Posts

2011 Election Results

The 2011 Election Brought Mixed Outcomes for Ventura

/in /by

It’s an Ill Wind That Blows Nobody Any Good
—English Proverb

THE VENTURA UNIFIED SCHOOL TAX MEASURE

[MEASURE H – SOUR GRAPES IN BUNCHES]

In the November 2, 2010 election, voters in the City of Ventura were asked by the Ventura Unified School District (VUSD) to approve Measure H, a parcel tax, which if approved, would have imposed a cost of $96 per year per single family residence — unless you were over 60 and claimed an exemption.  Those with multiple housing units faced paying far more with no exemption.

The tax proposal failed to receive the 66.67% (2/3rds) majority required for passage.  There were 24,491 in favor (59.3%), and 16,767 opposed (40.6%).  The VUSD Board of Trustees might want to reflect on this result because the outcome was predictable.

Measure H For Against
Votes 24,491 (59.3%) 16,767 (40.6%)

On May 25, 2010, the Dale Scott & Company presented their commissioned survey results for a Parcel Tax Measure to the VUSD Board. The reported poll results were that the Parcel Tax Measure would receive 56.5% support. It was further reported that after a “push/pull” series of 15 more questions with this captive audience, the approval percentage rose to 62%, still 5% short of passage.

The Superintendent’s and proponents cry of foul amounts to sour grapes.

There are many positive steps this board can take notwithstanding this result:

  1. Negotiate to have the VUSD employees pay a portion of their health care cost(s).
  2. Reduce non-classroom personnel as much as possible.
  3. Reflect true health care cost in the annual budget, not costs padded by 11.5%.

The proponents now cry foul about the system .The VUSD superintendent and proponents were quick to point out that the vote was 59.3% for passage, indicating support from a majority of the voters, and from this result feel that the 2/3rds majority vote requirement is unfair and should be changed. That conclusion is ill conceived and would amount to an unreeling budget crisis that would make these current economic times appear minor. The Superintendent’s and proponents cry of foul amounts to sour grapes.

The public reaction to this result should be heard.  A letter to the Ventura County Star Editor on Nov. 5 suggested that the 24,491 who voted yes should donate the $96, thus giving the VUSD $2,351,136.

Editors’ Comment: 

The idea posited by the November 5th letter writer is a super idea and that should be where the VUSD should focus its next campaign.  The question remains—would those same voters contribute to an educational trust fund for defined purposes?  Hard not to be cynical and suggest that it is easy to vote for something when you are spending someone else’s hard earned money.

MORE ELECTION STUFF

[TYRANNY OF THE MAJORITY?]

California voters went rogue on November 2nd, bucking the national and Ventura trend toward electing fiscally responsible candidates.  Sadly, those working under the Sacramento Capitol dome will behave very much as those who preceded them.

In the Legislature, three-fifths of the members will continue to dance to the tune of their government employee union sponsors.  California government workers have become the highest paid in all 50 states, without much effort in electing candidates who will support their requests for ever higher pay and benefits.  This will spill over onto the City of Ventura.  Count on the Sacramento types to pursue all manner of fiscal mischief.

First the “Ill Wind” for Ventura citizens.  The passage of the government employee union sponsored Proposition 25 will have negative consequences for those who pay our state’s bills.  Proposition 25 lowers the threshold to approve a budget to a simple majority, down from the two-thirds vote requirement that has been in place since 1933.  Now it remains to be seen whether or not lawmakers will try to take the next step and try to impose a myriad of new taxes in the state budget with a simple 51% majority vote.  If history is any indicator they will try. Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg as well as government employee union leaders have stated that reducing the two-thirds vote for the budget is the first of a one-two punch that is designed to soften up taxpayers on the issue of the current requirement or two-thirds vote before taxes can be raised.

Proposition 22 For Against
Votes 5,709,050 (60.7%) 3,709,292 (39.3%)

But for Ventura and other municipalities this election has blown in a “lot of good”.  Proposition 22, the measure to stop Sacramento from taking City funds and tax revenue in the guise of “borrowing” passed  with a yes vote of 5,709,050 (60.7%) and no vote of 3,709,292 (39.3%). This taking by an out of control state bureaucracy has been stopped thanks to the efforts of our City Council, as a member of the California League of Cities, and in particular our own City Councilman, Neal Andrews.

 

Editors:

B. Alviani           K. Corse     T. Cook

J. Tingstrom     R. McCord

For more information like this, subscribe to our newsletter, Res Publica. Click here to enter your name and email address.

Parcel tax arguments

What Will The Parcel Tax Do? Both Sides Of The Argument.

/in /by
For and Against the Parcel Tax

Bellwether: “A male sheep which leads the flock, with a bell on its neck. A leader of a thoughtless crowd” —Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary

THE VENTURA UNIFIED SCHOOL TAX MEASURE

[MEASURE H—A PARCEL TAX]

On November 2, 2010, voters in the City of Ventura will be asked to approve Measure H.  That measure, adopted by the Ventura Unified School Board, proposes to place a special parcel tax upon each parcel of real property in the City of Ventura.  This parcel tax, if approved, will impose a cost of $96 per year per parcel of real property for a period of four (4) years.  Seniors are allowed to claim an exemption.  If approved it is projected that this will raise $4.5 million.

The proponents argue in support of the measure:

  • Funding will be locally controlled, not state controlled
  • Money will be used for academic programs like math, science, reading and writing, music, technology and art. Allows the District to improve art and music programs, and fund computers and other classroom technology.
  • Class sizes will be smaller
  • It is limited to four years.
  • Senior citizens can claim an exemption.

The opponents urge rejection of this parcel tax measure and argue:

  • This parcel tax is being used to replace State of California revenue so that the schools can continue to pay 100% of employee health benefits, or inflated salaries of principals and administrators.
  • Over the last two years, the staff reductions have been more in the lower paid teaching positions and fewer in the higher cost administrative positions. The average teacher is paid $70,000 per year whereas the average administrator is paid $127,000 per year.
  • Class sizes will not be reduced. In the last two years 68 teachers have been let go but only 3.9 staff position have been terminated. We need teachers, not high paid administrators.
  • The school district pays 100% of employee health benefits. These employees resist any effort to require them to contribute to their own health benefits because they believe it is an entitlement. The budget is currently at $12 million, or 8.5% of the entire budget.
  • The School District has budgeted for zero cost increases for health benefits over the next 3 years. Health care costs are, in fact, projected to increase 20 -30%. The reality is that any new tax money will be used to meet these increased costs.
  • This new parcel tax is being sought at a time when Federal and State taxes are also increasing.
  • In 2009-2010 the School District reduced programs, increased class size and eliminated 45 positions. At the same time, only 1 administrative position was lost.
  • The citizens should not have to pay for more administration, more health benefits and less in the classroom.
  • A parcel tax is not deductible and many larger homes and business have more than 1 parcel. Some are on 5-6 parcels alone.
  • Many renters with children in school will never pay a penny of this new tax.

The Economic Facts Behind The Parcel Tax

So, what are the economic facts? Do they need more tax money, or not?  Here is economic and demographic data as published by the Ventura Unified School District.

BUT YOU BE THE JUDGE. Based upon the Ventura Unified School District’s own records, below are their numbers and our comments on what the numbers show.

 

Ventura Unified School District
Teacher Information – Number of Teachers
  2007-08 2008-09 2009-10
FTE
Unrestricted 656.284 659.372 612.369
Categorical 156.128 157.354 184.836
Total FTE 812.412 816.726 *797.205
* 19.521 fewer teachers 2007-10
Salary Cost 57,438,502 57,909,537 56,612,029
Retirement 4,677,014 4,714,642 4,621,021
Health Benefits 7,746,829 7,954,965 8,073,226
Other Statutory Benefits 3,435,244 3,160,245 2,845,827
Total Cost 73,297,589 73,739,389 72,152,103
1FTE= I person
1.5 FTE = 1 full time and 1 part timer at 20 hours a week

Highlighted added: with a reduction of 19.521 teachers (816 minus 797), Health Benefits increased 4%.

Now we’ll examine the administrators  (i.e. management):

Ventura Unified School District
Administrators & Confidential
  2007-08 2008-09 2009-10
FTE
Unrestricted 65.500 68.200 70.150
Categorical 32.350 32.968 30.000
Other Funds 7.900 8.000 8.000
Total FTE 105.750 109.168 108.150
Salary Cost 9,757,307 10,276,704 10,253,454
Retirement 904,152 955,303 952,694
Health Benefits 962,361 1,053,959 1,077,469
Other Statutory Benefits 698,092 679,990 686,978
Total Cost 12,321,912 12,965,957 12,970,594
Note: FTE means Full Time Equivalent.  
1FTE= I person  
1.5 FTE = 1 full time and 1 part timer at 20 hours a week.

 

Now we examine the data concerning Administrative personnel.  The number changed from 109 to 108, a decrease of one person in the same 2008-2010 period.  Health benefits for the administrative employees increased 3%.

 

Ventura Unified School District
Clerical
  2007-08 2008-09 2009-10
FTE
Unrestricted 115.029 118.450 124.138
Categorical 39.468 40.910 28.355
Other Funds 12.863 13.000 10.750
Total FTE 167.360 172.360 163.243
Salary Cost 7,101,778 7,285,435 7,070,254
Retirement 854,782 887,268 874,119
Health Benefits 1,406,694 1,461,656 1,486,686
Other Statutory Benefits 858,682 839,742 786,094
Total Cost 10,221,937 10,474,101 10,217,153
Note: FTE means Full Time Equivalent.  
1FTE= I person  
1.5 FTE = 1 full time and 1 part timer at 20 hours a week.

 

In the period of 2008 to date Clerical personnel was reduced by 9 people, from 172 to 163 people.  Health Benefits increased 7%.

The Ventura Unified School District balanced their budget for 2009-10, and with the reductions listed below balanced their budget for the fiscal year 2010-11.

 

Ventura Unified School District
 
2010-11 Budget Presentation
June 8, 2010
Staffing Changes – reductions
2010/00   FTEs Cost Saving  
Elementary K-3 from 21.44 to 23.44 (15.00)            (963,700)
Secondary Eliminate 9th Gr.Math & Eng. CSR (6.40)            (483,200)
Certificated, Other (3.50)            (309,800)
Classified Staff (12.50)            (269,000)
Administrative Staff (2.80)            (356,100)
(40.20)         (2,381,800)

 

To assist in interpreting this chart the highlights have been added to illustrate the results of the proposal. Yellow indicates the teachers that have or will be dismissed.  Pink indicates the number of administrative positions eliminated.

APPOINTMENT OF A LOCAL CITIZEN OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE

The appointment of the oversight committee would be made by the School Board.  Presumably, members of the board of the school administration would select candidates for the panel.  Once appointed this citizen committee will meet once a year, after the fact, to review how the money was spent.   This new parcel tax money, if approved by the voters, will go into a general fund.  It is not clear what this citizen committee is to do after the money has been allocated and spent?   There are no provisions in this tax proposal that tells us what the powers of this committee would be, or how they would take the School Board to task for an improper expenditure, or how they would recover the money if not spent properly.

EDITORS COMMENT:

The trend of local legislative bodies is to “appoint a citizen oversight committee” to act as a watchdog whenever a tax increase is sought.   On the face of it this provides our citizen-voter with the comfort of being told that their neighbor will be watching how the money is to be spent.  But is that the reality? Will the money to be used for the kids and the class room, as promised by the proponents? Or will the money be used to pay salaries and retirement benefits of highly paid school administrators as the opponents to this measure argue?  You must decide.

Misleading voters by local government in an effort to obtain approval for increased taxes from our citizens is not without historical example.  The promises  to use tax money for one purpose in order to get your vote,  and then switching to use the money for another purpose smacks of chicanery, at best.  In 2004 the Oxnard Union High School District Board of trustees promised Camarillo voters that if they would support Measure H to raise $135,000,000 the new tax  money would be used to build a new high school in Camarillo.  Not only did this not happen the Board reneged on their promise, and this week voted to use the money to build a school in Oxnard.  No wonder folks in Camarillo support their Measure U in the November 2nd election to separate from the Oxnard Union High School District.  Such antics are disgraceful, and does nothing more than further add to the dismal view of our government.

Editors:

B. Alviani           K. Corse     T. Cook

J. Tingstrom     R. McCord

For more information like this, subscribe to our newsletter, Res Publica. Click here to enter your name and email address.

 

Fleecing taxpayers costs Ventura money

A Little Here. A Little There. Pretty Soon It Adds Up To Real Money.

/in /by
For and Against the Parcel Tax

Bellwether: “A male sheep which leads the flock, with a bell on its neck. A leader of a thoughtless crowd” —Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary

THE  SOUND OF THE BELL

[SHEARING TIME?]

Three years ago nobody in city government would pay attention to the voices of caution who warned the City Council about the money excessive public employee salaries cost and the unfunded pensions of public employees. Now, thanks to the City of Bell perhaps the citizens of this community will pay attention to their role in government, and the need for serious and drastic reform.

Everything went wrong in Bell.  It was greed in all of its glory, and it illustrated what is wrong with the arcane public pension system in this State, and in every city in this state, including Ventura.    Bell City Manager, Robert Rizzo, resigned after it was revealed he was being paid $800,000 to oversee a town with a population of 40,000.  Now the LA Times reports that the records actually show that he was paid $1,500,000 a year.  Included in that was 28 weeks of vacation and sick time at a cost of $386,000.  Well he is gone but he is not out because he will collect $600,000 yearly from his pension benefits with CALPERS.

fleecing taxpayers costs Ventura money

Ventura taxpayers get fleeced in Bell disaster. We will pay money to Randy Adams for life.

This example however is even closer to home.  Two people in the City of Bell used to work for the City of Ventura.  Angela Spaccia, Assistant City Manger for Bell was paid  $376,000 a year before she quit, and moved over to work for the City of Maywood.   She used to work for the City of Ventura. Then there is Officer Randy Adams who worked in Ventura for 23 years as a police officer.  He then gravitated through various jobs until he became the Chief of Police for the City of Bell.  He too resigned after it was revealed that he was earning $457,000 a year.  He can retire, as will Ms. Spaccia eventually, but whose money pays the pension?

Not the City of Bell.  They escape nearly all the costs of Chief Adams $411,300-a-year pension. Under CALPERS rules, the city is responsible for just 3% of that because he only worked there for one year. Taxpayers in Glendale, Simi Valley and Ventura would have to pick up the tab.

This happened because Bell hired Adams at more than double the money he was making as Chief in the City Glendale. That salary spike doubled his eligible pension amount under CALPERS, the state’s public employee retirement plan.  Add the state’s permissive pension laws and a host of variables that can dramatically affect retirement pay and we find a system that leaves you in a bleary daze

Other cities will be on the hook for Adams’ pensions costs even though their salaries were relatively modest. until he landed in Bell. When he resigned Chief Adams was making $457,000.  He will now get  approximately 90% of that sum.  Glendale will have to pay around 16% of Simi Valley 18%, and Ventura 63%. Ventura alone will have to pay this guy $259,119 per year for life. Remember, none of this has ever been funded.

CITY OF VENTURA’S RESPONSE

Ventura’s mayor, Bill Fulton, has written several articles on the subject.  You can go view the articles here.  He, like everybody else, condemns the excesses by employees and officials in the City of Bell.  His articles are well written and deserve a read, but how transparent is our city government?  Mayor Fulton answered this question in one article:

“…democracy only works, even in small cities, if people pay attention, and oftentimes people aren’t paying attention. But one of the most disturbing aspects of the Bell situation … is how hard it is to figure out what’s happening even if you are paying attention. In spite of the state’s vaunted Brown Act open-meetings law, California governments are still not particularly transparent”. 

HOW MUCH MONEY DOES THE COUNCIL MAKE?

The City Charter limits council members to $600 per month and the mayor to $700 per month, plus members are paid for participating on certain boards and commissions.  Here is the yearly total:

Councilmember Salary Boards Travel
Fulton, Mayor $ 8,800 $2,000 $1,200
Monahan $7,200 $3,800 $1,200
Tracy $7,200 $0 $1,200
Morehouse $7,200 $1,440 $1,200
Weir  $7,200 $0  $1,200
Brennan $7,200 $0 $1,200
Andrews $7,200 $0 $1,200

 

CITY EMPLOYEE COMPENSATION

Employee Salary Medical Pension Contribution Car
Ken Corney, Police Chief $195,153
Quinn Fenwick, Asst. Police Chief $160,012
Kevin Rennie, Fire Chief $187,000
Don McPherson, Asst. Fire Chief $170,014
Ron Calkins, Public Works Director $175,547
Jay Panzica, Chief Financial Officer $171,265
Rick Cole, City Manager $174,158
Mary Walsh, Asst. City Manager $171,265
Ariel Colonne, City Attorney $194,909
Jeff Lambert, Community Dev. Dir. $171,265
Elena Brokaw, Director, Parks & Rec. $167,088
Jenny Romey, Human Resources Dir. $159,037
Total $2,096,713

*In response to a VREG request for the full cost of each of these employees the City Manager, on August 10, 2010, provided the following response:

“Within the next few days, we (will) have calculations on the cost  of employees over and above regular salary (we’ve just posted those earning over $100,000 including gross pay and overtime) to be followed by the Box 5 W2 calculations (which also includes city paid deferred comp and the value of life insurance) to be followed by a total all-in of that plus city paid benefits and CalPERS contributions”—Rick Cole, City Manager

Editor’s note:

For detailed information on past or present Ventura city employees’ salaries, visit transparentCalifornia.com.

As for Ventura’s exposure to the Randy Adams pension claims, purportedly the City has sent a letter of protest and/or legal challenge to CalPERS to try and stop payment.  Good luck with that one!  Even Chief Adams will lawyer-up and argue we are a nation of laws and not men.

Editors’ Comments:

How many more Randy Adams types do we have out there? How much more  do we owe, over the amount funded through CalPERS, to those who are retired or about to retire in the future?  It is time for government to become proactive instead of reactive in the management of our tax money and find out before we end up in the shearing shed. Stop listening to the bellwether !

Editors:

B. Alviani           S. Doll

J. Tingstrom     K. Corse

B. McCord          T. Cook

For more information like this, subscribe to our newsletter, Res Publica. Click here to enter your name and email address.

 

Failed Investment, Failed Policies Make Ventura Like Greece

/in /by

“Rebellion to tyrants is obedience to God”
—Motto on THOMAS JEFFERSON’S seal.

CALIFORNIA: AMERICAN GREECE

Tim Cavanaugh of an on-line news company called REASON has written a good analysis of the dilemma facing California. He writes:

“What do Europe’s most bankrupt state and America’s most bankrupt united state have in common, aside from being bankrupt?

In what is undoubtedly a coincidence , noticed only by free-market fundamentalists, it turns out that Greece, that sun-drenched paradise on the Aegean, and California, that sun-warmed El Dorado on the Pacific, are the worst places to do business in their respective economic zones.”

VENTURA’S VISIONARY?

[Investment In People Too High]

The city Manager recently announced that we are in a “war for jobs”.   He is right, but know this. We will be competing with every city in the nation for those same jobs.  The winner will be the public entity that realizes that the jobs we lost in the 2008 depression are not coming back. We have to create new opportunity and new jobs.

The city needs private enterprise now more than ever, so please City Council when a new project developer or businessman comes through the door give him a hug, and not a bill for all of the costs and fees that you have piled onto such projects.  A happy face and lower fees, as an incentive to come to Ventura, will work wonders.

The Ventura City Council says they are going to “Live Within Our Means” and stay within their budget, but they wince when it comes to the thought of layoffs. The closing of a fire station proposed by the City Manager, as expected, has heightened the emotions of several adjacent neighborhoods and the Fire Department folk.  These citizens and the firemen need to wake up and realize that this is not about saving a fire station, but the financial well being of the entire City.  We must keep in mind that  City government has been entrusted to provide  “basic governmental services” to its citizens within its means, but does not have an obligation to keeping individuals employed so that they can retire with life with lavish pensions and benefits.

Any business owner knows that to reduce services diminishes their value. They also know that the single highest AND controllable expense is labor. Maybe the theme of “Living Within Our Means” needs to be better defined. Reducing services and programs should only come after a reduction of staff levels reached the bear minimum.

Five years ago, the claim was “we have cut expenses to the bone and there is no where else to cut.” Today, the City has reduced the workforce by 16% AFTER they made that claim. Sounds like the story of the “boy who cried wolf”. Enough on the budget for now. All we know is the reduction of services has long been a ploy to get the citizens to sympathize with public employees.

WAS IT $10,000,000 or $20,000,000 LOST?

[Monetary Investment Too Risky]

In March and April 2009, VREG discussed the loss of $10,000,000 in Washington Mutual and Lehman Bros. investments.

The City  father’s took refuge [seemed proud?] that they only lost $10 million in investments in 2008, they defend their loss by comparing the loss to the average citizen’s 401K losses.   Hardly a realistic comparison given that the investment policy for a municipality is and should be much be more conservative and restrictive.  Some at the City make it sound as if it is heresy to suggest that they should not have lost anything.

The City Attorney on the other hand is crying “fraud” on the part of Lehman Brother and WaMu — a distraction at best.  The decision to invest in these financial institutions was made by a committee of four. None of the four members of the Investment Committee has investment licenses, nor the experience and qualifications to oversee a $200 million portfolio in this current financial market. Months before the Lehman and WaMu debacle, the City had a prior warning of problems due to a potential $10 million loss they had invested with Bear Stearns.  It turned out that the Bear Sterns was acquired by JP Morgan and thus avoided bankruptcy, however at this writing we do not know how much JP Morgan is willing to pay the City of Ventura on that investment.

How is the recovery of the loss of $20,000,000 by the City of Ventura with their investment in Bear Stearns, Washington Mutual and Lehman Brothers going? We do not know. Was anyone fired for losing $20 million?  Nope. And we predict no one will not be fired.  What the Council should do is appoint people who are qualified AND do not have a potential conflict of interest in making investment decisions to insure that income from the investments will be available to feed the general budget.

THIS FROM A READER OF THE LAST EDITION

[CalPERS Investment Underperforming]

It is interesting that when I attended the PERS conference in Los Angeles at the Convention Center in February, the strongest criticism of PERS [CALPERS] came from the representative of the Governor’s office, who had been a former member of the CalPERS Board. His critique was focused on two  things:

  1. That PERS consistently and incorrectly utilized a projected return of investment (7.75%) that was grossly overly optimistic of their likely actual long-term results
  2. That PERS was virtually impenetrable and as dark as a lead lined coffin when someone attempted to secure information from it.

I reported this critique to both the Compensation Task Force and to Council Members…I have also reported repeatedly on the losses that PERS has incurred in their investment portfolio, that they are the subject of criminal investigations over potential fraud and kick-backs form their relationships with placement agents (former Board members using their old connections to get rich), and that at least several current Board members have incurred serious fines because of their consistent failure to report publicly on their investment holdings and sources of income as required by law… Needless to say, our union representatives constantly run with the official PERS line that PERS is sound and in good health.”

—Neal Andrew

EDITORS’ COMMENT: 

We have previously reported on the failed investment policies of PERS.  This organization invests our pension dollars using failed economic models and fallacious investment return calculations. It is easier said than done, but the sooner we can distance our City from this organization the sooner we can be on the path to economic recovery.

Editors:

B. Alviani           S. Doll                 J. Tingstrom

K. Corse              B. McCord         T. Cook

For more information like this, subscribe to our newsletter, Res Publica. Click here to enter your name and email address.

 

City Council Lacks Financial Literacy

City Council Lacks Expertise On Pension And Budget Matters

/in /by

Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.
—Albert Einstein,

THE FIREFIGHERS PENSION INCREASE – A CONTRACT?

[ NOT!]

In previous editions we informed you that in 2008 the City Council, on a vote of 4 to 3, increased the Firefighters salary and retirement benefits.  They voted to increase those benefits from 2% to 3% even though they knew (were told) they did not have the money to fund it.  The vote resulted in an approval of a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the union.

bad city council contract

City Council approves an 11% increase in firefighters’ pension.

The issue had to be revisited because of the failure of the City Council to obtain an actuarial report from CALPERS on what it would cost to increase these benefits.   To “try” to fix the problem the Council, at their regular meeting on April 26, 2010, was presented with a report from the CALPERS actuary, Bill Karch.  He informed the council that the “present value” of the cost of the increased benefits (in addition to what we are already obligated to pay) would be $5,047,760,  that the city would have to pay $548,271 this year, and a sum yearly thereafter to fund the $5.4 million increase.  He didn’t say how much we would have to pay beyond 2010.

An actuary is a specialized, mathematical expert trained to compute values for present and future events. Actuarial “present value” calculations convert future occurrences, such as retirement payments, to a present dollar value.   The “present value” of benefits represents the total dollars needed today at an estimated investment rate of return to fund future benefits for members of the pension plan.  The lower the rate of return (say 4.5%) the more you have to pay up front now to meet the future payment demands.  The higher the rate of return (say 7.75%) the less you have to pay now.

The CALPERS actuary used a rate of return of 7.75%.  Interesting choice given that CALPERS lost $55.2 billion (25% of its value) in 2008-09, and just billed the State of California f $600,000,000 this year to pay for unfunded pension liabilities, but we digress.  None of the Council members asked about the investment rate of return that was used to make his calculations and/or whether the 7.75% rate of return of interest was a reliable dollar estimate in today’s market, and/or whether we should use a lower rate of return, to predict how much our present pension obligations would have to be increased in order to fund and pay future pension obligations.

Subsequent to the Council meeting Mr. Karch was asked in an email from VREG if he could calculate what the present value of the increased obligation if 4.50% was used, and how much more Ventura would have to pay this year. That number was selected because actuaries today conservatively use 3% to 5% as the investment rate of return in making such calculations. Mr. Karch declined.  His response was that we could get that the data if VREG made a Freedom of Information Act request through formal channels; and, by-the-by send a large check to pay for the voluminous computerized report.  Well Bubba I guess we know who that fella works for!

So in a state of blissful ignorance Council members Fulton, Brennan, Monahan and Tracy voted yes.  Council members Andrews, Morehouse and Weir voted no.  The deciding vote was that of Deputy Mayor Tracy, who in casting his yes vote stated:

“…what is clear tonight is that we are not deciding on whether or not we give our firefighters an enhanced retirement program.  That decision was made two years ago.  We have received (a) very competent legal opinion that frankly we have no choice but to honor that contract…”

Bad city council contract

City Council negotiates questionable contract with Ventura firefighters.

What the Deputy Mayor was referring to was a letter from a law firm named Liebert Cassidy Whitmore of San Francisco, attached to the Administrative report for Agenda item #8, which concluded – “Once approved by the City Council, the memoranda of understanding (MOU) between the City and the Association (firefighters) became a binding and legally enforceable agreement…”.

Just prior to the vote the City Manger, Rick Cole, advised the Council that the reason for the public hearing on the actuarial valuation was to let the public know about the cost of the increase, referring everyone to Government Code section 7507.  Connect this reference with the Deputy Mayor Tracy’s statement and we arrive at the crux of the problem — was there a valid contract?

Read Government Code § 7507 and you decide.  That code provides:

“The legislature and local legislative bodies shall secure the services of an enrolled actuary to provide a statement of the actuarial impact upon future annual costs before authorizing increases in public retirement plan benefits…”

The future annual costs as determined by the actuary shall be made public at a public meeting at least two weeks prior to the adoption of any increases in public retirement plan benefits”.

The letter written by the San Francisco attorneys, LIEBERT, CASSIDY WHITMORE does not address this error. For reasons that are not apparent, these high priced legal types did not even discuss this issue.

A mutual mistake of law and/or fact is always a good defense to breach of contract action.  If both parties to a contract operate under a mutual mistake of fact that there has been compliance with the law, and in fact there has been no compliance with the law, there is no contract

Questions for our readers:

  • Why a letter, bearing the legend “CONFIDENTIAL—ATTORNEY CLIENT PRIVILEGED”, which does not discuss a critical legal defense, would be attached to a public document?
  • Why not a single firefighter asked to speak in support of the measure when the room was packed with the fire folk, who were straining at the bit to get more benefits?

Curious that , but we leave “that” to your speculation.

Editors Comments:  

An actuary report was NOT presented prior to the decision to increase benefits in August and October of 2009, thus was not enacted as required by the California Government Code. The attempt to finesse this critical error, by pretending it could be presented after the fact, on April 26, 2010,  ignores the underlying issue – THE RIGHT OF THE CITIZENS OF THIS CITY TO KNOW IN ADVANCE WHAT AN INCREASED PENSION BENEFIT WILL COST BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL MAKES A DECISION.   The firefighters’ will of course dismiss this as a mere formality.   This contract should be rescinded and an accurate and reliable actuarial report provided to the citizens of this community.

 

FROM READERS OF THE MARCH EDITION OF RES PUBLICA

[THE PIPER WOULD PLAY A FAR DIFFERENT TUNE IF THREATENED WITH THE LOSS OF HIS PIPE]

This regarding the Pension Reform Committee appointed by the Ventura City Council:

“Very interesting news letter this time as always.  Only one public member appointed to the “ad hoc” committee. All the rest have a vested interested in the system. What would happen if the no guts council just plain and simple told the unions that from now on the fire and police will have to pay at least 1/2 of their contribution. Would the fire and police walk off?  If so I am sure they can replace the lot.  The problem as I see it is that all the cities have to ban together so that there will be a closed door to bouncing around of personnel.”

—K. Weber

THE COUNCIL ACCEPTS VENTURA’S NEW BUDGET

[A SORRY EXCUSE, AT BEST]

            Another letter concerning the current budget format mandated by the City Manger for use in 2009-2001 (called a Budget Book).  We mentioned in our last issue that the current “Budget Book” looked useless and appealed to you for help.

“Regarding the City’s budgeting process and the budget document itself, I spent some time looking at it after reading your latest publication and you hit the nail right on the head.  It is most assuredly not a decipherable budget document.  It lacks clarity and the detail required for the average lay person to begin to understand it, much less a person with a financial background.  I’m not even sure that it meets the minimum legal requirements, as promulgated by the State Controller’s Office.

I am a C.P.A., have a Masters degree in Public Administration, and have worked in government finance and budgeting for the past 29 years and, without a doubt, this is the most sorry excuse for a budget document that I have seen in my life.

In Santa Barbara County, we have developed a true program/performance-based budget that actually links dollar amounts with stated goals and performance measures.  Not only can you clearly and easily see the amount of money, staffing, and other resources allocated to each program area within each department of the County, but you can also see the performance and outcome measures associated with each individual program area.  In other words, as a taxpayer, you can actually see what you’re getting for your dollars.

The firefighter pension increase is just another example of the arrogance and disconnect with reality coming out of City Hall these days.  I certainly hope we can make some changes in the next election.  We definitely cannot continue down this path or bankruptcy becomes an inevitability”

—M. Gibson, CPA and 2009 candidate for Ventura City Council

 

EDITORS’ CORRECTION

Last month we reported that the Firefighters pension increase was 50% (2% to 3%). The City Manager corrected us and pointed out that it was ONLY 11%. .  After his response we received the CALPERS actuary report and confirmed that our report was in error. Under the current pension plan it is a 20% increase if the Firefighter retires at age 50, and an 11% increase if the Firefighter retires at 55.  That aside, this correction does not excuse the ridiculous statement by former Councilmember Ed Summers that it was only a 1% increase. It is still hard to believe he wants to be the County Treasurer.

 

EDITORIAL

The City Council is called upon to make many difficult and complex decisions concerning the financial welfare of this community, but one of the greatest decisions they will have to make concern the pension contracts with the public employee unions now and in the future.   Except for members of the public employee unions there is not a single informed individual in this society that would disagree with the conclusion that our pension system is bankrupt and unsustainable. The collective decisions of our City Council are costing the citizen’s of Ventura for decades in the future. Not to ask the hard questions, when asked to approve a new liability of $5.4 million dollars, such as the interest rate used for the assumptions of a pension increase, or to discuss if the right questions were asked and answered in a legal opinion statement, borders on malfeasance. It is not enough to say, “the report was too lengthy” or “we didn’t have enough time”. If decisions need to be delayed and other opinions sought, the City Council needs to control that process and remember the admonition of Jean-Jacques Rousseau to ”keep your experts on tap and not on top”.

 

Editors:

B. Alviani       S. Doll           J. Tingstrom

K. Corse         B. McCord    T. Cook

For more information like this, subscribe to our newsletter, Res Publica. Click here to enter your name and email address.

 

 

Ventura Budget Lacks Transparency

As Ventura’s Budget Losses Grow, Budget Transparency Is Questioned

/in /by

“The budget should be balanced, the Treasury should be refilled, public debt should be reduced, the arrogance of officialdom should be tempered and controlled, and the assistance to foreign lands should be curtailed lest Rome become bankrupt. People must again learn to work, instead of living on public assistance.” —CICERO – 55 BC

VENTURA’S CUPBOARD –IS BARE

[THE $15 MILLION PROJECTED BUDGET LOSS]

On March 15, 2010 Mayor Fulton invited community leaders to attend a BUDGET WORKSHOP to help decide where to make cuts in the 2010-11 budget to compensate for an $11,000,000 PROJECTED LOSS.   This statement was predicated on an estimate by the City Council that the City would face fixed expenses of $96 million with income of $85 million.  Well, it turns out that the income figures were wrong.  Revenues are below normal and the City will receive less than $81,000,000 for the fiscal year 2010-11 according to estimates provided by the Finance and Technology Department and the Deputy Mayor.

bad city council contract

City Council approves an 11% increase in firefighters’ pension.

Please recall good reader the words of Councilman Summers in the fall of 2008, when he, together with councilman Monahan, Brennan and Fulton voted to increase the fire department pensions from 2% to 3% at age 55, and stated “We are only increasing it by 1%”, and “we will only be paying 50% of our budget to the police and fire departments”.    An increase from 2% to 3% is really a 50% increase in retirement pay.

Here is a comparison of the 2008-09 adopted budget with the 2009-10 adopted budget as published.  Assuming we receive $81 million in revenue, which is improbable, 58.7% of the general fund revenue is spent on public safety, without factoring in the cost of the other employees.

2008-09 2009-10
Revenue $94,084,228 $85,489,560
Police Dept. Cost $31,478,979 $ 29,528,499
Fire Dept. Cost $19,259,971 $18,036,231

Editors note: 

Former Councilmember Summers lost his re-election bid to the City Council, and  now wants to be your County Treasurer?

MORE ON THE FIREFIGHERS PENSION INCREASE

[OOPS]

As mentioned above the City Council, on a vote of 4 to 3,  increased the fire fighters pension benefits from 2% to 3% even though they knew they did not have the money to fund it.  The vote resulted in an approval of a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the union.  They received their increase, but nobody knew what it would cost.

city council bad conract

Firefighters receive a whopping increase in pension benefits from the City Council.

Then budget problems arose, negotiations began and the Firefighters agreed to postpone their increase for 15 months.  Of course, two of the Council members running for reelection (Monahan and Summers) acted as though pension increase had not been created, or did not exist, because it was not yet implemented.  Not implementing something is not the same as deferring it.   That deferral is up on July 1, 2010, at which time the increase will go into effect.

Now CALPERS steps into the picture.  They take the position that this MOU is not binding upon them, because there was no actuarial report on the cost of increasing the pension benefits when it was adopted by the City Council.  Somehow four Councilmen (Monahan, Fulton, Summers and Brennan) felt they could increase the benefits, which they knew were not funded, and push the cost of those benefits onto CALPERS without contributing any more money to the pension fund. Well, Duhhh!

This issue will be on the City Council Agenda on April 26, 2010, at which time it is expected that an actuarial cost report will be presented in order to meet the CALPERS requirements.  It is predictable that the City will have to increase their contributions significantly to meet the new cost of this increase, or figure how  to back out of the MOU with the firefighters.

EDITORS COMMENTS: 

Another fine mess you’ve gotten us into Ollie!  Are there ever any consequences when these costly errors happen?  Does anyone ever lose their job, or do the taxpayers just keep paying  the legal expenses to fix these problems ?

THE VENTURA BUDGET PROCESS

[CLEAR AS MUD]

            If you are a person interested in analyzing the budget for the City of Ventura you are in for a real experience in frustration.  Up until the fiscal year 2008-09 the budget prepared by Finance & Technology was in a classic format – a real income and expense statement – with supporting schedules and line item detail so that you could  make a reasonable determination of where we stood financially –  where our income was derived and where we spent the money.

Not anymore. The format for the fiscal years 2009-10 and 2010-11 is now different.   Starting with the Budgeting for Outcomes program, instigated by the City Manger, the Finance & Technology (F&T) department published a Budget Book which you can view on-line.  The format for that document, euphemistically called a “budget”, was a result of a directive to F&T to prepare an “All Funds Summary”.  Difficult now to determine what is in fact happening financially.  It is perplexing and confusing when the city mixes the general fund income and expenses with the enterprise funds and expenses.                 If you want to know the general fund income and expenses in detail for the current fiscal year, such as the specific costs of  public safety employees you cannot obtain that information. Perhaps our readers can help us interpret this “budget book”.

EDITORS’ COMMENTS:    

What happened to transparency?

Editors:

B. Alviani       S. Doll           J. Tingstrom

K. Corse         B. McCord    T. Cook

For more information like this, subscribe to our newsletter, Res Publica. Click here to enter your name and email address.

 

Recession challenges Ventura budget

Budget and Pension Crises Throughout California Inflict Harm

/in /by

“If there must be trouble, let it be in my day, that my child may have peace”—THOMAS JEFFERSON

CALIFORNIA – A FAILED STATE

[THE “TERRITORY OF CALIFORNIA”]

You can watch the stock market successes, listen to the pundits braying out messages like “we have turned the corner”, but the  reality is that the State of California and the municipalities nationwide, including  the City Ventura, are in trouble.

Recession creates budget crises

The recession caused budget and pension crises throughout California.

The fortunes of the State of California are grim.  The S&P and Fitch Investors lowered the debt rating on General Obligation bonds to BBB. This rating  means that California bonds now are “speculative with major risk exposure”.   It is projected that the rating will be lowered to B (junk bond), which means “adverse business, financial, or economic conditions will likely impair capacity or willingness to pay interest and repay principal”.

During a VREG  forum at the Ventura Beach Marriott on February 24, 2010, the guest speaker, Chriss Street, of Orange County whistle blower fame, currently  serving as the Orange County Treasurer and Tax Collector,  put the State of California  with the debt problems of Greece, which imploded because of their governments “credit default swap” ventures.  They and the State of California are broke, but our state does not have a Eurozone to bail us out.  It is so bad that the Governor’s office is looking at bankruptcy.   By law, a state cannot file bankruptcy, but state government has been advised that bankruptcy is an option if they convert to a “territory”.

Mr. Street also was of the opinion that between July 21 and July 24 of 2010 the State of California will be in the position of being unable to obtain any financing to continue operations. Is he right?  We do not know but we have marked it on our calendars.

VENTURA’S CUPBOARD –ALMOST BARE?

[IN THEN JUST OUT OF THE  PICKLE BARREL]

The economic failure of the State will have a direct effect on municipalities including the City of Ventura.  Recall, that last year our state government, pursuant to Proposition 1A decided to “borrow” [take] our real property tax money. They can do that for two years with a promise to pay it back.  This served as a major argument by Mayor Weir, Councilman Fulton and the “TAX ‘EM” bunch to convince Venturans to raise the sales tax.  Didn’t work the first time in 2006 and it cost the citizens a bunch of money again in 2009.

budget crises created by recession

California withholds property tax revenue from Ventura to close budget gap.

Then, after the November election we learned that the City did get the real property tax money through a concept of “securitization”. Here is a hopefully simple explanation.  As part of the 2009-2010 budget, the California Legislature suspended the local agency protections of Proposition 1A and passed a provision to withhold more than $2 billion of property tax revenue from cities, counties and special districts.  Ventura’s share of that was $2,718,041.  So, in a plan equivalent to a “forced loan”, the State exercised the right to hold those funds to close the budget gap, with the intent to repay the money in three years. As an alternative, the legislature also permitted the establishment of a third-party securitization program for cities to use to avoid the loss of revenue.  A group called the California Communities Development Authority (aka California Communities) was appointed as the exclusive authority to offer a program to purchase the receivables due to local government agencies from the State.  They did that, $2 billion in bonds were sold in the market place and the property tax money due to each municipality was paid with all interest and costs paid by the State. View the amount taken from each city/county here.

The City of Ventura again faces the specter of losing this same amount of money in the 2010-11 budget. Given the deplorable condition of the State finances one wonders who would again loan the State another $2 billion.  On a positive note the City of Ventura has joined with the California League of Cities in signing a referendum petition to prevent the State of California from taking the real property tax money in the future.  Our city is sitting on the edge of the proverbial pickle barrel.

THE $11 MILLION PROJECTED BUDGET LOSS

employees largest budget item in Ventura

City employees are the largest budget expense in Ventura.

On March 15, 2010 Mayor Fulton invited community leaders to attend a BUDGET WORKSHOP to help decide where to make cuts in the 2010-11 budget to compensate for an $11,000,000 PROJECTED LOSS.    Liberally attended by policemen and fireman, due to invitations extended, by our Chiefs of Police and Fire, to “Friends of the Fire Department” and “Friends of the Police Department”, the participants came up with a variety of proposals.  The giddy report from Mayor Fulton was that it was a resounding success, with proposed solutions like – “muddle through”, “strategic layoffs”, “use of volunteers”, “delay projects” and “shift funds”.

One participant reported that during this conference the major budget item that needed to be addressed was all but ignored, which is the cost of people.  At least 80% of our expected income of $85 million will be spent for people and pension costs. Police and fire consume 56% of the total budget cost.

EDITORS’ COMMENTS: 

The original budget was based on a prediction that the City would have income of $97 million to cover their expenses.  It was a bad bit of guess work.   Realistically, the City could never have expected  more than $85 million in the first place, however now they want the citizens of the community to believe they have an $11 million shortfall.  Not true.  What they have is long-term expenses of $11 million more than their income.

THE PENSION DEBACLE

A few months before the November 3rd  election the City Council proudly announced that the City Council, in an effort to address serious budget woes, had appointed  a special committee to investigate potential reform of the salary and benefits paid to the City public employees, and particularly police and fire.   They did that and here are the folks appointed to come up with a recommendation:

Vern Alstot Fire Management
Neal Andrews Councilmember
Bart Bleuel Public Member
Eric Burton Code Enforcement officer
Benny Davis Fire Department
Ramon De La Rosa Maintenance Department
Quinn Fenwick Police Management
Randy Hinton Public Member
Sylvia Lopez City employee union representative
Frank Maxim City employee and supervisor
Ed McCombs Public Member (former City Manger)
Jim Monahan Councilmember
Richard Newsham Union representative
John Snowling Police officer
Mike Tracy Councilmember

This group did not come up with a recommendation. On Monday, March 22, 2009, they disbanded and submitted a report to the Ventura City Council. The report consists of a compilation of different views including position statements of the nine (9) union and employee representatives.

To their credit the City Council received the “report” then unanimously voted to adopt a  “policy” whereby in all future salary and benefit negotiations with the unions and employees the City Council would seek a two tier retirement  benefits system, plus ask the policemen, firemen and other employees to pay one-half of the pension contribution requirement.   Nothing was accomplished other than to state publicly that in future contract negotiations the City would seek to establish a two tier system.

THE  PUBLIC EMPOLYEE PENSION DEBACLE

[THREE CANARIES IN THE MINE]

 

A reporter named Ed Mendel wrote an article on January 25, 2010 for the San Diego Tribune. Here are few of his comments:

“A wave of higher pension costs is hitting California’s three major coastal cities, prompting proposals to shore up future budgets with ballot measures in Los Angeles and San Francisco and eroding progress in San Diego, once dubbed “Enron by the sea.”

The surge from an historic stock market crash, which punched big holes in pension investment funds, is creating concern that pension benefits approved in better economic times are not “sustainable” and need to be cut for new hires.

City council members in Los Angeles and San Diego have mentioned the possibility of “bankruptcy” in remarks to reporters this month, a path taken by the city of Vallejo two years ago when labor costs consumed most of its budget.

Labor unions, agreeing to benefit cuts in some cases, are trying to figure out whether current pension levels are unaffordable and should be reduced, or if city officials are overstating the problem to use the economic downturn as leverage for givebacks.”

bad budget management in Vallejo

Vallejo, CA delcares bankruptcy following bad budget management

The City of Vallejo filed bankruptcy because 70-80% of their general budget was devoted to paying police, fire and other public employee salaries and benefits.  When the old port city on the far side of San Francisco Bay filed a rare municipal bankruptcy in May 2008, there was speculation about whether bankruptcy would become a way for deficit-ridden cities to shed crushing retirement debts.  In a precedent setting ruling in the Vallejo case, U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Michael McManus in Sacramento decided that city labor contracts can be overturned in bankruptcy, and then dissolved the contract.

In the shadow of this decision the Vallejo firefighter union agreed to cut pensions for new hires to 2 percent of final pay for each year served at age 50, down from the current 3 percent at 50, a previous trend advanced by state legislation a decade ago.  They also agreed to a new two-year contract with no pay raise and increased their pension contribution to 13.4 percent of their pay, up from 9 percent..

EDITORS’ COMMENTS: 

Given the serious budget issues we hope the Ventura police, fire and public employee unions are paying attention, and do not continue to believe that they have found the golden goose. 

Editors:

B. Alviani        S. Doll           J. Tingstrom

K. Corse          B. McCord     T. Cook

For more information like this, subscribe to our newsletter, Res Publica. Click here to enter your name and email address.

City Government Clueless About What Citizens Need

/in /by

“The characteristic complaint of our time seems to be not that government provides no reasons, but that its reasons seem remote from human beings who must live with the consequences”—William Brennan, U.S. Supreme Court Justice

THE END OF THE FIRST DECADE

It is the end of the first decade of the 21st century.  This first ten years have been marred by war, scandal, fraud, economic failure and government malfeasance at all levels. Venturans will also be happy to turn the page and try to rebuild.  The questions is whether local government can provide the insight and leadership to achieve prosperity, or will be mired in the failed policies and decisions of the past.

THE NOVEMBER 3RD ELECTION – BEFORE AND AFTER

[THOSE WITH INTEGRITY AND THOSE WITHOUT]

We start with glimpse of the events leading to the last election. It was not pretty and hopefully is not an indicator of how the politics of city government will perform in the next ten years.

Police Association Smears Candidate Andrews

Prior to the last election the Ventura Police Association commissioned a telephone poll (push poll) for the specific purpose of trying to eliminate Councilman Neil Andrews.  A push pole is a seemingly unbiased telephone survey that is actually conducted by opponents of a particular candidate in order to smear or disseminate negative information about that candidate.

Police in city government

Police Association interjects itself into city government

Then immediately prior to the election came the mother of all polished and salacious brochures. You know, the one about Neal Andrews taking public money to the tune of $20,000.  None of it was true, but the policemen in charge didn’t care about that. They too have a right of free speech, even rotten speech and fraudulent utterances.

It didn’t work. The voters wisely returned Mr. Andrews to office.  He was elected to his third term of office, and was the next highest vote getter [9,246] next to our newbie retired chief Mike Tracy [9,777].

Councilman Andrews. of course, was punished for his position when the majority of the Council at their December meeting. The Council refused to elect him as the mayor of this fine city or even the position of Deputy Mayor.  Councilmen Andrews and Morehouse were in the minority.   The Ventura County Star published an editorial castigating the members of the council who condoned this miserable spectacle.

THE UNFUNDED PENSION PROBLEM PLAGUES GOVERNMENT

The unfunded pension liability of this city is the biggest problem facing this community, and will be the focus of VREG in the first quarter of 2010.

CalPERS increases unfunded pension liability costs to Ventura

Councilmember Andrews believes city government should bear all the cost of police and fire pensions.

Councilman Andrews is  the only elected official  who has not lost focus on this enormous issue.  His public position, and one that he has espoused for years, is that the benefits of the members of the public unions, particularly police and fire,  are excessive and must be changed from a defined benefit plan to a defined contribution plan.  That of course is not to the benefit of the union members because they want all they can get — FROM YOU.

This is real.  If you do not believe this City has a serious debt problem you are not paying attention.  Attached is a letter which VREG published in April 2009, titled “THE SPECTRE OF BANKRUPTCY”. The unfunded liability for the City of Ventura,  as of June, 2007, totaled  $294,673,595.  We believe the 2008 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report will reveal that the debt picture  has improved somewhat and will report on that analysis in our next issue. VREG will also sponsor a public forum and speaker on this issue in the first quarter of 2010.  We will announce the time and place.

A MESSAGE FROM A CITIZEN

[WHAT OUR CITIZENS WANT FROM GOVERNMENT— PAY ATTENTION CITY COUNCIL]

Just before Christmas the Ventura County Star published a letter from one of our citizens.  With his permission we publish that letter as a message to start the new year:

WHAT CITIZENS WANT

Re: Your Dec. 12 editorial, “Council’s Action a slight to voters”:

I concur with the editorial that called the selection of Mike Tracy as deputy mayor as a slight to voters.  I have no problem with Tracy and feel he will do a great job, but as a brand-new, untested councilman he hardly deserves to be appointed deputy mayor.

Skipping the popular, at least with the public,  not electing Neal Andrews [as Deputy Mayor] is truly an insult to the people who voted.  What the City Council and city manger do not understand is that there’s a reason no new tax measures have been passed.  The voters are unhappy with the way things are going.

I was particularly irked by Councilman Brian Brennan’s comments after Measure A failed.  He basically said the public wants more city services, but doesn’t want to pay for them.  I think he is wrong.  I believe the public wants basic services and is willing to pay for them.  Those services, in my opinion are:

  • Well-maintained streets and storm drainage.
  • Library services at the Helen Wright Library.
  • Adequate police and fire protection.
  • Safe neighborhood parks.
  • Being able to move about the city without harassment by professional bums.
  • A city that encourages a Walmart, which would provide tax revenue and jobs.
city government should stop wasting money

One reader wants city government to stop wasting money.

What I believe citizens do not want are:

  • Large, expensive sports complexes.
  • Expensive housing projects for “struggling artists”.
  • Worthless and expensive bus-stop art at the mall.
  • Exorbitant pensions.
  • City leadership that seems to enjoy punishing the public for not going along with their agenda.
  • And, finally, a city leadership that thinks residents who do not agree with them are just ignorant.

I feel better now.

—Ray Holzer

Editors’ comments:

          Thank you Mr. Holzer.  Could not have said it any better.

Editors:

B. Alviani        S. Doll           J. Tingstrom

K. Corse          B. McCord    T. Cook

For more information like this, subscribe to our newsletter, Res Publica. Click here to enter your name and email address.

Ventura asks for more money in Measure A

Shameless Politicians Propose Measure A For More Money

/in /by

“No creature smarts so little as a fool. Destroy his fib, or sophistry – in vain! The creature’s at his dirty work again.”—Alexander Pope

911 TAX – POSTMORTEM

[THE GREAT BOONDOGLE. WHERE DID THE MONEY GO?]

The City Council keeps saying they do not understand why the citizens of this community have such distrust for city government.  They are not likely to understand if they are not listening.

Refunded only part of the money

Ventura refunded only part of the money collected in the 911 Tax.

No need to again examine the history and the woof of the pathetic effort of the City Council to tax 911 calls, but it does serve to examine the aftermath.

This idea, spawned by our City Manger, Rick Cole, followed on the heals of the defeat of his Measure P6.  Of course he has no public exposure and can duck any critics’ comments because he was not elected to office, and did not vote for the tax.   Councilmen Monahan, Summers and Brennan, currently up for re-election, however were elected to office, and they did vote for the 911 tax.

Citizens protested, but did so in vain. Lawsuits followed, and only then did the Council take steps to set this all aside to avoid being tagged with a huge bill for attorneys’ fees if they lost.  Make no mistake, they were going to lose. It would then be logical, and reasonable, to assume that the money collected under this concocted scheme would be refunded to the people who were FORCED to pay into the program, right?  Au contraire!

Money from 911 tax never returned

Citizens left hanging for refund of over $1.2 million from 911 tax.

Our fine City government collected $1,220,005 during FY 08-09, representing 54.2% of the hoped for annual revenue of $2,250,000.   Once the law was cancelled you were then offered a refund, if you could prove you paid, only if you had “opted out”, and only then if you attached the necessary documents, and jumped through the required administrative hoops to get your money. Why only if you “opted out”?  Because the City Manager surmised that if you did not “opt out”, you must have chosen to “opt in”, meaning that you wanted the city to have this money, and it was your intention for the city to keep the funds all along.

Only $17,096 was refunded. The City kept over a million dollars, used $800,000 to balance the 2008-09 budget and  kept $402,909 in the general fund for use this year.  Having bilked the citizens of this community,  and having failed to refund the money to those who paid,  it would seem that at least the Council would have the decency to do the right thing and use the money for its declared purpose – fund the 911 system!  That did not happen. Instead the money was stuffed down the proverbial rabbit hole. [okay! used for other expenses like?]

Editors Comment:

Are we hoping in vain that this Council may exhibit some shame, and do the right thing?

THE NEW SALES TAX- “MEASURE A”

[COUNCIL ASKS VOTERS FOR MORE MONEY TO FINANCE FAILED POLICIES]

Masure A takes more money

Ventura politicians are shamelessly asking for more money with Measure A.

It has been clear, since Measure P-6 was defeated at the polls,  that this Council would attempt a new sales tax measure.  This new measure to raise the city sales tax by ½% was put on the ballot for November, 2009, on a vote of 6 to 1.  Councilman Neal Andrews opposed that measure.

In the process of approving Measure A the Council referred constantly to the fact that a “Blue Ribbon Committee”, appointed to consider this proposal, had recommended that a sales tax increase be put on the ballot for public approval, and that the tax be automatically cancelled after  4 years.    This was something to behold — that this Council would have our good citizens believe that the Council really needed a Blue Ribbon Committee’s approval in order to place a new tax measure on the November ballot.  Members of the Council appointed a majority of the blue committee because they were “friends of the Council” (FOC), so the result was always a foregone conclusion.  Former Mayors Jim Friedman and Sandy Smith were on that committee, and each was heard to smirk that they thought “the Council was just trying to seek political cover”.

Now the spinning and fact distortions begin anew.  As you are reading you will recall what happened when P6 was proposed.  The Council wanted a  1/4% special tax for police and fire.  That measure failed, as well as the lawsuit filed by “the City” ( Actually, it was filed by a political action committee headed by Assistant Police Chief Corney, to which each Council member contributed money) against citizens who opposed the tax.  They lost that too after paying their Santa Monica lawyers $30,000.

The Council and the City Manager vowed to come back at the citizenry with a new tax.  Thus Measure A was put on the ballot seeking double the amount of money sought by P6, but this time as a general tax, which only requires a 50%+1 voter approval.  Their hope is that since they received 61.95% of the vote on P6, ergo the voters will approve a ½% general tax increase.

So the rhetoric and distortion begins by the cabal controlling “the City”. To avoid the label of being a “special tax”, requiring a 2/3 vote, the Council decided to promise to spend any new sales taxes in certain ways, but without telling the voters at the same time that they were not obligated to do so [ one could almost see a sly grin and wink from the 6 Council members  as this statement was made]. Their promise of how they will spend this $10,000,000 in new sales tax money may prove to be their undoing.

If approved by the voters it will be interesting to see how Measure A survives a legal challenge, and it will be challenged under Proposition 218.  That state proposition requires a 2/3 voter approval for any tax devoted to

Police and Fire want more money

Police and Fire departments would receive 40% of the money collected from Measure A.

a special purpose as opposed to general tax, which is collected and placed in the general fund. The Council hopes to avoid this problem by saying the funds are “not required” to be used for any specific purpose, yet they announce that the funds will be used for a specific purpose as in inducement to get voters to approve the measure.

Interestingly one of the specific promises made by this Council, as an inducement to voters to approve the measure is that they will spend 40% of the new tax on police and fire — the exact sum they sought to raise in the failed P-6 measure.

Today it’s hard to know what the City is really doing, except that most of the individual Council members are campaigning hard to convince you that you should ignore the waste and spendthrift policies of the past and impose the new tax.  They do not want to address the underlying economic malady – overpaid public employee unions and the millions wasted in ill advised decisions like the plan to narrow Victoria, or the ill-fated 911 tax or increasing the fire department retirement programs by 50%.  Councilman Fulton, who is also campaigning hard for the incumbents advised one contender that he could not approve of their candidacy because they (the Council ) would lose “consensus”  – he really means control.  He also stated in a public meeting that we should forget the past and move on. So how, again, was the 911 tax money spent?

Editors’ comments: 

Only a fool does not learn from the mistakes of the past.

THE STATE STRIKES

It is now official.  Remember that money that you sent in for property taxes, and which is supposed to be returned, in part, to our community? Well our fine state government has decided that to correct their mismanagement and budget deficiencies by taking the money that is supposed to be returned to the cities. Thus our City will not receive $2,760,358 that would be normally  returned. We have been  forced to loan to a state government that has achieved junk bond status in the market place.

The money is not gone, just delayed in delivery.  Of course the State promises to pay this back in 3 years.  How about interest?  The answer we get is that this will be set by someone and sometime in the future — you know the line — “trust us”.

It gets worse.  In addition to the loss to the general fund, the Redevelopment agency has lost $1.2 million, and that will never be repaid.  It is gone.  Makes you wonder if Ventura had spent some more Redevelopment agency funds in the last 2-3 years, whether there would have been any funds to raid?

CITY COUNCIL USES A SMOKESCREEN

[NEVER LET A GOOD CRISIS GO TO WASTE]

This City Council again has to scramble to adjust their budget to allow for this loss.  The hyperbole and spin from City Hall, and the proponents of this tax is that we really need the new sales tax because they have adjusted the budget as much as they can, employees have taken a 5% pay reduction and our State Government has taken our money.  What is a poor City Council to do?  Long before the state did its most recent raid on City funds the die had been cast.  The ½% sales tax was already in the plan.  The City Council members are campaigning hard for the new tax as if the problem is all due to the State and they had some great insight – in short playing the fear game as a reason for the voters to approve the new tax.

Opponents point out that such a tax is regressive, that business has never prospered in such in an environment, that even though there is a 4-year sunset provision the Council proposes to use the new tax money to make long term commitments to police and fire (40% of the new tax money), and that when the 4-year period is up the Council will go back to the voters arguing that if we do not extend the tax there will be cuts in services — you know the old saw — crime, untimely emergency responses to medical emergencies, etc. The opponents also point to the spendthrift policies of this council over the last 6 years, for example $1,000,000 alone was spent to narrow Victoria Avenue.  That should be money in the bank, but instead is sitting in the pockets of City employees and Los Angeles consultants.  There are $13,000,000 of such expenditures, which should be in the bank, but is not  because of unrealistic planning and spending by a liberal out of touch Council.

Mayor Weir is campaigning for the new tax and has stated publicly “we will not spend any money we don’t have”.

Editors’ Comments: 

We hope each citizen will reflect on whether the past should matter in deciding how to vote.

Editors:

B. Alviani        S. Doll          J.Tingstrom

K. Corse          B.McCord    T. Cook

For more information like this, subscribe to our newsletter, Res Publica. Click here to enter your name and email address.

Pension reform needed

Grand Jury Exposes City Pension Out of Control

/in /by

“The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not” —Thomas Jefferson

THE FLEECING OF VENTURA

The Ventura County Star reports the Grand Jury finds Ventura’s Pension Out Of Control

On July 26th the Ventura County Star published an article about the deplorable conditions of the public pension plans in Ventura.   The Ventura Grand Jury labeled these city pension plans as headed for disaster — an out of control cost [They actually said “uncontrollable cost”].  To see how out of control the one in Ventura is see the October, 2008 issue of Res Publica, which  provided an in depth analysis of just how much unfunded debt exists because of the lavish pension plans given to public employees by the City Council.  We republish some of that article here as a reminder to our citizens when they go to the polls in November.

(c) THE FIREFIGHTER PENSION

In a vote of 4 to 3 the council  approved the Memorandum of Agreement and the new pension contract with the firefighters of this city giving them a pension equal to 3% of their highest salary times the number of years in service plus all medical, dental, the same plan received by policemen.  The yeas were Councilmen Fulton, Brennan, Summers and Monahan.  The neighs were Mayor Weir, Councilmen Andrews and Morehouse who stated just before his “NO” vote — “I HAVE GRAVE CONCERNS TO COMMIT WHEN WE DON’T KNOW WHERE THE FUNDS WILL COME FROM”.

I have grave concerns to commit when we don’t know where the funds will come from.

In our August 2008 letter and postscript letter titled “IN THE SHADOW OF VALLEJO”. We posed a hypothetical retirement scenario — a fireman goes to work for the department at age 20, works 35 years and retires at the age of 55 earning a salary of $100,000 per year.  The adopted increase now provides that he/she will receive 3% of their salary in their last year of employment multiplied by the number of years of service.  So he/she will retire earning $105,000. [$100,000 x 3% = $3,000 x. 35 = $105,000].

ed summers pension blunder

Councilmember Ed Summers voted for pension increase because city employees only live 7 years past retirement.

Since that publication Councilman Summers, who is up for reelection in November, pointed out that we need to make some “minor corrections”.  We quote from his letter:

In the example it indicates that an employee has the ability to retire and receive 105% of their annual salary.  Regardless of the time of service and age at retirement, the program is capped at 90% of the eligible salary.  The example also includes add-back for accrued sick leave and vacation.  The City’s formula does not include any add backs, the formula uses only the base salary.  It is the County’s formula that includes add backs…(in addition)…unfortunately the assumption of a 30-year future obligation per employee is incorrect, the average life expectancy of a public safety employee is 7 years from retirement”. 

          We do not know what source Councilman Summers uses for this remarkable revelation that firefighters retiring at age 55 are projected to live only 7 years. His assertion is nonsense and not supported by any credible source.   Further, when he and the other profligate four argued that “the increase was only 1%, it in fact was an increase from 2% to 3%, which is a 33 1/3% increase in the retirement plan.   So what is the reality? We have less money now than we did in October, 2008.  This City Council has led us into a sea of red ink — $294,673,595 as of April, 2009, yet our Council and the public safety unions ask us to pretend that this not a problem.  Instead they want more money in the form of new taxes.  Here is an example of what we now have to pay just 15 retired folks yearly for the rest of their lives — $1,707,086.

Mike Tracy* $ 186,902
Gary McCaskill $140,602
Neil Gedney $129,856
Brian Gordon $132,548
Carl Handy $122,022
Douglas Aldridge $124,396
Bill Rigg $121,333
Robert Boehm $120,494
Donald Davis $112,735
Jim Walker $ 110,570
Everett Millais $105,245
Shelley Jones $105,013
Roger Nustad $101,836
Gail Bogner $100,515
* Retired Chief of Police. Running for City Council
Pat Miller pension out of control

Police Chief, Pat Miller

Mike Lavery pension out of control

Fire Chief Mike Lavery

More recently we learned that our present Chief of Police, Pat Miller and Fire Chief Mike Lavery would retire. Why did they push so hard for an increase in the retirement benefits in October, 2008 ?  Well  Duhh ! Thank you Councilmen  Fulton, Brennan, Summers and Monahan.

More recently Councilman Fulton announced that the City was going to appoint a committee to examine the public pension plan.  Let us hope against hope that they don’t pack it with FOCs like they did the Blue Ribbon Committee, and that they read the Res Publica analysis of April 2009, which concluded that the pension plan is headed on the same path as the City of Vallejo – Federal Bankruptcy.      

Councilman Neal Andrews has advocated for a change. in this area, and has published a lengthy memo on the subject:

“Immediately abandon the compensation formula that essentially forces us to mimic the weakest and most incompetent policymakers in other communities. Today we promise to compensate our employees at approximately the average level of other communities, though we sometimes count the highest paid three times as heavily as others. This is an artificial and arbitrary benchmark. We should instead adopt a clear policy of compensating at a level adequate to provide a sufficient workforce with the high level of competence we want in them.

Adopt a two-tier retirement system that provides a guaranteed contribution to the retirement plan for all new employees, instead of the current guaranteed benefit program. This would not change a thing for current employees, but over time it would significantly reduce the volatility of our budgets by stabilizing a major element of our financial liability. This is the same type of retirement program offered today by most of the private sector.”

—Neal Andrews

Editors’ Comments:   

Councilmembers FULTON and MONAHAN deflect any criticism and defend the retirement plan by saying the decision to raise pension benefits was deferred. When questioned,  they cannot recall when the motion or official action was made, do not recall who recommended delaying the firefighters retirement plan increase or just what happened.  They act as if this is a non-issue.  For your information councilmen, the pension increase which you approved in October 2008, has NOT been rescinded or modified.

Editors:

B. Alviani      S. Doll            J. Tingstrom

K. Corse        B. McCord     T. Cook

For more information like this, subscribe to our newsletter, Res Publica. Click here to enter your name and email address.