An appeal of a San Jose pension reform ruling that could cause the state Supreme Court to revisit “vested rights” may be halted by a settlement with unions, if candidates aligned with the policies of Mayor Chuck Reed are defeated next month.
Labor unions opposed to the pension reform are backing a candidate for mayor to replace Reed (barred by term limits from seeking a third four-year term) and three candidates for open city council seats, more than enough to shift the power balance.
Reed has been operating with a thin margin of support, at times just one vote, in a weak mayor system that has 10 council members in addition to the mayor. He helped one ally, Rose Herrera, win re-election two years ago despite heavy union opposition.
A Reed-backed measure approved by 69 percent of San Jose voters two years ago has a provision that does what critics of “unsustainable” pensions, such as the watchdog Little Hoover Commission, think is the key to controlling runaway employer costs.
Pension amounts already earned by current workers would be protected, but the pensions they earn in the future could be reduced. Cuts of this kind are allowed for private-sector pensions.
In California, state court rulings, a key one in 1955, are believed to mean the pension offered state and local government workers when hired becomes a “vested right,” protected by contract law, that can only be cut if offset by a comparable new benefit.
So most pension reforms are limited to new hires, which can take years or decades to produce significant cost savings for employers, depending on the rate of employee turnover.
The San Jose pension reform challenged the conventional view that the pensions of current California government workers cannot be cut, relying in part on a city charter provision that reserves the right to change pensions.
Measure B gives current workers an option: Pay much more to cover the pension “unfunded liability” or debt and keep earning the old pension amount, or avoid the big contribution rate hike (about 16 percent of pay) by earning a lower pension.
Last December Superior Court Judge Patricia Lucas upheld 12 of the 15 provisions in Measure B. She ruled that making employees pay the unfunded liability by increasing their pension contribution rate was a violation of vested rights.
The judge upheld a fallback provision allowing the unfunded liability, if the employee rate hike is not allowed by the courts, to be paid by employees through a similar cut in their pay.
Reed said last week the city council has agreed not to attempt a pay cut until next July and has instructed staff to negotiate an extension, while awaiting an appeal of the judge’s ruling. He is optimistic the city would win an appeal.
“It’s been a long time since the California Supreme Court had a clear shot at the issues on vested rights,” Reed said. “Lawyers will disagree, so we will have to wait and see.”
Reed and others have cited a lengthy analysis by Amy Monahan of the University of Minnesota Law School that looks at the origin of the “California Rule” said to prevent cuts in pensions offered at hire, arguing that it’s an error.
A 17-page California Public Employees Retirement System legal brief issued three years ago on member vested rights said “Rule 1” is that the pension benefits of current workers can go up, but not down without their consent.
Police magazine cover on mayoral candidates Cortese (left) and Liccardo
If elected, the labor-backed candidate for mayor, Dave Cortese, a county supervisor and former city councilman, is expected to push for a settlement of union suits against Measure B, including the current-worker option and lower pensions for new hires.
The other candidate for mayor, Sam Liccardo, a councilman, worked with Reed on Measure B. Liccardo is endorsed by Reed and three former San Jose mayors. Cortese is endorsed by four former San Jose police chiefs.
A key issue is whether the Measure B pension reforms endanger public safety, further reducing the police force and curbing recruitment. A San Jose police force that once was 1,400 has been reduced to about 900.
Reed said rising retirement costs and budget cuts reduced the police officers to 1,100 before Measure B passed. Since then injuries, vacancies and other factors have dropped the number to about 900 “street-ready” officers.
Police agreed to a 10 percent pay cut to avoid 150 layoffs, Reed said, but now a new contract is restoring the pay cut. He said the city council wants an additional 250 police officers and has added a third training academy.
The police union contends that most of the first new training graduates this fall will leave, due to low pay and pensions. And the police union president, Jim Unland, predicts that 200 officers may leave if Liccardo is elected.
Savings from Measure B are expected to help pay for more police. Reed said more than $50 million will be saved over two fiscal years by eliminating a “13th check” pension bonus for retirees and a change in the lowest-cost retiree health care plan providing full coverage.
At a city council meeting last week, Reed said, staff said the lower pensions authorized by Measure B for new police and firefighters will save the city $65,000 a year per person, compared to current pensions, and $35,000 a year per person for other employees.
In the October issue of the police union magazine, Vanguard, Unland said the city should have negotiated with the unions on the “13th check” and retiree health care to find a solution that would have avoided a court battle.
Lower pensions for new hires are part of the reason for an “en masse departure” of new recruits who receive training costing an average of $170,000, he said, which means “this failed experiment has in fact cost the city, dearly.”
Unland said a pension plan for new hires developed by the union with the aid of the city would save the city $300 million over the next 15 years. But the proposal was “scuttled” by Liccardo and other Measure B supporters on the city council.
In the courts, the trial record of the Measure B ruling has not yet been prepared and delivered to the court of appeal. The city also awaits IRS approval of the current-worker option, along with a similar Orange County plan negotiated in 2009.
“It’s in their work plan,” said Reed, who has made several trips in the last six months to urge IRS approval of the option. “There is a great deal of resistance by the national unions who are lobbying against anything that might give employees a choice.”
Last October Reed and four other mayors filed an initiative for a state constitutional amendment giving state and local governments the authority to lower the pensions current workers earn in the future, while protecting pensions already earned.
Reed and the mayors dropped the initiative when state Attorney General Kamala gave the proposal an “inaccurate and misleading” title and ballot summary. After a superior court declined to order a change, the mayors filed an appeal in August.
Reporter Ed Mendel covered the Capitol in Sacramento for nearly three decades, most recently for the San Diego Union-Tribune. More stories are at Calpensions.com. Posted 13 Oct 14
Calpensions 
October 13, 2014 at 4:27 pm
Once again Mr. Mendel mis-states the California Rule on pensions. In the 1955 case he cited, there was a Charter provision that gave existing workers and retiree’s a vested pension right(see earlier Kern case related to the same matter). They did not gain a vested pension right by simply accepting employment. The Rule requires the existence of a Charter provision or a statute that can be interpreted to grant a vested pension right. Then, and only then do employees confirm a vested pension right by accepting employment.
After the 1955 case(Allen v. City of Long Beach) San Jose became a Charter City with a provision in its Charter that gave its city council the power to amend and replace any San Jose pension system. The Charter specifically protected the pension rights of then employees and retirees. But as to all new hires after adoption of the Charter, they were new hires and subject to the charter provision that allows the reduction and even elimination of pensions(except for active contracts(MOUs). That provision in the Charter was obviously the Charter lawyers reaction to the 1955 case.
As Mr. Mendel says, pension reform only applies to “new hires.” All of the San Jose employees in the current controversy were hired after the 1955 case and more importantly after the adoption of the San Jose Charter. Judge Lucas simply missed the “new hire” issue.
October 14, 2014 at 12:13 am
Mr. Cortese is my county supervisor (he ran unopposed) and I voted for him, but I do not believe him up to the task of dealing with San Jose’s severe budget situation. He has done little as a county supervisor to deal with unfunded pension liabilities for Santa Clara County. Despite being the heart of Silicon Valley, SCC is dead man walking fiscally with its pension liability. But some other set of supervisors will have to deal with the shortfall, because the current set basically ignored the problem. I don’t find it realistic to think that he’ll be hard-nosed with the city unions as mayor. Bellarmine graduate or not, I don’t think math is his strong suit.
October 14, 2014 at 12:29 am
Why anybody would listen to the “legal advice” of John Moore is beyond me. Just ask anybody who followed his pontifications in support of two Pacific Grove initiatives, both thrown off the ballot by a court.
Moore now claims that only San Jose City employees hired in 1955 are covered by the charter protection of pensions. Pure comedy gold!!
I reprint below the holding from Legislature v. Eu, a 1991 California Supreme Court ruling on Prop 140, which would have forbidden legislators who were in the exisiting pension system from continue to accrue more benefits as they continued to serve..
” Although Proposition 140 by its terms assures that incumbent legislators’ right to receive vested pension benefits will not be lost or diminished, the measure also purports to terminate their collateral right to accrue additional benefits through further contributions and continued service to the state. According to petitioners, the applicable principle is set forth in Miller v. State of California, supra, 18 Cal.3d at page 817:
“[U]pon acceptance of public employment plaintiff acquired a vested right to a pension based on the system then in effect. “John Moore could not be more wrong on the “California rule” if he tried.
“In response to petitioners’ assertions, respondent Eu and intervener first contend that incumbent legislators do not have a vested right under the LRS to continue to accrue pension benefits through continued service. In this regard, they suggest that article IV, section 4, of the state Constitution precludes legislators from acquiring any vested right to continue to earn pension benefits. WE DISAGREE.” (emphasis added)
TO MAKE IT CLEAR (hint, John Moore) here is how the Supreme Court summed up the “California rule”:
“We hold that, under California law, all incumbent legislators acquired a vested right to earn additional pension benefits through continued service, a right which Proposition 140 clearly impairs.”
So, as the Judge correctly ruled in San Jose, the City cannot under the California Constitution impair the right of San Jose employees to continue to accrue their pension benefits under the formula they agreed to upon hire.
Oh, and by the way, for Chuck Reed and others who seem to believe the California Supreme Court will ignore more than 60 years of precedent because some law professor thinks they incorrectly decided the California rule from the get-go,———here is what the Supreme Court wrote in the Eu case , in dealing with the argument that the furture pension accruals were not also protected under the federal contract clause.:
“We agree with Lyon v. Flournoy, that, in light of prior California decisions consistently extending federal contract clause protection to state public officers,IT IS SIMPLY “TOO LATE” TO RETREAT FROM THE CLEAR IMPLICATION OF THOSE HOLDINGS.. We conclude that THE PENSION RESTRICTIONS OF PROPOSITION 140 ARE UNCONSTITUTIONAL under the federal contract clause AS APPLIED TO INCUMBENT LEGISLATORS BECAUSE THEY INFRINGE ON THE VESTED PENSION RIGHTS OF THOSE PERSONS.” (emphasis added)
October 14, 2014 at 3:26 am
The cases you cite all had statutes that provided a vested right. I was not involved in either of the initiative cases that you cite. And Eu in particular had a statute that gave vested pension rights. You seem especially ignorant about this area of the law. The very essence of “vested rights” is whether a statute granted rights that can’t be repealed. Think!
October 14, 2014 at 5:05 am
Berryessa Chillin’ Says: “Mr. Cortese is my county supervisor (he ran unopposed) and I voted for him, but I do not believe him up to the task of dealing with San Jose’s severe budget situation. He has done little as a county supervisor to deal with unfunded pension liabilities for Santa Clara County. Despite being the heart of Silicon Valley, SCC is dead man walking fiscally with its pension liability. But some other set of supervisors will have to deal with the shortfall, because the current set basically ignored the problem. I don’t find it realistic to think that he’ll be hard-nosed with the city unions as mayor. Bellarmine graduate or not, I don’t think math is his strong suit.”
The only thing Mr.Cortese will do, IMO, is unwind all the forward thinking progress demonstrated by the current Mayor & Council. Mr. Cortese is at least two steps backwards for the City of San Jose taxpayers, and that’s what the public employee unions are counting on.
I don’t believe all employee union members actually support their unions agenda. And I also don’t believe that all employees believe what the PD & FD are preaching. They are certianly the two entities with the most to gain and that doesn’t necessarily bode well for the other unions.
I no longer live in SJ, but if I did I surely wouldn’t vote for Cortese or any of the other Union funded Candidates.
October 14, 2014 at 6:39 am
Pete Says: ….
Pete, why are you defending a pension plan that allows for 13TH CHECKS TO RETIREES, essentially a bonus payment to retirees while at the same time taxpayers are are being asked to provide outrageous sums of money to ensure these pension are made whole – even while hundreds of millions of dollars are going out the back door. The Police & Fire UNIONS are complaigning about the 13TH CHECK being eliminated but it sounds like they’re nothing but crooks, and they are in this instance.
Pete says: “Oh, and by the way, for Chuck Reed and others who seem to believe the California Supreme Court will ignore more than 60 years of precedent because some law professor thinks they incorrectly decided the California rule from the get-go”
– you do know you’re refering to two very weak cases that most people disagree with, while COMPLETELY IGNORING the SJ charter language that clearly reserves the right to adjust pensions. Sixty years of precedent? I don’t think so! Nothing more than two very weak cases that happened many decades ago.
Pete, how much are they paying you to fight the good fight? Why are your clients afraid to allow this issue to go through the appeals courts?
October 15, 2014 at 2:28 am
Sorry, John Moore, but the law is crystal clear.
As the Supreme Court ruled in Betts v. Board of Administration,
“A public employee’s pension constitutes an element of compensation, and a vested contractual right to pension benefits accrues upon acceptance of employment. Such a pension right may not be destroyed, once vested, without impairing a contractual obligation of the employing public entity.
In 2011, Orange County v Assocation of Orange County Deputy Sheriffs, the Court rejected Orange County’s attempt to rescind the retroactive pension increases they had granted in 2001. The court wrote:
“The pension rights of AOCDS members employed on June 28, 2002 vested when they accepted public employment. (Miller, supra, 18 Cal.3d at p. 817.) …. The AOCDS members’ contractual pension expectations include not only those benefits in effect when they accepted employment, but also those conferred during their tenure.”
It’s crystal clear, John Moore, crystal clear.
And, John Moore, the internet is a wonderful thing, because it contains an easy way to find the truth. I did not accuse you of being involved in the Pacific Grove pension initiatives when heard by the court, I questioned why anybody would listen to you and your PONTFIICATIONS regarding those initiaives. And, yes, you were neck deep in both initiatives summarily tossed out of court by Judge Willis—he knew the two initiatives, including one attacking vested rights, were loony tunes and unconstitutional.
You have admitted you helped in drafting the first initiative, Measure R. As a local newspaper reported:
“The city has spent over $100,000 defending the police law suit and the city will probably pay more than that for the police attorneys,” said resident John Moore, who contributed to the initiative. “But that is peanuts compared to the millions it will cost in future pension by losing a case that could not be lost.”
http://www.pineconearchive.com/130524-2.html
THAT excerpt, John, examplifies both your involvment and your pontifications on the measure R, tossed rudely out of court.
As for the second initiaitve which was also summarily tossed, the Monterey County Weekly on March 28, 2013, wrote “John Moore of the P.G. Taxpayers Association, a leader of the citizens’ movement to repeal “3 at 50…”
http://www.montereycountyweekly.com/news/local_news/article_13a6ce1c-7aea-5c67-a98b-b2c51e2306e4.html
It’s clear listening to your advice is the quickest way to a court defeat!
October 15, 2014 at 2:44 am
Hey Capt,
Let’s try to stay on point here. The question presented in Ed’s blog post is whether the court will retreat from its vested rights rulings, the so called “California rule.”
While you might feverently hope the courts will reverse court, ain’t going to happen. In fact, in 2011, a unanimous California Supreme Court extended the California doctrine of vested rights for public emmployees to include benefits which aren’t even written in a contract, but implied by action by a political body
As the court wrote, the question was:
Whether, as a matter of Californialaw, a California county and its employees can form an implied contract thatconfers vested rights to health benefits on retired county employees.”
The answer:
“we conclude that, underCalifornia law, a vested right to health benefits for retired county employees can be implied under certain circumstances from a county ordinance or resolution.”
Retired Employees of Orange County vs County of Orange (2011).
Doesn’t sound like the California Supreme Court has any problem upholding vested rights, both 70 years ago and now.
October 15, 2014 at 3:55 pm
What happens if math shows that a city has to lay off everyone, and that the pension funding is the only expense that can be made? Would that be a problem, or is that just following the constitution?
October 16, 2014 at 1:59 am
Mike, Not “What happens if ….”, it’s “What will happen WHEN …..”.
October 16, 2014 at 5:21 am
The pension expense can’t be the only one that can be made, because pension payments are a percentage of payroll. There are a lot of things that go into play when an entity becomes unsustainable. Mismanagement and economic conditions are factors before pension funding which is just another line item on the budget.
October 16, 2014 at 4:26 pm
Of course it can be the only expense if the bank is empty after paying the pension funding. If the Calpers funding was based on a average life span of 125, that is probably where we would be. That is not pie in the sky.
October 16, 2014 at 7:52 pm
It can never be the only expense because it is a percentage of payroll! Without the payroll, there is no payment for the pension!!!!
October 16, 2014 at 10:14 pm
Seesaw
Of course u are correct there is no other payment
Why bother trying to explain anything to these lost zealots
October 16, 2014 at 10:23 pm
Ok, if there is no money after paying the payroll, what is the solution?
October 16, 2014 at 11:24 pm
Then they have mismanaged, haven’t they.
October 16, 2014 at 11:43 pm
Seesaw, that isn’t how it works. If there were ZERO employees’ CalPERs would still charge that customer for everything other than the “normal cost” of pensions – the unfunded liability. The unfunded liability doesn’t go away – and it’s about to be 3-4 times the normal cost. So most of the bill is still due, for decades to come, even if there were nobody left to send the bill to.
Think of the “normal cost” of pensions as a variable cost dependent on the number of employees. Conversely, think of the unfunded liability as a fixed cost which sum is independent of employees. While you can divide the normal cost by zero and get zero, you can’t do that with the unfunded liability. The unfunded liability is what is – and it most cases it is financially devestating number to most california cities, special districts, and school districts.
“SeeSaw Says: It can never be the only expense because it is a percentage of payroll! Without the payroll, there is no payment for the pension!!!!”
SeeSaw, I wish it were that easy. Maybe if you actually understood the mechanics of pension funding you’d think differently. I doubt it, but I like to think so. Theoretically, you can have zero employees and still owe over two billion dollars in pension debt (think San Jose). San Jose could eliminate their entire work force and still owe over two billion dollars just to employee pensions – for work that has already been performed and/or for excess pension benefits that were GIFTED to employees that were already paid for their work.
October 17, 2014 at 2:00 am
Oh Captain, aren’t you and Tennile touring retirement communities across the Midwest? At the risk of interjecting intelligence and facts…here I go again on my own…going down the only road I’ve ever known…
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/public-employee-pensions-did-not-trigger-bankruptcies/2014/10/13/d678c3ba-521d-11e4-b86d-184ac281388d_story.html
“There are approximately 39,000 local governments in the United States. There have been five municipal bankruptcies since 2010. Hyperbole trumps analysis when that amounts to a “wave.”
These bankruptcies were triggered by the unique problems of each city. None was caused by “unsustainable” pensions of public service workers. (The average annual pension for an American Federation of State, County & Municipal Employees member after a career of service is $19,000.) The problems in Stockton, Calif., were spurred by poor planning and overdevelopment. Detroit was hurt by the North American Free Trade Agreement and a population and commercial exodus to the suburbs. Two others suffered when major defense facilities closed (can you say Vallejo?).”
I salute your informed intelligence SeeSaw!
October 17, 2014 at 2:09 am
Yes, a failure of money management. You or I could not live beyond our means and sleep well.
October 17, 2014 at 5:32 am
Captain, regardless of how much the pension bill is, its still a percentage of payroll. I used to figure the personnel budget for my division. The salary is first; then the benefits, including a certain percentage for pension.
Yes, Mike we are frugal in our own personal lives. We don’t have to allocate several million dollars for a certain number of line items on our own budgets. You are certainly aware that a government entity is not run like a private business or household.
October 17, 2014 at 5:37 am
Bille, the fact that you can post a link to an opinion piece (a dime a dozen) means very little. In case you aren’t aware, at least three California cities have recently filed bankruptcy. Some of the largest California cities are on the brink. That the pension funds are currently well into the red during the current FY doesn’t bode well for the future. It means costs will escalate even faster than all the low-ball projections coming from the public employee unions, CalPERS, CalSTRS, and all the County Funds. The cry for more TAX revenue will never end ….
Things aren’t looking good, Bille. I know what your thinking, we need to raise taxes and eliminate Prop 13. The truth is we have raised taxes at the state, county, and local level already. Fees have been increased to ridiculous levels for just about everything, and the Prop 13 laws have already been basterdized using parcel taxes & Bonds to no-where, or Pension Obligation Bonds.
It is well beyond time that this state gets its cost structure in order. Until that happens every tax & every fee is nothing more than another form of extracting middle-class income to fund over-priced and overpampered government employees, their bloated pensions, and he rest of their ridiculous and over-the-top benefits.
Go Giants!
October 17, 2014 at 7:38 am
Your jealousy is showing Captain–its not pretty.
October 17, 2014 at 8:08 am
Pete Says: “Hey Capt,
Let’s try to stay on point here. The question presented in Ed’s blog post is whether the court will retreat from its vested rights rulings, the so called “California rule.””
– Not so, Pete, and you don’t get to define the argument. What the point is, really:
“An appeal of a San Jose pension reform ruling that could cause the state Supreme Court to revisit “vested rights” may be halted by a settlement with unions, if candidates aligned with the policies of Mayor Chuck Reed are defeated next month.”
The Blog has more to do with Union Controlled Politics, Lies, and Scare Tactics being perpetrated by the San Jose unions in order to “derail (any) pension ‘rights’ ruling.” In other words, the unions are all-in when it comes to funding their favored candidates to make sure this issue never makes it to a judge. Isn’t that really what the article is about, Pete? And isn’t that what concerns you and your clients most?
October 17, 2014 at 5:04 pm
We also operate our household frugally paying as little for essentials, meager luxuries, and avoid all taxes legally…drive the oldest car, buy at garage sales, shop for deals, grow own vegetables. I know businesses that are frugal. It is rare to find govt that is. Jerry Brown is only frugal compared to his peers in govt. He does a great job of repeating a lie long enough, so it is perceived as real, by those who can be manipulated. A friend of mine works for the state. He gets free mass transit passes for commuting, gas money if he has to drive to a work location, state vehicles upon request for daily use. He is puzzled by my frugality, believes the governor that California is a growth engine, but is looking to move to Nevada for retirement. He calculates his state police pension is taxed too much in Cal.
October 17, 2014 at 6:04 pm
Your friend will be required to count the free mass transit passes as income, if it is a regular benefit. Of course he gets reimbursement if he drives his own care to a work location, and a state vehicle to drive to state business–that is standard. You should not be envious of your friend–it is not pretty.
Many CalPERS retirees take their money and go to state income tax-free states. They are welcome–if I had my druthers the state would enact a service charge on the funds that it administers and must send, tax-free, to those retirees.
October 17, 2014 at 6:30 pm
SeeSaw, regarding your comment “Captain, regardless of how much the pension bill is, its still a percentage of payroll. I used to figure the personnel budget for my division. The salary is first; then the benefits, including a certain percentage for pension.”
That is how pension contributions are collected now. But since CalPERS has the ability to bill a city for its share of unfunded liabilities, the city council of such a zero-employee city would be forced to appropriate funds from the general budget to pay the bill or watch CalPERS slash the pension benefits of its retired employees.
The Hotel California, CalPERS-style: you can check out, but you can never leave.
October 18, 2014 at 2:19 am
Capt
Nope, the real issue is how much more money the City of San Jose wants to waste on the fruitless appeal. It’s cost them millions so far to lose and will cost millions more if they continue…because they will end up paying not only their legal costs but the costs of the other side.
You would think San Jose would have learned from the Orange County court experience when Orange County ried to get a court to let them roll back retroactive requirements.
Here’s three stories about the four year long, multi-million dollar fiasco of a lawsuit by Orange County. Orange County listened to a local “Chuck Reed” named John Moorlach, and that cost the County more that $5 million in legal fees of their own for the legal goose chase. And, the County had to pay an additional $1.3 milllon in legal fees to the other side.
https://www.voiceofoc.org/countywide/this_just_in/article_5194d7ce-299a-11e0-a995-001cc4c03286.html
https://abubblingcauldron.blogspot.com/2011/10/county-to-pay-13-million-in-legal-fees_05.html
https://www.ocregister.com/taxdollars/strong-478015-county-court.html
San Jose will be lucky is sane voices prevail and end this fruitless appeal.
October 18, 2014 at 5:13 pm
BC, that is the only time when a municipality has unfunded pension liabilities–when it didn’t pay the bill or doesn’t plan to pay its bills in the future. I think all municipalities should stay focused on paying their bills and determining what they need to do to stay solvent. They should ignore the, “sky is falling”, people who are addicted to misery–without it they would be all alone.
October 19, 2014 at 2:19 am
Quoting SeeSaw …. “BC, that is the only time when a municipality has unfunded pension liabilities–when it didn’t pay the bill or doesn’t plan to pay its bills in the future.”
Really ???
Suppose the funding ratio is exactly 100% (Ok, stop laughing, it’s just an example) and CalPERS employee & employer contributions for the year exactly match pension payouts of all types over the year. Also assume CalPERS has investment losses of 25% of assets due to a really bad stock market. and will be actuarially smoothing those losses into actuarial contributions over the next 15 years.
So, are you telling me that in the year following the big loss, even IF a CalPERS entity pays it’s full contribution (and intends to in all future years) that it’s funding ratio remains at 100% (meaning ZERO unfunded liability)?
Of course not … and the more you blather, the more readers realize that you know zilch about pensions (including your own administered by your beloved CalPERS).
October 19, 2014 at 4:57 am
“SeeSaw Says:
October 18, 2014 at 5:13 pm
BC, that is the only time when a municipality has unfunded pension liabilities–when it didn’t pay the bill or doesn’t plan to pay its bills in the future. I think all municipalities should stay focused on paying their bills and determining what they need to do to stay solvent. They should ignore the, “sky is falling”, people who are addicted to misery–without it they would be all alone.”
Seesaw, you know zilch about pensions. Maybe if you received your pension education from someone, or somewhere, other than CalPERS ….
October 19, 2014 at 5:07 am
Pete, I couldn’t disagree with you more. And what happened in O.C. is specific to O.C. I think the judge made that point. In S.J., there is specific language in the contracts that reserve the city’s right to adjust.
If you’re clients are so sure of themselves why did they hire you to run interference? And why are they/you so focused of discrediting everyone, including myself (I don’t even live in S.J.), while also continuing to flat out lie to the public.
Again, The Blog has more to do with Union Controlled Politics, Lies, and Scare Tactics being perpetrated by the San Jose unions in order to “derail (any) pension ‘rights’ ruling.” In other words, the unions are all-in when it comes to funding their favored candidates to make sure this issue never makes it to a judge. Isn’t that really what the article is about, Pete? And isn’t that what concerns you and your clients most?
The Unions have been lying to the public all the way back to the time they claimed they brought a pension proposal to the bargaing table that would save the city 500 million over tens years. The plan, smoke, mirrors, and lies really – never even existed. the was never a plan that would actually save anything close to 500 million. In fact, what the unions were proposing would have added probably twice that amount to the final tab. Defering debt does not save money!
October 19, 2014 at 7:08 am
There was precedent everywhere that played into the Court’s decision in the Orange County vs. Orange County Sheriffs lawsuit. Many previous cases are cited in the written decision. There is no precedent established so far in the Stockton bankruptcy case.
October 24, 2014 at 5:38 am
You are 100% correct seesaw
October 24, 2014 at 8:44 pm
I think it’s true that the San Jose Police Officer Association has told their academy members to find work elsewhwere. They are implying that anyone coming to work is,essentially, a scab employee. Vallejo did the same thing.
The SJPOA is trying to manufacture a crisis that doesn’t exist.