Post on Peceimer

The riches just keep on coming in today's Daily Post round-up of the City Council race.  The Post's interview of Andrew Peceimer reveals this gem

Peceimer, 48, is a commercial real estate broker and said what makes him stand out as a candidate is that he will have his own privately hired person to put another set of eyes to go through the city's budget.  He said as a person who has managed hundreds of millions, he "reads the fine print" and has taken the time to study the numbers.

Left unsaid was why he needs to privately fund some unknown person if he is the person who "reads the fine print"?  One also wonders why this initiative was not mentioned during the candidates' debate?  I have to admit, I tire of him saying the unfunded pension liabilities have to be "tackled" and yet he has already read the fine print but isn't saying how.

Comments

[hillsider]

I don't know the new finance person but my impression was that Jesus Nava left us in pretty good shape. He was sharp.

[Mark]

It was shocking to me how many of the candidates had no idea what they were saying with regard to unfunded liabilities. To take on all of these at once on balance sheet is a crazy idea and the only way to do it is to address it over time and chip away, starting with new hires and putting away some money every year just like hundred billion dollar corporations do with all long-tailed pay as you go liabilities. Some of these guys that claim to have finance backgrounds really need to take some accounting 101 courses.

[JimBobster]

Joe and Mark,
My understanding was that Peceimer believes the city should be making sure it keeps its promises to public employees before spending then money on projects that are either not needed or lower priority. I saw the same debate as you seem to have and I'm not sure he even commented on pension reform, just prioritizing pension. Feel free, as I'm sure you will to correct me if that was not the case. It seemed that most candidates indicated that the "chipping away" over time was the right way to go. I don't recall Peceimer arguing against that approach, which I believe was pretty much outlined by Brownrigg who spoke early on that subject. As for hiring a suitable auditor, if a council member is willing to put up their own money to hire someone to help understand the budget, I see a couple of things in play here... 1. He is using his own money to help manage the city's finances... 2. He is acknowledging that while he believes he has ideas as to how the city should be run, he is not pretending to have the answers to every problem... as several of those on the Forum panel seemed to not be willing to admit a single shortcoming. BTW- When will your critique of the incumbents and your dear friend Russ come out? I actually did not notice too many differences from Mr. Cohen and Peceimer... funny that Peceimer is the one you seem to go after the most?

[Joe]

I think we have a different idea of what constitutes "help". I've never been audited, but I know plenty of people who have by all sorts of auditors (financial, SOX, security, HR, etc) and few of them think of it as "help". Not to say that it isn't valid in many circumstances. I think Mr. Kent would probably disagree that I seem to "go after" Andrew the most. But perception is reality, so let's see how the next six weeks play out.

The incumbents have been critiqued steady, week-by-week for years, and I'm not sure most would buy my critique of my buddy Russ--as I said at the top of the Debate Recap post. Happy to ponder it after some time off this week.