News

Duboc says pension initiative is a go

 

Details were not immediately forthcoming, but former Menlo Park council member Lee Duboc says "a group of residents" will launch a drive for a ballot initiative, aimed at scaling back pension benefits for Menlo Park city employees who are not on the police force.

"We're just dotting our i's and crossing our t's," Ms. Duboc said. "We have to keep it close to the vest right now, but we're planning a big roll-out."

Ms. Duboc would not say which residents would be involved, or how much money she has raised for the effort. She had originally proposed the idea in a Jan. 11 e-mail to supporters.

Ms. Duboc said she has spoken to lawyers familiar with the subject, and believes such an initiative would be legal.

Menlo Park Mayor Rich Cline said he didn't have an immediate reaction to the news, adding that he wanted to talk to Ms. Duboc to better understand her plans.

Councilman John Boyle, who ran on a slate with Ms. Duboc in the 2006 election, also said he hadn't formed an opinion as to how the city should respond, but that the effort is consistent with what the city is trying to do.

"I think it's noteworthy that there's a pretty strong sentiment amongst residents to more aggressively pursue pension reform," he said.

Comments

Like this comment
Posted by Resident
a resident of Menlo Park: The Willows
on Jan 25, 2010 at 9:44 pm

How is much will this election cost ? Do people realize, that this won't have any direct effect until at least 10 - 15 more years down the road ? Yes, it is a good start, I am sure that some people are looking for a quick fix ! Now watch the quality of staff go down hill because someone else has a better retirement !!!!


Like this comment
Posted by another resident
a resident of Menlo Park: Stanford Hills
on Jan 26, 2010 at 12:43 am


I was unaware that the quality of the staff was the best available. Frankly, I hardly noticed. I did notice it took weeks to clean the pond in Sharon Heights. I did notice that city employees are often unavailable, away on leave/vacation/medical/etc/etc.

Do we really need to buy the best quality paper pushers in every department?


Like this comment
Posted by my view
a resident of Menlo Park: Central Menlo Park
on Jan 26, 2010 at 4:39 am

We will have to wait and see if DuBoc is dong anything more than than trying to promote her own agenda. After all, about 4 years ago, she and Winkler were pushed out of office in a stunning change by the voters of Menlo Park, who were sick and tired of their high handed and incompetent leadership.

So, I am wondering why are the Police officers not included?

There will be another election this November, and for sure Mayor Cline and Robinson have lost a lot of support. Fragmentation in the "residentialist" group of voters is now very obvious, particularly with Gail Slocum and Steve Schmidt (was he ever a residentialist?),having come out in support of the Bohannon project. Many other former supporters state they will not support another term for either Cline or Robinson.

The present City manager's contract will expire this year. Rojas, now has shown his true colors. His agenda is building much larger his personal staff, even in the face of year to year deficits, and supporting pro-development interests (wait until you get a load of what the Presbyterian church will propose for its campus.) Renewal of his contract or finding a new City Manager will become a major issue in the election season.

So DuBoc is floating an initiative, interesting maybe, but most likely a cover for a new election campaign.

It is gong to be a very tough year for incumbents to stay in office. I wouldn't be surprised at all if Boyle (who really should not even try for another term), as well as Cline and Robinson are all removed.


Like this comment
Posted by POGO
a resident of Woodside: other
on Jan 26, 2010 at 10:34 am

Menlo Park's annual pension liability has skyrocketed from just $260,000 to a whopping $4.2 million in just 6 years! Web Link

Menlo Park can either keep paying those remarkable retirement benefits to retiring city workers or they can start a new program for new hires. The quality of the staff will not diminish because their benefits do not change. It would be prudent to establish a new plan for new employees that matches the current market. The current plan simply isn't sustainable and the city is quickly marching off a financial cliff.

I'm definitely not a fan of Ms. DuBoc, but at least she seems to be willing to confront the city's single biggest financial problem. Perhaps DuBoc should be thanked instead of criticized.


Like this comment
Posted by council watcher
a resident of Menlo Park: other
on Jan 26, 2010 at 10:38 am

Lee got elected the first time because of the success of the Measure T election, for which she served as spokesperson. (Anyone who has worked with Lee, and I am among them, knows that she is not capable of coming up with her own ideas or of leading, but she excels at spotting good ideas generated by others and adding her name to the title page.) No doubt she hopes that this initiative will propel her into office again.

Unfortunately for her, our collective memories aren't that short. Most of us remember the back office dealings of her council, and how unpleasant it was to hear her and her cronies snicker at and then ignore members of the public who spoke up at meetings.

Clearly, we as a city -- indeed, the entire state - need to put the brakes on pensions for public employees. Ballot initiatives may be splashy and generate a lot of PR, but they are no substitute for thoughtfully constructed legislation. My question: given state finances, why aren't our legislators on top of this issue?

P.S. My guess is that if Robinson, Cline, and Boyle want another term, they will all be reelected. All three have outperformed Lee, Mickie, Nicholas, and some of the other horrors of recent years.


Like this comment
Posted by Deep Insider
a resident of Menlo Park: The Willows
on Jan 26, 2010 at 10:41 am

While many of us are sympathetic to the goals of reducing employee costs to the city, do we all realize that an Initiative means the Duboc must write a new law?

Even if the City Council wished to write this law, how would you write a well-worded law, that could not be circumvented and would not unnecessarily restrain councils in the future?

More ironically, Duboc is one of Menlo Park's true conservatives. Does she really think she can use a heavy-handed government method to effectively restrain government without creating unintended consequences.

I could support something like an advisory vote, but I think a new law will be too problematic.


Like this comment
Posted by POGO
a resident of Woodside: other
on Jan 26, 2010 at 11:07 am

I agree that it would be nice if the current City Council could take this up... but they do not appear to have the courage to confront this issue.

This shouldn't be so difficult. The city doesn't have to change benefits for current employees because those pensions are already defined by their bargaining agreements. But new hires should not be bound by those agreements.

It is in everyone's interests - including the unions - to establish a new and more realistic level of benefits that's more appropriate and sustainable. If you don't believe me, just ask those General Motors retirees if they still prefer their rich benefit plan that no longer exists to a more realistic plan that they can count on.

As far as "Resident's" concern about the cost of this referendum election, the cost represents about a week of your currently unchecked pension liability. That's the least of your problem. At least a referendum would provide the politicians some cover from this nasty issue.


Like this comment
Posted by Lee Duboc
a resident of Menlo Park: other
on Jan 26, 2010 at 1:35 pm

Let not your hearts be troubled! All can be assured I have no interest in running for City Council or any other elected office. I invite everyone to join this effort. It is fair, it is responsible, and it will make a difference.

One of the clauses in the initiative will state that in order for any City Council to raise the pension formula, it would have to put such an action on a ballot and let the voters decide.

As I've stated in my Menlo Future emails, we cannot change the pension formulas for those who are already in the system. This initiative will begin to hold the line in a way that is available to us today.




Like this comment
Posted by Lots of unwarranted hate
a resident of Menlo Park: Felton Gables
on Jan 26, 2010 at 1:41 pm

I often wonder if 10, 20, 30 years from now, I'll come back to this blog and STILL see Lee Duboc's name thrown around like she was some sort of vicious right wing looney. The worst thing that Lee has ever done is...............watching our money, the taxpayer's money, nothing else. All the garbage that is strewn about on these blogs is nothing but subjective criticism and anger brought up from people that, because they lost the pool argument (which by the way has saved the city thousands), or hated the aggressive posturing by Lee regarding the Derry Project (which by the way has now cost us about $1M-$2M in lost city revenue).
Enough already with Lee, stick to the topic. We, lead by Lee, are trying to save money, OUR money. I don't think anyone cares anymore about what you THINK Lee did 3+ years ago, it has no relevance in this conversation.


Like this comment
Posted by truth
a resident of Menlo Park: Belle Haven
on Jan 26, 2010 at 2:18 pm

From what I have read on the SEIU website, the city is asking for a more detailed two tier agreement. Holding the line on salaries, but asking for sharing of retirement and health. POGO from Woodside generalizes this into some broad agenda and Lee's buddies cry for her reputation, but the question remains.

This council has asked for a new type of agreement. Lee wants 2 and 60? Do the math and tell me when we will see savings from a 2 and 60. We need savings now.

What exactly do Lee and Mickie think they can do better?

If this is a localized version of Glenn Beck's call to arms (and it smells like a page from the rejectionist right), you can count me out.


Like this comment
Posted by POGO
a resident of Woodside: other
on Jan 26, 2010 at 3:30 pm

Unfortunately, you can't get savings now, truth. These are legal contracts and "a deal's a deal." The city's pension liability will definitely get worse before it gets better and, short of breaking the contract (which I would never advise), the city just has to live with it.

But just because you can't reduce TODAY'S problem doesn't mean you shouldn't reduce TOMORROW'S problem. Establishing a two-tier pay and benefits system isn't novel (airlines have been doing it for decades) and the new hires get the new deal. The sooner it's instituted, the better. I'll leave the specific metrics to the elected officials who are charged with this responsibility... but I would caution that any change better be significant.

And once in place, at least the liability will come into line as more senior employees retire and are replaced by newer ones.


Like this comment
Posted by Long Time Resident
a resident of Menlo Park: Central Menlo Park
on Jan 26, 2010 at 5:36 pm

It is unfortunate that our current leadership is not dealing with the most pressing issue facing our city, county and state - bloated employee salaries and benefits. We are slowly going bankrupt. Lee has been sounding the alarm for over ten years now and people are finally listening.

This modest 2 and 60 is a good first step but, as some of you point out, it may be too little too late. But it is better than nothing. The day is rapidly approaching when most of our budget will go to paying retirees.


Like this comment
Posted by pension watcher
a resident of Menlo Park: Sharon Heights
on Jan 26, 2010 at 7:59 pm

A previotherprevious Almanac posting on the pension subject drew lots of response--mostly in support of some sort of pension reform. I hope the City Countil takes notice, but thus far they seem afraid to do anything to antagonize the union.
And for the person(s) who worry about not being able to attract quality candidates, San Jose--and even Palo Alto--is trying to bring about some sort of pension reform. The Federal Government ceased to offer pensions long ago.
I hope Lee will let the public know how to show support. I have no idea how to sign up to learn more about her thoughts.


Like this comment
Posted by Lots of unwarranted hate
a resident of Menlo Park: Felton Gables
on Jan 26, 2010 at 9:15 pm

I am so glad that, for the most part, this blog is made up of many different types of people. It seems that conservatives are agreeing with liberals, residentialists with developers etc. Finally, people are starting to see the trend of wasteful spending, the trend of "we've always gotten the raise we want, and the benefits we want", and people are rising up against this out of control spending. WHY did it take this long?! C'mon people, let's focus on this issue now, and unload the big spenders. This is OUR money, and it's not being spent wisely!


Like this comment
Posted by Lots of unwarranted hate
a resident of Menlo Park: Felton Gables
on Jan 26, 2010 at 9:16 pm

I am so glad that, for the most part, this blog is made up of many different types of people. It seems that conservatives are agreeing with liberals, residentialists with developers etc. Finally, people are starting to see the trend of wasteful spending, the trend of "we've always gotten the raise we want, and the benefits we want", and people are rising up against this out of control spending. WHY did it take this long?! C'mon people, let's focus on this issue now, and unload the big spenders. This is OUR money, and it's not being spent wisely! Again, Ms. Duboc, thank you for your continued vigilance on this issue!


Like this comment
Posted by council watcher
a resident of Menlo Park: other
on Jan 26, 2010 at 11:12 pm

I think we all agree that labor costs -- both salaries and pensions -- need to be contained. Pensions are out of control. Fixing this problem calls for new legislation.

Ballot initiatives are good for rabble rousing and getting lots of publicity, but not for setting policy or writing laws. If Lee really wants to see change, she should be talking to the council, not hitting the PR trail and blasting a lot of hot air without any substance. ("Keeping it close to the vest" is code for "we don't really have a viable solution.") I'd wager that every single member of the council is at least as eager to contain costs as she is.

Go on, Lee, give it a try. You'll find that this council is much more respectful of and receptive to residents than your council was. They will listen without trying to humiliate you. And if your ideas are good, they will follow up on them.


Like this comment
Posted by POGO
a resident of Woodside: other
on Jan 27, 2010 at 8:55 am

Council Watcher -

The current Menlo Park Council ALREADY KNOWS the pension liability is a huge problem... they're just not doing anything about it. I'm not sure they need Lee DuBoc to address them to alert them to this issue. I suspect Ms. DuBoc is taking this initiative out of frustration precisely because the Council does not have the will or courage to face the issue. And while I am not a big fan of Ms. DuBoc, I must congratulate her for this effort.

A referendum will accomplish one thing - it will give the Council Members "cover" to address the issue. If the Menlo Park citizenry is truly up in arms about this problem - and the posts seem to support that assumption - then a referendum will allow the Council to take a strong position on a two tier benefit plan.

Because the unions will surely create a huge public outcry, without obvious and overwhelming voter support, Council Members will fold.

This is a critical and urgent issue that calls for serious negotiations. Every party - citizens, taxpayers, the Council and especially unions - have a lot to lose if they refuse to address the current, unsustainable system.


Like this comment
Posted by truth
a resident of Menlo Park: Belle Haven
on Jan 27, 2010 at 9:13 am

I still say that council has a two-tier offer in hand that is better than 2 and 60. Do the math.


Like this comment
Posted by Joanna
a resident of Menlo Park: Downtown
on Jan 27, 2010 at 4:14 pm

I'm glad someone is doing something about this. Go, go, go!


Like this comment
Posted by E. Moritz
a resident of Menlo Park: Central Menlo Park
on Jan 27, 2010 at 5:18 pm

Hello folks. My name is Ned Moritz. I'm treasurer of the group who will be filing and supporting the ballot initiative, "Fair And Responsible Pension Reform". In fact, this morning I made our initial filing of the ballot initiative with the City Clerk. The next step is to await a review and further direction from the City Attorney. So the process has started.

And what a process it is. There are web pages filled with forms, laws, rules, regulations, definitions of print size that must be used on public forms, etc. etc. We intend to navigate and complete all the requirements. But it will take a little time. As soon as the final approved form of the initiative is completed, then we can publish it and there will be no conjecture as to its contents and intent. For those interested in joining and assisting us, we'll also be publishing a U.S. Postal address and an electronic e-mail address where you can contact us. We'd be happy to have support from everybody. This is not a right, left or central issue. It affects everyone who pays taxes. I'd encourage everyone to learn about the current and future condition of CalPers to see how you will be impacted.

Our group has attracted individuals of all political persuasion. For those interested, I am NOT a Republican, even though I count a number of these creatures as my friends. :) And I think Glenn Beck's only contribution to this earth is entertainment value. He provides some great material for "The Daily Show" on the Comedy Central Network.

The reality of our broken economy and the reality of the CalPers pension investment trust needs to be addressed quickly. Even though there are some notable exceptions, many of the recent labor negotiations in throughout the Bay Area are bringing good rational responses on WAGES from both labor unions and city negotiators. But the elephant in the room that is not being addressed is PENSIONS.

The re-set on pension promises to city, county and state workers has to be re-set the same as wage increases. The new "normal" has been reflected in the private labor markets. And the impact of lower wages or NO wages is painful. Our intent is not to inflict pain or penalties, but to address the elephant and address the new "normal".

The use of Defined Benefit Plans hs virtually disappeared in the private sector. Those hoping to receive payments from U.S. Social Security, or those of us who are already receiving payments, are well aware that the age to receive full payments right now is 66 years old. And younger folks know their age point for full payment is a moving (rising) target. So asking a re-set to 60 years old for Menlo Park is both reasonable and generous.

This is truly a difficult issue for our City Council and Management to address as they work on WAGE issues. But once the initiative is completed and in place, the City Council will have the option to place it on their agenda and vote on it. Our Committee is not trying to circumvent the Menlo Park City Council. We are following the "process". We need to address this issue now. If they wish to take the process over, they have that option.

The initiative being put forth will not impact current employees. Promises made should be kept.

Be patient. All the details will soon be published. We will also publish a U.S Mail address and an e-mail address for those who'd like to join us.


Like this comment
Posted by council watcher
a resident of Menlo Park: Downtown
on Jan 27, 2010 at 10:24 pm

The council IS trying to do something about it. Lee is just trying to get re-elected, but she and her handlers are just going to end up with egg all over their collective faces. Again.

Have fun wasting your money and time, Ned!


Like this comment
Posted by It does'nt take an accountant
a resident of Menlo Park: Central Menlo Park
on Jan 28, 2010 at 12:39 am


Just in case anyone on this forum thinks that this particular council has the political backbone to cut back on employee pension costs, let's dial back to this story in the Almanac from March, 2007.

Web Link

Please understand also, that once given, never taken back! That's the law! That is, EVERY employee today keeps his/her 2.7pct at 55 whatever we do with new employees. That's why it may take years before we see any savings, but it is a start. Want to see REAL savings? Cut employees! Outsource!

So it's not productive to shoot the messenger, focus on the message.




Like this comment
Posted by Lots of unwarranted hate
a resident of Menlo Park: Felton Gables
on Jan 28, 2010 at 8:35 am

"Council Watcher" why do you continue to beat up people on this blog, and other blogs? Ed believes in saving us money, in saving the city money, in making real common sense about how our dollars are being spent. I too am a Democrat (assuming this is what Ned is), I am not part of "Lee's Handlers", I am a citizen that is very tired of the strong armed tactics of the SEIU, and for that matter the Teachers Unions etc. We have to have some common sense applied to how decisions are being made with our dollars. I am very sorry that Lee has so much control over you, and continues to haunt you, you really need to find something else to do!


Like this comment
Posted by POGO
a resident of Woodside: other
on Jan 28, 2010 at 9:25 am

Lots of unwarranted hate -

But that's what exactly what they do. The opposition can't make their points on facts or principle because the evidence is irrefutable. Our current pension system is simply not sustainable. Again, ask an autoworker how those rich benefit packages worked out!

So they resort to the usual tactic of attacking the messenger. Council Watcher charged that "Lee is just trying to get re-elected!" when Lee has already said that she's not running. If you look at Council Watcher's posts, they never address the issue - he/she just makes an unsubstantiated broadside or insult and walks away.

How do you argue with them? Answer: You don't because they don't have the will or capability to engage in a real discussion.

Fortunately, our citizens are pretty smart and I think most of them want to see this situation resolved. If the Council won't do, a citizen referendum will.


Like this comment
Posted by Interested
a resident of another community
on Jan 28, 2010 at 9:52 am

POGO

Actually a citizen referendum WONT. You can waste a fortune trying to change the pension provided by the City of Menlo Park and you will get nowhere. Schwarzenegger could not do it, Rickman could not do it.

The Fact is that Calpers needs to be changed from a Defined Benefit scheme to a Defined Contribution scheme as Moritz stated. Don't waste your time and money on a local ballot. It needs to be Statewide.


Like this comment
Posted by council watcher
a resident of Menlo Park: Belle Haven
on Jan 28, 2010 at 10:15 am

Exactly, interested. Council is doing as well as could be expected,given the constraints. It's easy to attack them when you can hide behind a pseudonym but that doesn't accomplish much, does it? This "pension initiative" may generate a lot of heat, but no light.

Pointing fingers at the "opposition" makes no sense because no one here has defended the pensions! We all want to get them under control; the issue is how best to go about it. Let's say the initiative gets on the ballot and wins. What then? A lot of money and time will have been spent...to what end? Seems to me that our council is making progress on this issue(and cherrypicking articles to show their alleged support for unions is a pretty cheap tactic.)


Like this comment
Posted by POGO
a resident of Woodside: other
on Jan 28, 2010 at 10:29 am

Interested -

You are factually incorrect. Every city and town has the ability to set their own retirement benefits and they are vastly different from city to city. Yes, the funds are managed by Calpers, but they deliver benefits individually as prescribed by each plan.

One city can have a "2% at 60" plan, another "3% at 50" plan. It's their choice.

Menlo Park is free to establish a new, second tier for all new hires that won't impact current employees. Other cities have already done this and there are A TON of links at this site: Web Link

And the cost of a referendum election should be the least of your worries. As I said earlier, the cost of an election is currently the equivalent of about a week of Menlo Park's pension payments. Left unchecked, in a couple of years that same election will be the equivalent of just one day of the city's pension liability.

As I said, this is totally unsustainable and everyone knows it. The only question is who will have the guts to do something about it?


Like this comment
Posted by truth
a resident of Menlo Park: Belle Haven
on Jan 28, 2010 at 11:30 am

Once again, there is a two tier offer on the table.

It is just not the libertarian's offer, so they won't support it. Look at the offer on the SEIU website referred to in this article and tell me, in real dollara, how 2 at 60 is so much better.

Just 2 at 60. Don't start acting like you have the plan.

Cost sharing when CalPers hits over 14.57% -- taking the sole risk off the city
Medical premiums 50/50 share
No wage increases for two years

This is immediate return, potential for immediate reform on all employees.

This mean immediate $$ for our city.

POGO runs away from this stuff. Has no real idea what the offer is, would rather have ambiguous lecture debates about behavior.

This current council has already secured a more reform than the past council did. For all the talk, that past council failed miserably. Ed, if you want integrity on this, take Lee and her minions out of the equation. Her failed term lingers like a mold.


Like this comment
Posted by Interested
a resident of another community
on Jan 28, 2010 at 12:43 pm

Pogo... Nothing in my post is factually incorrect. Read it again. I am not opposed to what Moritz/DuBoc are attempting to do.In fact I agree with them.

The point is that until a Statewide initiative to amend Calpers benefits is proffered, Menlo Park will be peeing into the wind.

Again, I agree with the proposal, but the money and effort would be better spent in joining Rickman


Like this comment
Posted by Interested
a resident of another community
on Jan 28, 2010 at 12:48 pm

Oh and Pogo just for your edification...While the City may set its "contributions" to Calpers, you might be amazed to learn that in fact Calpers has and undoubtedly will again, increase benefits to its members whether or not the contracting agency agrees....


You have very little knowledge


Like this comment
Posted by Lee Duboc
a resident of Menlo Park: Central Menlo Park
on Jan 28, 2010 at 1:59 pm

It may be of interest to the readers to know that a little over two weeks ago I took my inspiration from Willie Brown -- hardly a "right winger". Here is what the former Mayor and Speaker said in his article in the S.F. Chronicle:

'The deal used to be that civil servants were paid less than private sector workers in exchange for an understaind that they had job security for life.

But we politicians, pushed by our friends in labor, gradually expanded pay and benefits to private-sector levels while keeping the job protections and layering on incredibly generous retirement packages that pay ex-workerd almost as much as current worers.

Taling about this is politically unpopular and potentially even career suicide for most officeholders. But at some point, someone is going to have to get honest about the fact that 80 percent of the state, county and city budget deficits are due to employee costs.

Either we do something about it at the ballot box, or a judge will do something about it in Bankruptcy Court. And if you think I'm kidding, just look at Vallejo.'

Unquote -- I don't know about you, but I don't want to wait around for Menlo Park to get that low down.


Like this comment
Posted by POGO
a resident of Woodside: other
on Jan 28, 2010 at 2:30 pm

Interested - Thank you for such a thoughtful, well informed post. If you want to wait for statewide pension reform, you may be waiting for quite a long time. There is simply no need for Menlo Park to hire another new employee that has an unsustainable pension plan that will break the bank some number of years down the road.

Again, cities are free to establish their own pension benefit plans - or even multiple plans - and Calpers does not override them as you suggest. Calpers can, during good times, overfund a plan with their investment gains - but that's hardly an issue today given Calper's miserable investment performance during the past few years (and I'm not sure they'll ever do that again anyway).

And by the way, it's Richman, not Rickman. But what would I know...

Lee - Thank you for what you are doing. Even though I don't live in Menlo Park, I appreciate seeing someone willing to absorb the insults and take on what is surely a thankless task. As Teddy Roosevelt said, "it is not the critic who counts... the credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena."


Like this comment
Posted by Interested
a resident of another community
on Jan 28, 2010 at 6:25 pm

Well Pogo, in that case perhaps you can tell us exactly when the City of Menlo Park voted to become part of the Calpers group pension pool rather than remaining independent.


Like this comment
Posted by POGO
a resident of Woodside: other
on Jan 29, 2010 at 11:51 am

I'm not sure what your question has to do with anything but I suspect Menlo Park selected Calpers for the very same reason you probably use an investment firm to manage your IRA or 401(k).

That is precisely what Calpers does - it manages pension plans and investments for California governments. I suppose a local government could manage their retirement plans themselves, but they would have to hire their own investment professionals, actuaries, etc. and, in addition to being expensive and impractical, it would be very risky (especially if they invested in things like Enron, like Calpers did).

But local governments are completely free to select their own benefits packages and retirement plans - there is no "fixed plan" mandated by Calpers. Calpers manages to each client's (city, county, state, etc.) requirements.


Like this comment
Posted by Interested
a resident of another community
on Jan 29, 2010 at 12:38 pm

No that was not was I was getting at. Several years ago CalPers created pools based on the the number of employees an agency had. The City was not given an option on this and it increases the monthly contribution the City makes. Calpers has on more than one occasion granted new benefits in this way. The point I am trying to make is that Calpers needs reform.


Like this comment
Posted by POGO
a resident of Woodside: other
on Jan 29, 2010 at 1:37 pm

TODAY (Friday, January 29, 2010), South San Francisco (SSF) announced "City approves two-tiered retirement benefits... new hires in South San Francisco will now received reduced benefits." Here's the link: Web Link

Here are the details. Current SSF city employees are eligible for 2.7% of their wages at age 55 based on one year of compensation (multiplied by their years of service). That one year basis means that employees "blow out the doors" to get overtime and have as much income in their last year to inflate their retirement pay. From now on, new hires will be provided a 2% benefit at age 60 based on the average of three years of compensation.

A lot of you have said we couldn't do this. This was done by a neighboring city TODAY. Of course, we could wait around for Sacramento to fix it as some have suggested. Yeah, right...


Like this comment
Posted by Interested
a resident of another community
on Jan 29, 2010 at 9:03 pm

All those people in SSF getting in lots of overtime to pad their pensions are going to be disappointed. Overtime is not included when calculating Calpers benefits.


Sorry, but further commenting on this topic has been closed.

Couples: Philosophy of Love
By Chandrama Anderson | 0 comments | 1,611 views

Trials of My Grandmother
By Aldis Petriceks | 2 comments | 1,137 views

Lakes and Larders (part 2)
By Laura Stec | 0 comments | 885 views