the end of the nominating period equals the number of seats to be filled, state election law allows the nominees to be appointed. So Lakewood wont even have an election! (Even Iraq has elections!) Just as well save the money I suppose as Lakewood residents just dont care. Very sad. In hotly contested districts in Long Beach recently they have had 60% turnouts in recent elections. I guess people in Long Beach are just more aware of what is going on (or more likely what is not happening and should be). Lakewood voters for the most part dont even know what issues are going on in Lakewood that need attention. I suppose we should just dispense with elections in Lakewood and let city council members serve for life. Or perhaps we could institute a city monarchy (we have close to that as Larry Van Nostran is the longest "reigning" city councilman in California history we have read; first elected in 1975 which will be 34 years in 2009). Without elections and campaigns the city council will have no incentives whatsoever to listen to "voters" (all 3,000 of them). How many other city's in California fail to have elections? Likely none. Shame on you Lakewood. As punishment for your lack of civic interest in our system of government you should not be allowed to celebrate the 4th with fireworks. (now that will stir interest) Our founding fathers would be appalled at how we claim to be "democratic" or "patriotic" and how we can only show it with sparklers or car magnets.

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

click here to receive LAAG posts by email

Another bike path crime

There is no indication that this victim was riding a bike but as we have pointed out before be very careful on these bike paths. Quite frankly its just too dangerous to be on them after sunset. You are better off on public streets after dark but you need a good headlight and tail light along with lots of reflective or day-glo clothing on or you will end up getting hit by a car. So take your pick: hit by a car or stabbed. Quite frankly just being on a public street at night does not mean you are any safer than the bike path. The only difference is that there are at least people on the street that will see you. Not so much on the bike path after dark.

Body found on bike path
By Pamela Hale-Burns, Staff Writer
Posted: 12/10/2008
http://www.presstelegram.com/ci_11191073?source=rss_viewed

LONG BEACH - A 28-year-old Long Beach man was found stabbed to death on the bicycle path along the Los Angeles River flood control channel near the 1600 block of San Francisco Avenue on Tuesday night.

Long Beach police officers responded to an unidentified 911 caller who reported a wounded man on the east side of the flood channel, some 250 yards south of Pacific Coast Highway, about 8:40 p.m., according to an Long Beach Police Department statement.

When police arrived, they found a man's body, police officials said. He had apparently died from being stabbed in the upper body.

LBPD Sgt. David Marander said no additional details were available Wednesday. He directed queries to the Los Angeles County Coroner's Office, which did not release the victim's name, pending notification of his next of kin.

Anyone with information on the crime was asked to call LBPD homicide detectives Dennis Robbins and Daniel Mendoza at 562-570-7244.

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

Sheriff Baca road trip to the Inauguration

I really hope Sheriff Baca is kidding. Really the best thing we could have happen is Obama appointing a new Sheriff for LA County that actually has some intelligence. When you read this story below think to yourself..how is it that you (not me) voted for this guy. Does he not think anything through? I suppose next he will offer to have then all drive new hybrid LASD cars (at taxpayer expense) and five days salary (with rolling road closures for them of course) just like the recent PR stunt by the auto execs driving to Washington DC. Lets call this for what it is Baca. The 347 deputies won the lottery in the Dept. for going back to get front row seats at the hottest event this year. And where will they sleep? All the hotels are booked. I suppose we can rent 5 floors at the Ritz Carlton DC at taxpayer expense. And I am sure Baca himself will not miss it! Cant wait to see that expense report. Then I read things like this and realize this whole scheme probably seems rational to Baca.

L.A. County sheriff's plan to send deputies to inauguration is questioned
Baca wants to fly 347 deputies back east. But some officials wonder if the cost will be too high and if the deputies aren't needed in the county.
By Molly Hennessy-Fiske and Richard Winton

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-sheriff10-2008dec10,0,100128,full.story
From the Los Angeles Times

December 10, 2008

The request was straightforward, even flattering. Send a few hundred Los Angeles County sheriff's deputies across the country next month to assist Washington, D.C., police at the presidential inauguration.

It's the price tag of $1.6 million -- with as much as $1 million coming from the county -- that has given some top officials indigestion.

"We're not in a position to police other cities, as worthy as this is," Supervisor Zev Yaroslavsky said Tuesday. "This is not an emergency. This is not Katrina, this is not a hurricane or a natural disaster."

Sheriff Lee Baca, in a letter dated Tuesday, asked county supervisors to approve plans to charter a plane and fly 347 deputies to Washington, where they would work for four days. A decision was postponed until next week's meeting.

At issue is who will ultimately pay for what.

Everyone agrees that Washington police would pick up the tab for $533,000 in airfare and $97,000 in per diem expenses, but that amount accounts for only a portion of the costs.

County officials estimate that they would be on the hook for another $905,000 in salary and benefits. In addition, there is $81,000 in needed "cold weather gear" including jackets, gloves, hats and "turtleneck dickies," at a cost of $232 per deputy. (LAAG: I guess we have to buy them little mittens too as they dont have any. give me a break)

Baca said Tuesday that concern about repayment is "much ado about nothing." (LAAG: yes as anything taxpayers say is trivial)

"The reality is the county will pay nothing for this," he said, adding that the questions raised about costs are coming as he is still in negotiations with Washington police and the inaugural committee.

Baca said that providing mutual aid was good policy, adding that earthquake-prone Los Angeles may one day need the favor returned.

Baca's spokesman, Steve Whitmore, said Tuesday that although D.C. police requested several hundred deputies, so far they have offered to reimburse the salaries of only 40.

The Sheriff's Department agreed to foot the cost of winter weather gear because it will be used again by deputies working in colder parts of the county, Whitmore said. (LAAG: so they dont have their own jackets...never had cold weather in CA efore this)

"What the sheriff has said is the department is willing to provide the deputies requested, but they will have to pay all of their salaries," Whitmore said. Some 64 deputies worked the 2004 Bush inaugural, with the costs reimbursed by the Washington, D.C., Metro Police Department.

Even if the entire cost of the trip is covered, Yaroslavsky and Supervisor Michael Antonovich said they would have trouble approving it.

"The sheriff's first responsibility is to the citizens of Los Angeles County, to ensure that we have adequate protection at any time of day," Antonovich said. "If they need additional personnel on the East Coast, then they need to utilize personnel on the East Coast." (LAAG: Uh yeah..brilliant..lets not fly 3500 miles to help when people 50 miles away can help..)

Another concern -- despite assurances from the sheriff that those sent would come from "non-emergency" positions -- is whether the county would incur additional overtime costs for deputies needed to backfill for those in Washington. (LAAG: Since when does the Sheriff Dept. worry about overtime...how do you expect Deputies to buy those new boats they need)

"We have a fiscal crisis on our hands and an even worse one looming on the horizon. Our job is to husband our resources," Yaroslavsky said.

It was unclear Tuesday whether there were enough votes on the five-member board to permit the plan to go forward when it comes up again next week.

Supervisor Gloria Molina declined to comment on the matter through a spokeswoman. A spokesman for Supervisor Don Knabe said his boss was undecided, as was Supervisor Mark Ridley-Thomas.

"There are clearly pros and cons to doing so," Ridley-Thomas said. "The question in the final analysis is whether the sheriff and other proponents can persuade the board that this is a defensible thing to do."

The call for help went out weeks ago, said Traci Hughes of the Washington, D.C., police.

"We are expecting historical crowd numbers and there are numerous [inaugural] ball sites" that have to be secured, Hughes said. "Keep in mind too that we have to ensure that people can get in and out of the city. So there will be officers manning traffic posts and just a variety of things."

As of Tuesday, 96 law enforcement agencies had promised to supply 4,000 additional staff for the inauguration, effectively doubling the ranks of the Washington, D.C., department, Hughes said. Several West Coast law enforcement agencies were approached, she said. Hughes declined to say which ones, citing security concerns. (LAAG: I think the cat is out of the bag as we know how many LASD officers want to go; the crooks in LA will take notice and have one hell of an inauguartion party back in LA)

Los Angeles Police Department officials said Tuesday that they had not received any requests to provide officers for the inauguration. (LAAG: perhaps Baca asked DC to ask him for 347 officers!)

The department, however, does plan to send a small team of tactical commanders to the inauguration to observe crowd control.

Steve Remige, president of the Assn. of Los Angeles Deputy Sheriffs, which represents rank-and-file deputies, said Tuesday that his members "are flattered that the inaugural committee believes Los Angeles deputy sheriffs are needed to provide security for the inauguration." (LAAG: of course the union wants to go. How silly)

But, he said, given the state's growing budget deficit, what could amount to a $1-million gift from the county seemed impractical at best.

"It might be the season for giving," Remige said, "but this is over the top."

Hennessy-Fiske and Winton are Times staff writers.

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

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

What's new...more LASD proposed spending with little accomplished

LAAG does not approve of LA County Executive Officer Fujioka's $400,000 a year salary but I guess he is earning part of it by using some common sense. It looks like he has nixed a so called "gang operations center" which Sheriff Baca was promoting as part of this anti gang "proposal" (polite word for it). Baca has proven before that he is not a manager and not a cost containment or "under budget" guy nor is his department known for that.

Our problem with new "operations centers" for LASD is that they seen to turn into more "relaxation" centers than they do work centers. The $20 million dollar new substation built in Lakewood (with a huge LASD motorhome to go with it!) has not been responsible for one more arrest in Lakewood (nor would taxpayers know as no current detailed crime stats are posted for Lakewood). We need less "palace building" and more "police patrolling". The more you build these "centers" the more likely deputies will want to congregate in them as opposed to being on the street.

Sheriff Baca is also seeking "Patriot Act" types of leeway. Next I suppose we will hear the line that they want to use "enhanced interrogation" techniques. The problem with all this waiving of Constitutional protections is that it does not ever appear to yield to much in the way of real crime reduction and is often abused when placed in the hands of law enforcement with no checks whatsoever (by judges) on its abuse.

Also every time Sheriff Baca proposes something to the county its all take and no give. The taxpayers give him millions and what do they get in return from the Sheriff's?...nothing, well at least no tangible commitments in writing. Just empty promises. Not more work per deputy but more deputies hired with less work now done by each. The old union technique (also used effectively by the teachers unions in their mantra to reduce class size). Here is an example of what we get when we dole out more money to the LASD.

Another thing we dont see is more realtime crime statistics from LASD to back up this need. The devil is in the details as they say.


From the Los Angeles Times
Delays plague L.A. County's anti-gang program
The county's chief executive is expected to announce two pilot programs next month, more than a year after deadline.
By Molly Hennessy-Fiske

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/politics/cal/la-me-gang30-2008nov30,0,7862190,full.story

November 30, 2008

Los Angeles County leaders, who more than a year and a half ago promised to revamp their $105-million-a-year gang intervention effort, are still months away from a new strategy, hobbled by repeated delays and haggling over details.

William T Fujioka, the county's chief executive, is scheduled to unveil his plan for county supervisors Dec. 16, more than a year after the deadline first set by the supervisors. In contrast, Los Angeles city leaders moved forward months ago and have a dozen programs in place.

After much infighting, the county plan includes pilot sites in the Florence-Firestone neighborhood north of Watts and in the Pacoima area, where Los Angeles County sheriff's officials are working with Los Angeles and San Fernando police to combat gangs.

It remains unclear, however, how they will be structured, funded or monitored. Critics fault Fujioka and his staff for dragging their feet and downsizing the so-called Gangs and Violence Reduction Strategy while residents of unincorporated areas of the county targeted by gangs repeatedly asked for more help.

"It shouldn't have taken this long," said civil rights lawyer Connie Rice, whose public policy group, the Advancement Project, issued a report in January 2007 that called for a massive, coordinated regional effort to fight gangs and spurred a rethinking of both city and county efforts. The $593,000 report was commissioned and paid for by the city of Los Angeles.

Fujioka and his staff have been tight-lipped about details. The presentation has been pushed back twice this month as they met with Sheriff Lee Baca and his staff and supervisors' staffers to hash out details.

At next month's meeting, Fujioka plans to ask for four more months to develop the strategy and cost estimates, according to copies of his proposal released this month to supervisors' staffers.

Central to that draft is a controversial gang emergency operations center proposed by Baca that would allow county staff to waive confidentiality laws and share information about individuals involved with or at risk of becoming involved with gangs.

Late last month, Baca made a rare appearance at a supervisors' staff briefing and spent two hours pushing the center, which he proposed a year ago. He has asked for $3 million in his proposed budget for technology and staff to run the program.

"For every week or two that goes by, we don't know if we could have prevented a gang murder or a crime with the absence of this program," he said.

Supervisors' staffers have been insisting for months that the sheriff cannot waive confidentiality to fight crime. Earlier this month, a shouting match broke out between supervisors' and sheriff's staffers at a meeting to consider the latest draft of the strategy.

Fujioka said last week that the sheriff's proposed center no longer is part of his gang proposal, calling it too costly and unnecessary to the pilot programs. He declined to release a copy of his amended proposal until he presents it to the board.

"I'm not going to support" an emergency operations center, Fujioka said. "I don't see success as contingent on having a center."

Rice said the county's anti-gang strategy is being whittled down.

"Every letter I see, the program gets smaller and smaller," Rice said. The city of Los Angeles, she noted, "is already off to the races."

Supervisor Yvonne B. Burke first called for a reevaluation of the county's anti-gang strategy in May 2007, a month after Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa announced the city's new gang reduction plan based on the Advancement Project's report. The day after Burke's call for action, supervisors voted to have county staff review the report, as well as the city plans, and report back in four months with a new county strategy.

The review was hobbled by numerous stops and starts.

Fujioka took over the project after he became county chief executive in July 2007. Two months later, he appointed a committee of city, county and community officials, including Rice. Committee members gave him their recommendations in February, then stopped meeting.

Meanwhile, Gary Hearnsberger, head deputy district attorney, stepped down as the chairman of the county's Interagency Gang Task Force, a committee that is supposed to monitor anti-gang programs. The task force also stopped meeting in February and reconvened briefly earlier this month only to be briefed by Fujioka's staff on the new strategy and select a new chairman, Peter Shutan, deputy city attorney. It plans to meet monthly.

The last countywide spending report on anti-gang programs was released in July 2007. Supervisors requested an update in June but Fujioka postponed it, even after he received supervisors' approval to hire a county analyst to work on the strategy; the analyst is to be paid between $97,000 and $127,000.

Fujioka also postponed a cost analysis of the new strategy, due in June, until later this month.

His staff said they have not started it.

Asked about the delays, Fujioka said that perfecting a new strategy -- one he hopes to expand to other areas of the county at some point -- was not a short-term effort.

"This is not a six-month, two-year program. This is a paradigm shift, changing the culture in the county," Fujioka said.

Most recently, Fujioka said, he postponed unveiling the gang proposal from this month until December "out of courtesy" to new Supervisor Mark Ridley-Thomas, who takes office Monday.

He noted that the county continued to develop and fund anti-gang programs while the new proposal was being developed.

"It's not as if the county is completely frozen," Fujioka said.

"It's important that what we roll out works and that we get buy-in from all the different departments," he added.

He said that to blame his office alone for delaying the proposal would be "unfair" and "inaccurate."

Supervisors have been hesitant to criticize Fujioka's effort.

A spokeswoman for Supervisor Gloria Molina said her boss likes what she has heard about the strategy but has questions about how the county plans to hold anti-gang programs accountable for spending.

So far this much is clear: The county's initial plan will be much smaller in scope than what Los Angeles has in place.

Under the city's plan, proposed seven months ago, gang prevention programs are centralized in the neediest 12 gang-reduction zones, neighborhoods where gang violence is four times the citywide average.

Program managers in each zone, the last of whom started work last month, will receive $1 million a year in prevention funds, enough for each to target at least 200 children.

The county efforts are slated to start in Florence-Firestone, base of operations for the rival Florencia 13 and East Coast Crips gangs, and Pacoima, where an injunction is in place against the Pacoima Project Boys.

Fujioka said he chose the two neighborhoods because they are next to city gang reduction zones and will allow for city-county partnerships, and because they will show the new strategy can work in gang-dominated areas and those where gangs are at a tipping point.

"One could always say we'll do it in five areas, the five supervisory areas, but then you run the risk of spreading yourself too thin," Fujioka said. "We want the first effort to be successful."

Supervisors' staff said they "haggled" over which neighborhoods to target first.

Last year, Supervisor Don Knabe asked that the pilots include the Harbor Gateway area of his district, where some high-profile racially motivated crimes have occurred in recent years.

Knabe's staff argued that the area was as much of a "tipping point" community as Pacoima.

Fujioka said he ultimately decided against including Harbor Gateway because the area had not seen as much violent, gang-related crime as Pacoima, based on statistics provided by the Sheriff's Department. Harbor Gateway was also not adjacent to a city gang reduction zone.

The city's newly appointed "gang czar," the Rev. Jim Carr, served on the committee that developed the county strategy and said it would not move forward unless supervisors accepted a formula for placing anti-gang programs in neighborhoods where they are most needed, across district lines. He noted that City Council members compromised and placed gang reduction programs in eight of 15 council districts.

"We'll see if the county is able to also make that jump," Carr said. "I think it's the only way. It needs to be done based on need, not politics."

In Florence-Firestone, Maria Ortiz, a mother and elementary school aide, said she and her neighbors need help now.

"They're scared," she said. "They don't want their kids to join" gangs.

Ortiz began asking the county to intervene a few years ago after her family was intimidated by Florencia 13 gang members living on their block. Now, she said, other parents regularly ask her what steps they should take to keep their children out of gangs.

She directs them to the sheriff's substation. Deputies there coordinate after-school programs and have donated movies for children to watch during summer vacations. They count on discretionary money from the supervisors to run athletic programs.

Capt. James Hellmold, the substation commander, said deputies want to help at-risk youth but are short-staffed. He said they are looking forward to more resources and a plan from the county.

"We're sort of piecemealing these concepts," he said. "It's hard to engage in mentoring a kid in soccer games when you have somebody getting mugged on a street corner."

Hennessy-Fiske is a Times 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

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