Friends with Benefits - Part 20 New Year's Wish

Our local scribe John Horgan has his "six-pack" of wishes for 2013 that does a nice job of mirroring my own.  Mr. Horgan has been watching the local pension issue as well and has the following to say here

The latest extensive audit performed by the county's controller is somewhat encouraging on the subject of long-term public employee pension requirements. Still, the figures are rather stark. According to the report, county government (the county's second-biggest employer, by the way) has a long-term, unfunded public pension liability of 28 percent as of the close of the past fiscal year. Add in the public retirees' unfunded health insurance liability and the total dollar figure comes to about $1 billion. County supervisors have been trying to trim those costs but more work needs to be done.

Aside from the disappointing idea that the county is the second largest employer in the county, with a population around 727,000 the $1 billion figure runs about $1,375 per person.  And that assumes they got the estimated rate of return even close to a real world figure.  Sounds like a good place to put some of that "extra" Measure A cash.

Comments

[Holyroller]

This is The burlingame Voice..
There has been debate regarding retirement issues since 9/11.
Burlingame City Council has been adament about the inability to pay for CalPers retirement, health and benefit programs. In fact the City of Burlingame Elders, have taken away those benefits from new employees.
How in the world did the sitting City of Burlingame Elders allow the New City of Burlingame City Manager to be hired under the old 2.5% at 55?
How did the City Elders allow the "lifetime medical" benefits-employee plus spouse. After five years of service?
Especially after (City Elders)negotiations with Police/Fire/ Upper and Middle management,and the regular maintenance determined these "programs" were wrong, and not going to be accepted by the City of Burlingame Public anymore.
This business model and elitest position is only able to happen because the City Elders know that most of us.. including me, do not always look at the fine print.

[Joe]

Interesting questions Holyroller, if your facts are correct. In the meantime, here is the Daily Journal's take on the

http://www.smdailyjournal.com/article_preview.php?id=1760772&title=County's economic outlook released

The County controller came up with a per capita liability of about a hundred bucks less than I did:

On the good side, the county is in better shape than the state in regards to pensions and other benefit liabilities. The county’s funded ratio of 73.3 percent is higher than the state’s ration of 59.4 percent and works out to a per capita liability of $1,285 compared to the state’s $4,349.

...both figures are scary and there is still the Fed liability to consider...so "can't afford it" seems like a reasonable point.

[Holyroller]

Thank Joe for reading my comments.
Happy New Year

[Just asking]

It seems to me like the city manager should be treated like management and not be bound by the same rules as the union folk Isn't that why people work to become the manager of whatever? I worry that we are becoming a country of victims with low expectations and lower responsibility As the government gets bigger and bigger the expectations get smaller and smaller. Don't you agree?

[Holyroller]

Seriously?
The Managemnet of anything..
Hickory Farms at Serramonte,or City of Burlingame.
I would be all for pay based on preformance.
Corparate America does it.
Those CEO's get Rich, Quick!
I am only speaking of Management.
Not Labor.
That is whole 'nother subject.'

Ask a City of Burlingame Elder to show you a "simple graph" of labor vs. managment.
I did. It took a little investagating. Nevertheless, the fact is that Top to Bottom-
62% management-Labor36%
The other 2% is for events, crossing guards, etc.
Public Safety, City Hall, Park and Street maintenance.
Burlingame is Beautiful. I live here.
However, the people who make the rules should be the people who live here.
Get invovlved.
Check the facts and help make things better.

[Joe]

This just in from today's SacBee!!

For nearly two years, managers earning fixed salaries at California's massive public retirement system have been making extra money at second hourly-wage jobs at the agency.
CalPERS officials say bestowing "additional appointments" on managers unable to earn overtime is a legal and "relatively common practice" in other state departments. They said they resorted to the system because they were coping with a crushing workload to launch a new computer system and it was asking too much of managers to work long hours without additional pay.
But state personnel experts contacted by The Bee say they've never heard of managers taking hourly positions in their own department. The practice, they said, may violate federal labor law.

Read more here: http://www.sacbee.com/2013/01/17/5120460/some-calpers-managers-given-second.html#storylink=cpy

[Joe]

Short update from the Bee:

CalPERS has suspended a program that allowed some salaried managers to moonlight in-house and take hourly pay, saying that the controversy surrounding the practice has become a "significant distraction" to its work.

Yeah, I'll bet it's been a real distraction!!!