SAN JOSE — The San Jose City Council voted 6-to-5 this week to place a pension reform measure on the June ballot that takes on what the Little Hoover Commission called “the elephant in the room,” a way to reduce the cost of pensions promised current workers.
As state and local governments face rising pension costs while a weak economy forces deep budget cuts, the San Jose council’s plan is the biggest and boldest proposal yet by elected officials to reduce pension costs widely believed to be legally untouchable.
Mayor Chuck Reed had talked about declaring a fiscal emergency to reduce pensions earned by current workers in the future. Now he is talking about the city charter specifying minimum benefits provided by the city’s two independent pension systems.
“We are way beyond the minimum since the charter was put in place,” Reed said before the vote Tuesday. “The benefits have been modified probably a dozen times or so. But the charter reserves the right to roll back those benefits, at least back to the charter minimum. So that’s a power that we have that many other cities don’t have. Certainly cities in CalPERS are all different than us.”
Under the plan, employees could continue to earn their current pensions if they help pay off half of the pension system’s huge debt. Their contributions could increase up to 5 percent of pay each year, capped at a total increase of 25 percent of pay.
Or current employees could choose to keep pension amounts earned so far and earn lower pensions in the future, working longer to receive the full amount. City officials predict workers in the new plan would pay less for their pensions than they do now.
The cost-of-living adjustment for retiree pensions, 3 percent, could be suspended in a fiscal emergency. New hires would receive a lower pension, pay at least half the total cost and the city contribution would be capped at 9 percent of pay.
Overflow room at San Jose City Council meeting
Tuesday, the council also voted to delay the declaration of a fiscal emergency. The city’s budget gap shrank after a new actuary estimate last week said police and firefighter pension costs will drop next year not increase, mainly due to layoffs and pay cuts.
Robert Sapien, president of the San Jose firefighters union, told the council the $55 million reduction in expected pension costs undercut their “months, even years” of “preparing to create an emergency.”
Instead of delaying a declaration of emergency to an unspecified date, Sapien said the council “should be dropping this piece of your political agenda that has done nothing but terrorize workers.”
The legal views of Reed, a Stanford law school graduate and long-time attorney, were questioned by one of the five council members opposed to the plan, Ash Kalra, a Lincoln Law School professor who worked in the county public defender’s office.
“It was already a horrible case legally,” Kalra said. “We really don’t have cases to back up our legal position, and now we don’t even have the fiscal emergency argument.”
He said a memo indicates the “reservation of rights clause, which you know is legally a very weak clause and is unlikely to withstand any challenge, is being held up as how we can go forward without impairment of contract. We know that’s not true.”
Kalra said he agreed with the view of a Silicon Valley Chamber of Commerce representative who told the council that the measure, needed to end years of budget cuts and the erosion of the “quality of life,” is likely to be approved by voters.
A new statewide Field Poll issued yesterday found that two-thirds of likely voters think pension reforms should apply to current workers as well as new hires. A plurality think state and local pensions are too generous.
Kalra suggested that voter approval of the San Jose measure would result in an expensive legal battle. He said Orange County spent $2 million on its legal fees and $1.3 million on union legal fees after losing a suit to overturn a retroactive pension increase.
His motion to have the city attorney estimate the cost of legal fees and potential damages was changed before approval. The council will decide in closed session what estimates to make public, protecting legal strategy and other attorney-client matters.
Like Kalra, several council members who opposed putting the measure on the June ballot said there is a need for pension reform. But they said an agreement should be bargained with unions before taking the measure to the voters.
Councilwoman Nancy Pyle suggested that a union-backed pension reform could be paired with a sales-tax increase. Others said voter approval of a contested measure could result in a lengthy court battle delaying pension savings for years.
As she made the motion to put the measure on the June ballot, Vice Mayor Madison Nguyen said she hopes the action will prompt unions to seek mediation. The measure can be changed until a deadline in early March.
Reed said the ballot measure has several changes that emerged during bargaining with unions. A plan to declare a fiscal emergency last June was delayed until this month to allow more time for talks.
The vote Tuesday was originally scheduled to meet a deadline for placing a measure on a March special election ballot. Pension savings were sought to help close a big budget gap in the new fiscal year beginning in July.
After the actuarial estimate dropped the budget gap to $20 million, the plan for a special election was dropped, saving an estimated $3 million. The council put the measure on the June ballot Tuesday to avoid delays under legislation taking effect Jan. 1.
Gov. Brown signed a union-backed bill in October, AB 646, that allows public employee unions to request a lengthy review by a special fact-finding panel if mediation fails after 30 days.
San Jose is spending more than 20 percent of its general fund on retirement costs. In the last decade the costs tripled, going from $73 million to $245 million this year and, before the new lower estimate, were expected to reach $432 million by 2015-16.
Even after adjusting for inflation, said a city fact sheet, the average annual pension benefit has increased during the last two decades by 75 percent for police and firefighter retirees and 54 percent for other retirees.
The city’s pension contribution for police next year is expected to be about 60 percent of pay, twice as much as the current state contribution for Highway Patrol pensions.
Though located in wealthy Silicon Valley, the state’s third largest city has had budget shortfalls for 11 years in a row, cut 2,000 staff positions, laid off 66 young police officers this year and given staff a 10 percent pay cut.
“Whether or not we declare it, we are in it,” Reed said Tuesday of a fiscal emergency. “The task is to figure out how to get out of it.”
The watchdog Little Hoover Commission said in a report last February “the elephant in the room” is the legal obstacles to reducing the pensions not yet earned by current workers, a cost control available to private pensions.
The nonpartisan Legislative Analyst is among those who think a series of court rulings generally mean that a pension promised a state or local government worker on the date of hire becomes a vested right, protected by contract law.
In San Diego, Mayor Jerry Sanders, Councilman Carl DeMaio and others placed a measure on the June ballot that would switch new city hires to a 401(k)-style investment plan and put a five-year freeze on the pay of current workers that counts toward pensions.
But unable to get even a one-vote majority on the council, they had to gather the voter signatures needed to place an initiative on the ballot.
Reporter Ed Mendel covered the Capitol in Sacramento for nearly three decades, most recently for the San Diego Union-Tribune. More stories are at https://calpensions.com/ Posted 8 Dec 11
Calpensions 
December 8, 2011 at 3:17 pm
Wow— sad—– another city following in Orange County’s losing footsteps…….reservation of rights clauses are so weak no court would uphold such a cut….it appears that this is the only current reference in San Jose’s contract as well…..at least they have a few months to negotiate with the employees, they may talk their way out of the expensive and lengthy loss headed their way.
December 8, 2011 at 5:33 pm
San Jose is spending more than 20 percent of its general fund on retirement costs. In the last decade the costs tripled, going from $73 million to $245 million this year and, before the new lower estimate, were expected to reach $432 million by 2015-16.
40% of the budget going to multi million dollar retire at age 50 pensions for HS educated cops and FFs in 3 short years. Jig is up, CentraL Falls RI time!
Even after adjusting for inflation, said a city fact sheet, the average annual pension benefit has increased during the last two decades by 75 percent for police and firefighter retirees and 54 percent for other retirees.
75% increase inpensions, and probably a 20% increase in cash salary.
The city’s pension contribution for police next year is expected to be about 60 percent of pay, twice as much as the current state contribution for Highway Patrol pensions.
Pensions ALONE account for 60% of the cash salary (and even that is probably way too low based on a realistic ROI), and when you add in the 40 days of paid leave and the medical and “special pay” benefits are well over 100% of cash salary
December 8, 2011 at 5:37 pm
The need for pension reform is not in dispute in San Jose. What is in dispute is the method for implementing legally allowable reform. The City has been using pension cost projections that have been debunked twice now, once by actuary Mr. Thomas Lowman of Bolton Partners and again by the independent police and fire retirement board actuary, Cheiron. The city projected devastating pension cost projections THIS YEAR and ballooning projections for the next 5 years. In fact, this prediction has been recited by the City as the justification for their declaration of a fiscal emergency that was to be voted on this past Tuesday.
In the city’s most recent Rick Perry moment, OOPS! Both actuaries confirmed that pension costs this year will decline by $55 Million dollars and Mr. Lowman, who was ridiculed back in September of this year by the city staff and some members of the council majority for telling like it is, projects that over 5 years—-even if the city and unions did not implement one bit of pension reform—the city will have lowered its pension costs by at least $336 Million.
In a face saving move the city then backed away from the declaration of a fiscal emergency and started to point fingers at everyone within their sight saying it wasn’t the city that predicted this pension cost explosion, it was others that said the sky was falling. Hardly.
So instead of going back to the negotiating table, admitting their mistake and waiting until the official 5-year projection on retirement costs is presented in January 2012 the city council majority says, who cares what the numbers are, we want to plow ahead with this unlawful ballot measure anyway.
I want to remind readers of two facts. First IFPTE Local 21 has offered to roll back pensions for new hires and provide a legally allowable process for current employees to opt-into a lower cost pension benefit plan that will save the city over 160M dollars over the next 5-years. That is a fact.
Fact 2 is the police and fire unions have offered two options to the city, the first is to move current employees into CALPERS into a lower cost plan that would require them to work longer and to reduce the benefit for new hires. The city did what they do best and that was to reject that offer because they had bogus cost projection numbers that said it was not enough savings, well that is now BS.
Then last week, after the city had its OOPS moment and found $55M dollars, police officers and firefighters put on the table an offer to roll back their pension benefits to 1962 levels for police and 1970 levels for firefighters. That’s right 1962 and 1970. Their plan coupled with the plan from Local 21 would reduce the city’s pension costs by over $700 Million dollars over a 5-year period and ensure that the pension plan would stay funded and secure. I just want to mention that the current police and fire plan is funded to the tune of 85% from both an actuarial and market basis, that’sright 85%! Joe Nation and Daniel Borenstien where are you now with your apologies that you got it wrong, that you were spoon fed bogus numbers and did a shoddy job doing your homework. I can send you the addresses of everyone you disparaged in your rants on this topic if you want them to send notes of apology….Let me know.
So, the unions have legally allowable offers before the city, the numbers we projected are real, the problem is no where near what the city propagated, they admit that their ballot measure is legally suspect…..so what do they do. They vote 6-5 to follow the legal strategy of the two attorneys Art Hartinger and John Holtzman who just go their heads handed to them by the California Supreme Court, 7 to 0, peddling a similar line of snake oil on a vested rights case out of Orange County.
70-years of case law says that they can not impair contracts, they can not try to take away vested benefits unless they offer something of comparable worth. They can not take away vested benefits to those who were promised them. The city and its two puppeteers want to make new law and want to use the residents of San Jose as the guinea pigs….that is a shame.
A bird in the hand versus a lawsuit the city will lose in the bush. The only winners are the attorneys.
December 8, 2011 at 6:10 pm
Actuarial projections changing materially so quickly are suspect, particularly under the pressure of this political circus.
A side-by-side comparison of all assumptions in the 2 projections is needed to see if the changes are appropriate and reasonable or if the actuary caved into political pressure (and possible loss a client).
December 8, 2011 at 6:20 pm
Tough Love, that is what happened to the last actuary. The got tired of the interference from the city and left. The new actuary was hired by the independent police and fire retirement board and performed their work without interference and their numbers and projections were adopted by the independent board last Thursday. The bill to the city this year will be lower than the bill last year and 55M lower than the city projection this year by 55M dollars.
The independent board also voted to lower the assumed rate of return to a more conservative 7.5% and evaluate next year moving to 7.25%. Even with these lower assumptions the fund is in much better shape than what the city has been saying. It is 85% funded on both an actuarial and market basis, rare when both line up, but a fact that has been lost in this debate.
The police officers and firefighters have taken well over 10% pay cuts and this was the main reason why the costs dropped.
December 8, 2011 at 6:22 pm
Tough Love, forgot to point out that the actuarial projections did not change. The city projections were based on a guesstimate and not a full actuarial analysis. The city took this guesstimate and did its best to make its case for reform. Cheiron performed a true actuarial analysis using all pertinent data and that is where their numbers come from.
December 8, 2011 at 6:24 pm
If the Charter provides that pensions may be reduced to a certain level, how can you argue with the Charter. Each Charter case must be examined on its’ own facts. There is no one rule that fits all.
In Allen v City of Long Beach, 45 C2d. 128, the Supreme Court made it clear that vested pension benefits, even if vested, may be reduced, if the level of pensions is threatening the integrity and viability of the pension system. Cedar Falls, RI is the alternative
December 8, 2011 at 6:27 pm
Tom Saggau Says:
The City has been using pension cost projections that have been debunked twice now, once by actuary Mr. Thomas Lowman of Bolton Partners and again by the independent police and fire retirement board actuary, Cheiron.
Hey Tom, your public employee spin will not work here. We are way tooooooo smart to fall for it. Like the rest of the country, these whoppers are easily debunked.
#1- “Bolton Partners” is a public union mouthpice, come on, everyone knows thta-they come in and always work for the public unions, that is how you KNOW they are bogus.
#2- There is NO SUCH THING as an “independent police and fire retirement board actuary”, evertything the GED cops and firewhiners put out is spin, everything-we all know that.
When you want to get serious and bribg serious discussion to the comments, le me know-OK Tom 😛
70-years of case law says that they can not impair contracts, they can not try to take away vested benefits unless they offer something of comparable worth. They can not take away vested benefits to those who were promised them
Another GED educated cop who thinks he is Matlock! Gotta love it. They said the exact same thing in Central Falls Tom, whod di that contracts clause protection work out there 😛
BTW-the contracts clause does not protect the unions from the city changing the pension for years not already worked.
December 8, 2011 at 6:29 pm
The new actuary was hired by the independent police and fire retirement board
So now even a dumb cop like Tom is admitting these clowns are mouthpieces for the cop and firewhiner unions! Tom, come on! Do you think that will work here?????
Gotta love it. Hey Tom, get ready for a pension haircut, the voters will make the call, not you.
Are you afraid of a public VOTE?????
December 8, 2011 at 6:42 pm
Hex…I will be brief.
Our retirement boards in San Jose have a majority of public members that are required to be financial experts and are appointed by the City Council….they hired Cheiron to do the actuarial analysis. Lowman is our guy, he told the city back in September what the numbers were going to be and he was right.
Is Cedar Falls in California, oh that’s right, it’s not so it has no bearing on California Courts….Two weeks ago the CALIFORINA Supreme Court ruled 7-0 to not curtail vested rights but to expand them. Vested rights can now be implied, which is a word that means it does not have to be written down in a contract. Ruff Ruff!
BTW-you should never get a law degree from any school that advertises on matchbooks, get your money back. The contract clause protects benefits prospectively and the CALIFORNIA Supreme Court says so. Now you may be able to find a court not in the US to make your case, but they don’t count.
I always knew why I supported spade and neutering pets, now get off my lawn!
December 8, 2011 at 6:48 pm
John,
You are right that the Charter says that. But the Constitution trumps the Charter. For instance the City could pass an ordinance and/or go to the voters and they could approve a ban on free speech. Since this is a clear violation of the US Constitution the law would be struck down.
Similarly with pensions a contract was and has been in place that provides pension benefits in exchange for work. Thus the contract can not be broken by one side or the other without violating the contract clause of both the US and California constitution.
Look, the groups I represent support pension reform, we have offered to roll back pensions to 1962 levels for police officers and 1970 levels for firefighters. For non sworn we have agreed to increase the age, lower the accrual rate, lower the COLA, use 3 years final average salary, and make other changes. We just want to do it in a legal manner that will withstand the test of time.
December 8, 2011 at 7:26 pm
Rex…the last refuge of a losing argument is name-calling. Nice work.
December 8, 2011 at 7:34 pm
TL, later today, when I have some time, I’ll comment on what’s going on in SJ. BTW, Rex, Tom Saaggua is a political consultant/advocate and the SJ safety unions are his clients. He’s just doing his job.
December 8, 2011 at 7:36 pm
Is Cedar Falls in California, oh that’s right, it’s not so it has no bearing on California Courts….
Tom, it is CENTRAL FALLS, not “Cedar” Falls. and it is a federal court which applies NATIONWIDE, and yes, last time I checked CA was still part of the nation. But keep thinkign it won’t apply here, ignorance is bliss 🙂
It is not directly binding since CA is in the 9th Circuirt, but under the FRD’s the 9th WILL use it as persuasive precedent.
Tom, you clowns make easily $125K-$150K with overtime for the entry level, frontline, non-supervisory, rank and file cop and FF, and your benefits, including your pensions- are worth MORE than your base salary using a realistic ROI. You have mutli million dollar pensions at age 50, of which you contribute 0-2% at most. Stop being a little, fat, greedy pig-that is all the public is asking.
Look, the groups I represent support pension reform, we have offered to roll back pensions to 1962 levels for police officers and 1970 levels for firefighters.
Sorry Tom, SJ didn’t have 3%@50 in 1962, or 1972, or 1982 nor 1992. So your claims are once again as bogus as your “independent police and fire retirement board actuary”, which we all know is pure spin.
You need a DB of 1% for every year worked and a 401K matched to 3%, that is STILL light years ahead of anything in the real world. So stop being a baby, stop pouting, stop spinng and man up-for one in your life.
December 8, 2011 at 7:42 pm
Tom Saaggua is a political consultant/advocate and the SJ safety unions are his clients. He’s just doing his job.
Thanks for the 411. I thought Tom was a cop or ff. It ends up he is a paid mouthpiece instead, don’t take it personal Tom, but I have to debunk your spin and sometimes I get carried away with the bashing.
Tom are you paid by the # of comments you post on the web by chance??? There was a study recently of the number of comments made on one of these pension articles and 95% were from interested parties (ie. gov employees, or those doing business with the gov), if I find that i will post it up……
December 8, 2011 at 7:43 pm
Rex…the last refuge of a losing argument is name-calling. Nice work.
Welcome back to the fight OCO, I know our side is going to win now 😛
December 8, 2011 at 7:45 pm
Two weeks ago the CALIFORINA Supreme Court ruled 7-0 to not curtail vested rights but to expand them. Vested rights can now be implied, which is a word that means it does not have to be written down in a contract. Ruff Ruff!
It can only be implied with STRONG evidentary support, and that is always an uphill battle.
One thing that is not implied is that pensions are not locked in for future years of service not yet worked. They can be adjusted whenever the current contract expires. I would adjust them to 1%@40 and impose them on the unions.
December 8, 2011 at 7:52 pm
FYI folks– Rex the Poodle continues only to name call and NEVER cite ANY case or statutory authority for his losing legal positions. He has a two year track record of child like name calling and losing lawsuit predictions after drum rolls and dives off the 10 meter board! Ignore him…most of us do!
December 8, 2011 at 8:43 pm
Tom Saggau, All very interesting, but since the actuarial work product incorporates many assumptions, each of which has a reasonable range (and which should be reasonable when taken as a SET of assumptions), there is never a SINGLE reasonable result … but a range of reasonable results.
Now actuaries are human and subject to the known outcome desires of the client paying them. It always helps to have actuaries aligned with engaged by side of a position prepare independent projections. Simply knowing the OTHER side has hired it’s own actuary should help preclude extreme positions.
December 8, 2011 at 9:00 pm
I have a habit of believing the Constitutions of the United States and of the Republic of California. Both say that a Contract is a promise to keep the Contract’s clauses and to be a person whose handshake and word are as good as gold. If persons such as Rex have a problem with this I have no answer for them. If a promise can be negated unilaterally by one of the parties then our civilization degrades to might makes right. I would not want to live in such a world.
December 8, 2011 at 9:21 pm
I keep hearing this argument every day. Contracts are a promise to perform but when the ability to perform is compomised – then compromise rules the day, at least in bankruptcy court. How many people have signed a contract to a buy a home given specified financial terms only to walk away.
Where I take exception to this arguments use in the pension debate is that most employees started working for municipalities with higher retirement ages and less generous pension formulas than they currently receive. How does that fit into your contract argument? Or is your argument only a one way street at the taxpayer expense?
Charles, is possible that your idea of a contract is ONLY the most convienent argument that benefits your wallet?
December 8, 2011 at 9:24 pm
Captain said …”BTW, Rex, Tom Saaggua is a political consultant/advocate and the SJ safety unions are his clients. He’s just doing his job.”
In an earlier comment Tom Saaggua said …”Even with these lower assumptions the fund is in much better shape than what the city has been saying. It is 85% funded on both an actuarial and market basis, rare when both line up, but a fact that has been lost in this debate.”
I was VERY surprised by (actually, given the as-yet unamortized losses from 2008-2009, I didn’t believe they were accurate by a long shot) the statistics in Tom’s comment. Now knowing he’s a paid mouthpiece for the Unions explains the rosy (but highly doubtful) picture he presents.
December 8, 2011 at 9:32 pm
Charles, I find it interesting that those who have so handsomely benefited by a system in which the benefits where obtained (to a large part) by bribing those who vote to award these benefits with campaign contributions and election support, …. certainly unethical, and questionably illegal …. now take the high road that these immorally obtained benefits should unwaveringly be protected by state and federal contract clauses.
Personally, I hope we find a way NOT to do so. In any event I know we’ll never have the money to fully pay them anyway.
December 8, 2011 at 9:42 pm
TL, Mr Suggua is most likely just regurgitating what he’s been told by the unions/clients. His arguments are weak and I’ll address them tonight or tommorrow. Although I’ve been following the SJ pension issue, I’ve never commented on some of the erroneous claims made by the unions (I used to live there), but Mr. Suggua’s comments have inspired me.
If you want to see what the actuarial and MVA numbers are, as of June 30, 2009, tou can view the San Jose Auditors Report on Pensions here. Good stuff: http://www.sanjoseca.gov/auditor/AuditReports/1010/1010.pdf
December 8, 2011 at 10:18 pm
Suggau said ,”…”Even with these lower assumptions the fund is in much better shape than what the city has been saying. It is 85% funded on both an actuarial and market basis, rare when both line up, but a fact that has been lost in this debate.”
TL, love to hear your comments regarding the San Jose Auditors Report on Pensions. Hope you have time to look at the report. What you will see is that the SJ pension plans on an MVA basis aren’t anywhere near 85% funded. Even given the market returns through June 30,2011, those numbers are doubtful. Given the market/CalPERS performance over the past 5.5 months the San Jose Police and Fire department MVA numbers are statically impossible.
Back to the top, Suggua said, “Even with these lower assumptions the fund is in much better shape than what the city has been saying.” What Saggua is referring to is the San Jose pension funds recommendation to reduce the assumed rate of return to a more conservative 7.5% (I don’t consider 7.5% all that conservative but it is a reduction from the ridiculous taxpayer guarantee of 8%). The savings the unions are NOW claiming is probably almost entirely from reversing the “independent boards” recommendation of the 7.5% discount rate that the previous actuary used. Now that the actuary hired by the unions is using the 8% discount rate the cost (payments really) have been mysteriously reduced by 55 million.
Why do so many people confuse expense/payments with actual cost?
December 8, 2011 at 10:49 pm
Hex, Hex, Hex, why the anger? Are their no hydrants to relieve yourself on nearby? I guess you come from the school of thought where if you repeat a lie long enough it must be true.
First, SJ police/SJ firefighters pay between 11-14% of their pay into their retirement plan and pay another 2 to 5% to pre-fund their retiree health plan. They pay their taxes and are not eligible for social security. Your assertion that they pay 0-2% is a lie. Bow wow!
Second, the offer made last week by the police and fire unions to roll back pensions to 1962 and 1970 respectively was reported in the Mercury News and can be found here: http://www.mercurynews.com/san-jose-neighborhoods/ci_19497372
“But employees had offered increasingly substantive retirement concessions. Last week, even as new figures eased the public safety pension bill, cops and firefighters offered to roll back pensions for new hires and, optionally, current workers to 1960s levels. Retired officers and firefighters had earlier offered to reduce their annual cost-of-living increases.”
Third, you make things up.
Fourth, try this case on point from the CALIFORNIA Supreme Court that ruled, unanimously, that means everyone ruled to overturn a vote of the people as it related to vested pension benefits in the Proposition 140 case: Legislature of the State of California, Petitioners versus March Fong Eu, as Secretary of State, etc, et al., Respondents; Californians for a citizen government, intervener. No. S019660 Supremee Court of California October 10, 1991
The court ruled unanimously as follows:
Summary
The California Legislature, certain individual legislators, and various citizens, voters, and taxpayers petitioned the state Supreme Court for a writ of mandate to prevent enforcement of Proposition 140, which imposed term limits on legislative members and state constitutional officers, and limited the Legislature’s budget and its members’ retirement benefits.
The Supreme Court granted the petition to the extent it sought to compel respondents to refrain from enforcing that portion of the proposition limiting pension benefits, as applied to incumbent legislators; in all other respects, the court denied the petition.
The summary goes on to say as it pertains to pension benefits…However, the court held, insofar as the measure provides that no pension or retirement benefit, other than Social Security, may accrue as a result of service in the Legislature (Cal. Const., art IV, 4.5), it is invalid under federal law as an impairment of contract, but only as applied to incumbent legislators.
Hex, put that in your water bowl and lap it up.
You can change pension benefits for new hires, because they have no contract. You can’t change pension benefits for current employees without violating the contract clause of the Constitution.
Bow wow wow.
December 8, 2011 at 10:57 pm
Tom, you don’t sound like a political consultant that developes a message, advocates for their clients, and communicates a targeted message. You sound like a fool!
December 8, 2011 at 11:26 pm
Cap– Tom only sounds like a fool to you because you disagree with him– he is sound and provides well documented authority for his positions. My advice to you? Ratchet down the emotion a bit and come at this with legal logic– eg– case or statutory precedent. There is a reason why lawsuit after lawsuit is lost by your crew……at ease, I’ll be in the area for the rest of the day!
December 8, 2011 at 11:48 pm
Tom sounds like a fool to me because he ignores comments that challenge his “documented authority” while making comments like: “put that in your water bowl and lap it up”, “Are their no hydrants to relieve yourself on nearby?”, and “I always knew why I supported spade and neutering pets, now get off my lawn!”
My first comment about Tom was to Rex, stating that Tom was just doing his job. Based on Tom Saggua’s above comments, I can only conclude he is more than a bit immature and deserves the comments he receives.
Ted, would you want someone advocating your position to the public making what I consider juvenile comments. I wouldn’t be paying anyone a dime to act childish on my behalf; maybe that’s just me.
December 8, 2011 at 11:50 pm
good points Cap– but perhaps it’s just to add a bit of levity– always good, to a point……
December 8, 2011 at 11:54 pm
Captain Morgan or Tennile,
Really, the Auditor’s report from 2009. How about the City of San Jose Police and Fire Retirement Department Retirement Plan December 1, 2011 Experience Study and June 30, 2011 Actuarial Valuation that can be found here:
http://www.sjretirement.com/PF/Plan/Board.asp
Hit the meetings tab and go to the December 1 meeting…then…
Go to Item 3.1 and find out for yourself the actual facts from the hear and now and not the outdated and actuarial invalid report from the Auditor.
Look, I know that most honorable Captains go down with the ship but the lifeboat of truth will save you. And the truth is in the Cheiron report.
Pension reform is needed, we agree. We support pensions that would roll back benefits to 1962 and 1970 levels, that is not enough for you, we agree. But please do not disparage other Captains such as Kirk and Nemo with your non-fact based diatribes.
In the report, the only report that matters, are the fact that the fund is 85% funded.
In the report, page 30 for easy reference, the city will pay less this year versus last for police and fire pension costs.
There is more of course but I have no more time El Capitan.
December 9, 2011 at 12:08 am
“Captain Morgan or Tennile, Look, I know that most honorable Captains go down with the ship but the lifeboat of truth will save you. And the truth is in the Cheiron report.”
Levity is good by me, Ted, but the guy is a fool nonetheless. If you want to be respected as a professional you only need to act like one. With that said, I did enjoy the Captain Morgan/Tenile reference so I’ll give him credit for the levity – just not the professioanism.
Tom said, “Pension reform is needed, we agree. We support pensions that would roll back benefits to 1962 and 1970 levels, that is not enough for you, we agree.”
How do you know we agree, Tom? What were the 1962 and 1970 benefits? Considering the unions seem less than willing to provide a plan that ACTUALLY saves the pension system/city services I’m skeptical – but I’m interested in hearing about what 1962/70 benefits level you’re talking about. Don’t be vague – let’s here it!
December 9, 2011 at 12:21 am
I have a habit of believing the Constitutions of the United States and of the Republic of California. Both say that a Contract is a promise to keep the Contract’s clauses and to be a person whose handshake and word are as good as gold..
No, you have a habit of spinning everything with bogus facts.
BK courts void contracts every day of the eyar in thsi country, and states are immune from being froce to pay under the Constitution.
Sorry to burst that public employee union buble!
December 9, 2011 at 12:26 am
Tom Saggau Says:
Hex, Hex, Hex, why the anger? Are their no hydrants to relieve yourself on nearby? I guess you come from the school of thought where if you repeat a lie long enough it must be true. First, SJ police/SJ firefighters pay between 11-14% of their pay into their retirement plan
Tom, I am assuming you can read, here, read this;
2011-2012 Contribution Rates *
Percent of Employee’s Base Salary
Retirement Plan City Employee
Police Plan Pension Benefits 10.46%
There it is buddy 10.4%, a changefrom the ZERO contributions they used to pay. So your claims of paying 14% just got smacked back intot he stone ages.
http://www.sanjoseca.gov/mayor/goals/budget/PensionProblem.asp
Man, I hate being right all the time 😛
December 9, 2011 at 12:30 am
You can change pension benefits for new hires, because they have no contract. You can’t change pension benefits for current employees without violating the contract clause of the Constitution.
Another whopper TYom-how many are you going to serve up here??? We may have to frqnchise a Burger King for you 🙂
There is NO CONTRACT, rule or law that madates, requries or stops a muni or state to change penion formulas GOING FORWARD.
So once agin, I win. You are just making up whpper lies like all the trough feeders do.
December 9, 2011 at 12:51 am
“Captain Morgan or Tennile,
Really, the Auditor’s report from 2009”
No Tom Suggua, the auditors report is from September 2010. The actuarial data contained in the report is from 2009. There is always a bit of lag in actuarial data. Look for yourself: http://www.sanjoseca.gov/auditor/AuditReports/1010/1010.pdf
“the SJ pension plans on an MVA basis aren’t anywhere near 85% funded. Even given the market returns through June 30,2011, those numbers are doubtful. Given the market/CalPERS performance over the past 5.5 months the San Jose Police and Fire department MVA numbers are statically impossible.
Back to the top, Suggua said, “Even with these lower assumptions the fund is in much better shape than what the city has been saying.” What Saggua is referring to is the San Jose pension funds recommendation to reduce the assumed rate of return to a more conservative 7.5% (I don’t consider 7.5% all that conservative but it is a reduction from the ridiculous taxpayer guarantee of 8%). The savings the unions are NOW claiming is probably almost entirely from reversing the “independent boards” recommendation of the 7.5% discount rate that the previous actuary used. Now that the actuary hired by the unions is using the 8% discount rate the cost (payments really) have been mysteriously reduced by 55 million.
Why do so many people confuse expense/payments with actual cost?”
Care to comment, Tom?
December 9, 2011 at 1:31 am
Poodle— wow— you love to keep repeating the same wrong stuff– years now—- and how many law suits have we won on this so far? 3??? lol
December 9, 2011 at 6:06 am
Tom, can you comment on the above post? “the SJ pension plans on an MVA basis aren’t anywhere near 85% funded. Even given the market returns through June 30,2011, those numbers are doubtful. Given the market/CalPERS performance over the past 5.5 months the San Jose Police and Fire department MVA numbers (85%) are statically impossible.”
Tom, can you comment?
“The savings the unions are NOW claiming is probably almost entirely from reversing the “independent boards” recommendation of the 7.5% discount rate that the previous actuary used. Now that the actuary hired by the unions is using the 8% discount rate the cost (payments really) have been mysteriously reduced by 55 million. The costs aren’t reduced by a penny. They are only hidden from public view”
Tom, can you comment?
“Tom said, “Pension reform is needed, we agree. We support pensions that would roll back benefits to 1962 and 1970 levels, that is not enough for you, we agree.”
How do you know we agree, Tom? What were the 1962 and 1970 benefits? I’m skeptical – but I’m interested in hearing about what 1962/70 benefits level you’re talking about. Don’t be vague – let’s here it!
December 9, 2011 at 6:54 am
Captain,
The real issue is that nothing meaningful is changed for CURRENT workers. THAT’S where real savings lie. Changes only for new employees won’t be realized for 20-30 years until they begin to retire. We’ll never make it.
Unions RARELY offer anything meaningful.
Case-in-point ….. when cities want to end COLAs for current workers and retirees, they fight like mad dogs to keep them (even though NOBODY in a Private Sector Plan EVER gets automatic annual COLAs) …. BECAUSE eliminating a COLA permanently is actually financially meaningful.
Public Sector Unions are CANCER on society.
December 9, 2011 at 2:17 pm
Rexall,
So you agree that police and firefighters pay more than 0-2% for the normal cost of their pensions. Good, let’s get back to school now. They also pay an additional amount between 2-5% to fully pre-fund their retiree medical.
This is not a one year thing, in San Jose ALL employees pay 3/11ths of normal costs for their pensions and are paying more each year to fully pre-fund retiree medical benefits.
As for breaking contracts I will re-post THE case on point for your reference that says the complete opposite of what you say. Now I know you may own a robe, but unless it is black and you have been appointed to the Supreme Court….well your robe don’t matter, even if it is decorated with kibbles and bits–here you go: …Fourth, try this case on point from the CALIFORNIA Supreme Court that ruled, unanimously, that means everyone ruled to overturn a vote of the people as it related to vested pension benefits in the Proposition 140 case: Legislature of the State of California, Petitioners versus March Fong Eu, as Secretary of State, etc, et al., Respondents; Californians for a citizen government, intervener. No. S019660 Supremee Court of California October 10, 1991
The court ruled unanimously as follows:
Summary
The California Legislature, certain individual legislators, and various citizens, voters, and taxpayers petitioned the state Supreme Court for a writ of mandate to prevent enforcement of Proposition 140, which imposed term limits on legislative members and state constitutional officers, and limited the Legislature’s budget and its members’ retirement benefits.
The Supreme Court granted the petition to the extent it sought to compel respondents to refrain from enforcing that portion of the proposition limiting pension benefits, as applied to incumbent legislators; in all other respects, the court denied the petition.
The summary goes on to say as it pertains to pension benefits…However, the court held, insofar as the measure provides that no pension or retirement benefit, other than Social Security, may accrue as a result of service in the Legislature (Cal. Const., art IV, 4.5), it is invalid under federal law as an impairment of contract, but only as applied to incumbent legislators.
Ruff Ruff.
December 9, 2011 at 2:35 pm
As Walt Whitman wrote so eloquently…
O CAPTAIN! my Captain! our fearful trip is done;
Where do I begin…Let’s see:
It appears you have not looked at the Cheiron report, I understand, it is long and complex, but please read it, your comments will be much more intelligent if you do. Their conclusions and recommendations are based on an actuarial analysis and experience study (how long people are living, avg. age of retirement, avg. age of entry into workforce, assumed rates of return etc.) and Cheiron concluded that the police and fire plan is 85% funded from an actuarial and market basis…I didn’t conclude that, the independent plan actuary concluded it.
http://www.sjretirement.com/PF/Plan/Board.asp
Hit the meetings tab and go to the December 1 meeting…then…
Go to Item 3.1 and find out for yourself the actual facts from the hear and now and not the outdated and actuarial invalid report from the Auditor.
O CAPTAIN!
You ask about returns over the past 5.5 months. Luckily for everyone involved an actuary does do this type of in depth analysis every time the market takes a turn for the worse or the better, they do it each year and/or every other year. Retirement fund investing is over the…..drum roll please….long haul. San Jose’s funds don’t have the same asset mix, assumed rate of return, experience data, amortization rate, and a host of other items currently within CALPERS…I wish we did because CALPERS is strong and would be a great plan to join.
O CAPTAIN!
I wrote:
“Pension reform is needed, we agree. We support pensions that would roll back benefits to 1962 and 1970 levels, that is not enough for you, we agree.”
The first we is us, O CAPTAIN! and me, the second we is us, me and police and fire unions in SJ. Sorry for the confusion. Although are you saying you don’t support pension reform?
The great thing about San Jose is that all written proposals are on-line, usually posted the same day they are passed at the table. The link is:
http://www.sanjoseca.gov/employeeRelations/RetirementReform.asp
Go to this link and then go to union proposals and see the latest from IAFF and POA to learn of the details of the proposal you are seeking information on.
Well off to work now, but for your enjoyment:
O Captain My Captain
a poem by Walt Whitman
O Captain my Captain! our fearful trip is done,
The ship has weathered every rack, the prize we sought is won,
The port is near, the bells I hear, the people all exulting,
While follow eyes the steady keel, the vessel grim and daring;
But O heart! heart! heart!
O the bleeding drops of red,
Where on the deck my Captain lies,
Fallen cold and dead.
O Captain! my Captain! rise up and hear the bells;
Rise up–for you the flag is flung for you the bugle trills,
For you bouquets and ribboned wreaths for you the shores a-crowding,
For you they call, the swaying mass, their eager faces turning;
Here Captain! dear father!
This arm beneath your head!
It is some dream that on the deck,
You’ve fallen cold and dead.
My Captain does not answer, his lips are pale and still;
My father does not feel my arm, he has no pulse nor will;
The ship is anchored safe and sound, its voyage closed and done;
From fearful trip the victor ship comes in with object won;
Exult O shores, and ring O bells!
But I, with mournful tread,
Walk the deck my Captain lies,
Fallen cold and dead.
December 9, 2011 at 4:12 pm
Fourth, try this case on point from the CALIFORNIA Supreme Court that ruled, unanimously, that means everyone ruled to overturn a vote of the people as it related to vested pension benefits in the Proposition 140 case:
HOW many times does you pea sized brain need ot be told that FUTURE pension formulas are NOT VESTED??? Repeating ti time after time won’t make it come true.
The Supreme Court granted the petition to the extent it sought to compel respondents to refrain from enforcing that portion of the proposition limiting pension benefits, as applied to incumbent legislators; in all other respects, the court denied the petition.
Are you the legislators now??? With term limits?? Didn’t think so.
As for breaking contracts I will re-post THE case on point for your reference that says the complete opposite of what you say
Matlock Jr, can you read even at a 1st grade level??? A BK court can break ANY contract, no matter WHAT state law says. Federal law is the supreme law of the land, under a little thing known as the supremacey clause. Goggle that and you may graduate to 2nd grade 😛
So you agree that police and firefighters pay more than 0-2% for the normal cost of their pensions.
So you agree that you LIED when you said cops and firewhiners paid 15%+ of their salary to pensions? BTW, that 10%, the true number is just a % of their salary, it is less than 13% of the pensions actual cost. And that 10% they are paying today is nedw, they paid nothing in the past, it was “picked up” by the city.
TOM BUDDY, your spin, parrotED talking points ARE BUNK, they wont work here. This is where the “A-Team” hangs baby, the best of the best, we know these issues inside out, try an SEIU BBQ, or a cop and firewhiner beach party for the parroted nonsense, maybe those tlaking points will go over better there!
December 9, 2011 at 5:09 pm
Hex,
San Jose is not in BK, in fact the city council voted 11-0 not to declare a fiscal emergency sooooo….no breaking of contracts.
The Supremes, minus Diana Ross and Mary Wilson, say your wrong, not me. They ruled 7-0 that the provision in Prop. 140 that eliminated pensions for legislators immediately. This case does not just pertain to legislators but set precedent for how the law is to be interpreted for everyone, well except pets, so not for you.
The Supremes ruled, you can not change the pension benefits of current legislators (read current employees here) but you could for future employees. That is because one had a contract and the latter none.
Normal pension costs have always been split in San Jose on a ratio of 8 to 3. And the percentage from police officer and firefighter pay checks that goes to cover pensions is right in the range of what I posted…the information you have is outdated. Go look at the Cheiron Actuary report of December 1, 2011. It has the history of contribution rates on one of the slides.
Ruff Ruff.
December 9, 2011 at 5:28 pm
Tom Saggau Says:
December 9, 2011 at 5:09 pm
The Supremes, minus Diana Ross and Mary Wilson, say your .wrong, not me
I may be wrong on some things but “you’re” wrong on almost everything, including your use of the English language and proper grammar 😛
Now, getting back to the matter of grossyly overpaid, under educated, cops and firewhiners and ridiculous pensions worth millions-cops and firewhiners pay at most 5% of the overall costs of the pension, these are well known facts.
And the biggest whopper I have ever heard was your claim that pensions today are less than the were in 1962!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Bwhahahahah, please Tommy, get a clue dude.
Once again, you are nto a legoslator, therefore what applies to them is NOT what applies to you.
Stop it Tom, my paw is hurting from spanking you so hard 😛
December 9, 2011 at 6:09 pm
The City of San Jose might be able to dissolve itself and return as a new City with a new name. That would be the `private sector’ method…. equivalent to bankruptcy. Might work because cities are not `States’… our States are in some respects more like sovereign countries, hence the name `State’.
So dissolving the City of San Jose might render the pension contracts unenforceable.
There is nothing wrong with COLAs in pensions… however, you have to reduce the initial pension benefit a lot to maintain the future COLA, which seems to be the step that got forgotten about.
When I look at my Social Security situation (Social Security is really just a pension plan, for the most part), COLAs aren’t a problem, in general. What I’ve paid in over my near 40 years of employment (from that little statement I get every year), + Treasury Bond inflation rate, looks like it will cover the modest SS payment I’ll eventual get, + COLA. But I’ve for >20 years been around the maximum wage base for SS contributions… BTW, for me, SS will be something like 0.6%/year of employment, and 12% of my salary goes in.
Now compare that with the public plans… >2%/year of employment and in some cases 3%/year of employment, for normal costs that historically were similar to social security.
There lies the problem…. the pension plans assumed stock market returns, while SS assumes Treasury Bond returns, which are much less.
Well, I’d say every municipality and special district in California should consider dissolving (or at least… threaten to dissolve to get concessions from *both* current workers *and* retirees).
Now Counties and the State are different. Not sure a County can dissolve… it is an arm of the State. The State would have to go through sovereign default, like a number of US States did in the 1800’s. Some state contracts from the 1800’s never ever got paid off!
December 9, 2011 at 8:19 pm
Tom Saggau rocks— man you are kicking this poodle so bad It looks like you’ll have an aspca issue here soon!
December 9, 2011 at 8:28 pm
It’s hard to believe that Rex hasn’t bothered to actually read any of the relevant court cases about pensions, but his continuing litany of inaccurate comments clearly demonstrates that he didn’t do that part of his homework.
As to your suggestion, Rex, that bankruptcy proceedings “vacate contracts all the time,” that also is simply not the case. For example, Chapter 11 doesn’t provide any mechanism for a private employer to void a labor contract. It’s specifically prohibited.
Chapter 9, the only chapter we really care about in these discussions, recognizes that municipalities in financial difficulties can’t and won’t just liquidate their corporate holdings and must continue to provide services to their citizens.
As some point, Rex, you should really take the time to actually read what every court up to the California Supreme Court has ruled about public employee pension obligations. Then you wouldn’t look like someone whose sole interest is in attempting to fabricate a legal controversy where none exists.
December 10, 2011 at 12:23 am
Now SKippy chimes in with more nonsense ofter I destroyed him on Civfi.com………..
Hmmmm…some things never change I guess 😛
December 10, 2011 at 1:35 am
you “destroyed” him ? Bwahahahahaha again living with delusions of your own adequacy— so many of us have owned you on these boards you’ll need to advertise yourself as “used” from now on! And Skip’s point remains un-refuted! You NEVER post ANY legal authority for your whacky positions!!!!…lol….and I am still waiting for you to finish the homework I have assigned you little troll!
Bing
Bang
Boom
OOOOuch
god this is easy!
a g a i n
December 10, 2011 at 2:38 am
As to your suggestion, Rex, that bankruptcy proceedings “vacate contracts all the time,” that also is simply not the case. For example, Chapter 11 doesn’t provide any mechanism for a private employer to void a labor contract. It’s specifically prohibited.
You and resident idiot Teddy Steals seem to have went to the same “Peoples College of Law” 🙂
In a First, Bankruptcy Judge Rules Calif. City Can Void Union Contracts
Pamela A. MacLeanContactAll Articles
The National Law Journal
March 17, 2009
In the first ruling of its kind, a bankruptcy judge held that the city of Vallejo, Calif., has the authority to void its existing union contracts in its effort to reorganize, saying public workers do not have the same protections as union workers at private companies. Municipal bankruptcy is so rare that no judge had yet ruled on whether Congressional reforms in the 1990s that required companies to provide worker protections before attempting to dissolve union contracts also applied to public workers’ contracts.
BAM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Why must I ALWAYS be right 😛
December 10, 2011 at 2:39 am
Oppsss…sorry left off the link;
http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1202429132330&slreturn=1
December 10, 2011 at 5:39 am
Did you miss the part about “existing union contracts.” That would not include past or “non-executory” contracts involving mature debt or completed obligations.
One day you should actually read something more than a newspaper or blog comment to find out what Chapter 9 really does, and how it might affect existing obligations.
From the looks of the nonsense you write, you’ll be surprised.
December 10, 2011 at 6:42 am
One day Skippy you should try to finish HS (that would be an accomplishment for you-believe me), then go to college and get a real education.
You said, and I quote:
Chapter 11 doesn’t provide any mechanism for a private employer to void a labor contract.
Well, not only private sector employers, but now PUBLIC too!
Vallejo’s labor ocntracts were VOIDED, BAM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Why are you dumber than a bag or rocks??? Why do you make bogusl] claims, only for me to destroy them with citations and links?????
I just spanked you so hard it hurts!
One day you hsould just shut up and keep your big fat mouth shut, because it is better to be thought the fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt. Of course it is too late for you, you have already proven you’re a fool.
December 10, 2011 at 6:47 am
Rex, your article, or what there is of it, is almost three years old. Without corraborating information, we are left, to wonder, if the judge’s decision stood, or if it was overturned. (We all heard GAS declare, in his 2010, State of the State Address that, to touch the pensions of current employees, was both illegal and immoral.) We know, at this point, that Vallejo spent 12 million dollars, in legal fees, during its bankruptcy,and it is back in operation, as a functioning, CA City; it still has its unions, with renegotiated contracts; it has a plan, to pay back creditors. The pensions were unharmed, except that the medical benefits, of retirees, were cut.
December 10, 2011 at 11:05 am
Tough Love
Unfortunately I cannot respond directly to you. I will say that when one enters into a contract with another person everything is quite simple. Each party agrees to exchange some thing of value for something else of value. Even in probate it is not unusual for a deceased person to declare in his or her will for one dollar and for love and affection to give a million dollars to her son or daughter so there is no doubt a contract has been made.
The State of California promised me 90% of payroll at the age of 59. That is $99,000 plus about \$16,800 in health insurance..
Exactly what portion of a Contract or a Promise or a Man’s word do you not understand? Perhaps you should be an attorney or even worse a politician. Then you would be have a job made to order for you.
Meanwhile I think a man’s word is a promise. I don’t need pages and pages of paper to prove it As a friend of mine once said when he loaned me $500 he did not need a receipt. If he thought he needed a receipt he would have never loaned me the money to start with.
December 10, 2011 at 4:33 pm
Unfortunately I cannot respond directly to you. I will say that when one enters into a contract with another person everything is quite simple. Each party agrees to exchange some thing of value for something else of value.
That’s right Charles, it is simple, so why did SB400 and its copy cats allow retroactive pension spiking for a contract ALREADY completed?????????
You public unions clowns are pathetic, always making the absurd claims that “but it’s a contract”, while engaging in pure VIOLATIONS of that very same contract by retroactive pensions increases of a whopping 50%. You want to rip off the poor and middle class so you welfare queens can retire at age 50 with $3-$10 million dollar contracts, on the backs of people who will work until 80 or 85 and receive $12K in SS.
I hope ALL of you lose at least HALF your pensions, you clowns deserve to based on just your “entitlement” mentality. You’re all pathetic leeches 😛
PS Sorry if I offended you 😉
December 10, 2011 at 4:44 pm
Rex, your article, or what there is of it, is almost three years old. Without corraborating information, we are left, to wonder, if the judge’s decision stood, or if it was overturned.
LOL…I love it when I post up the TRUTH and then the welfare queens want me to “update” the news. seesaw, it is well known FACT that Vallejo VOIDED their union contracts and imposed NEW contracts in the place of the VOIDED ones. If you want to go to the case here it is;
http://dockets.justia.com/docket/california/caedce/2:2009cv02603/197753/
BAM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Rex wins AGAIN!!!!
(We all heard GAS declare, in his 2010, State of the State Address that, to touch the pensions of current employees, was both illegal and immoral.)
And for ONCE that idiot Arnold was right, you all are immoral, stealing from the poor and middle class so you can “retire” at age 50 with $10 million pensions while the rest of America works until age 85 for $12K in SS.
We know, at this point, that Vallejo spent 12 million dollars
They spent $5 million and saved over $100 million, and it would have been MUCH MORE if they went after the pensions, but a majority of the city clowncil were in the public unions pockets, if that majority was not in the public unions pockets pensions would have been cut too-just like in Central Falls RI.
in legal fees, during its bankruptcy,and it is back in operation, as a functioning, CA City; it still has its unions, with renegotiated contracts; it has a plan, to pay back creditors
ALL of Vallejo’s creditors took haircuts, all of them, so your comment that Vallajo “has aplan to pay back” is false, they are not paying back at 100 cents on the dollar. I think it is 20 cents on the dollar.
December 10, 2011 at 4:53 pm
Wow– Poodle doo—- after all of this time and the money I have spent on your education out here…you still do not understand the contracts clause! Unreal little fella! I am done teaching you– you’re own your own! God Bless!!
December 10, 2011 at 5:41 pm
Rex:
Actual cut and paste from the Vallejo Times Herald:
According to a statement released to the press Tuesday, Vallejo will begin repaying its creditors beginning Tuesday. The city has established a $6 million creditor repayment fund, Whittom said, to draw from in damages due to past and present city employees and other major creditors. The city had spent nearly $12 million in bankruptcy court-related fees, as of August, according to the city Finance Department.
(Vallejo Times Herald, 11/02/11)
Title: Vallejo ExitsChapter 9 Bankruptcy
December 10, 2011 at 5:48 pm
At least, the City of Vallejo is in a mode, of recovery and rehabilitation. It did not default. Public sector Contracts are renegotiated, all the time. CB is the proper process.
December 10, 2011 at 6:05 pm
Rex, the procedure, for adopting pension formula enhancements, retroactively, has been, by Act of the CA Legislature, from the inception of the DB pensions, in CA, 98 years ago, to the present. That fact is, according to the former AG, now Governor Brown’s Amicus Brief, that was filed, with the Appeals Court, in the OC vs.OC Deputy Sheriffs lawsuit. I can keep posting the truth, from documented sources, as long as you insist, on posting lies, that are made up, in your head.
December 10, 2011 at 6:17 pm
Hex aka Rex we are Wondering about you Dog….we will keep an eye on you and pray for your recovery.
Schizophrenia Can Strike Your Pet
Does your pet act very loving and affectionate one moment, only to growl or hiss just seconds later at the same hand it had been licking?
If so, your dog or cat could be among the many thousands in this country that suffer from schizophrenia.
Many of us have either heard of or read about people who suffer from schizophrenia. They exhibit multiple personalities and show an inability to come to grips with reality.
But few of us realize that the very same disorder can afflict our pets. In fact, schizophrenia is one of the more difficult and complex emotional disorders that pets can experience.
In dogs and cats, schizophrenia is characterized by rapid changes in personality – changes that are so radical, that a casual observer could easily assume that the pet has multiple personalities that are always in conflict.
Those extreme behavioral reversals happen very quickly, without any apparent trigger, and may occur as often as five or ten times in an hour.
Usually, it’s the mood changes of the owner – which may be subtle and not obvious to the average person – that set the animal off.
For example, take a situation where the family is splashing in the pool, laughing and shouting at one another. The general mood is good. Suddenly, the husband screams, “no!” at his wife or child. The pet may react violently – either becoming very aggressive or shying away. Then, as the family dynamic shifts back from negative to positive, the dog or cat may again reverse his behavior.
Schizophrenia often appears in chaotic households where there are many different and conflicting personalities and constant mood changes for the pet to deal with in more than one family member. It can also appear in households where pet owners are very permissive, the pets lack any kind of structure and subsequently never learn limits or where to stop.
If any of these situations sounds only too familiar, you and your pet may be nurturing a problem that will only grow worse with time unless you take some steps now.
Recognizing the problem and making a family decision to take corrective action is a must. You should also seek qualified professional help from a reputable trainer or veterinarian. They can be more effective in helping you if you can provide some important background on your pet’s personality.
Keep a diary, recording what the pet is like when it is in its good mood. What is its body language and what kind of look does it have in its eyes. Note what events (family argument, doorbell ring, phone, etc.) took place when he changed to his negative mood.
Observe your pet in different situations. What is the animal like when it’s quiet in the house and what it is like in the midst of chaos — like small kids running around the house?
Many schizophrenic animals are most comfortable when they are thrust into noisy, stressful or active situations. Others thrive only in settings that are quiet and calm.
Most schizophrenic pets do well when their owners take time to work more closely with them. By remaining consistent – never acting indecisively and by providing a great deal of love and reassurance, you can help restore your pet’s sound mental health.
Provided by Dr. Arthur Newman, owner of Crossroads Veterinary Clinic, 5987 Pine Ridge Road, Naples, 239-455-3335.
December 10, 2011 at 6:31 pm
LOL @ the Doctor!!
Who can get me a plane ticket to Naples FL?
You folks kill me 😛
December 10, 2011 at 8:18 pm
Why is everyone so sarcastic and stupid on this forum?
December 10, 2011 at 8:43 pm
Observer– go back and look at the postings in the archive– the child play started mostly when rex the poodle showed up— I think he is a teenage boy or girl….sad waste of space! LOL
December 10, 2011 at 8:50 pm
Poodle boi– That vet is just trying to help you——relax
December 10, 2011 at 9:34 pm
“Why is everyone so sarcastic and stupid on this forum?”
If you hang around here for awhile, you’ll find that it’s Rex who’s the consistently sarcastic and proudly stupid participant here.
December 10, 2011 at 10:17 pm
Tom: You have fallen into the propaganda trap re vested rights. IF, the city has authorized “vested rights” by the Charter, or a statute, then an employee will gain Vested rights, subject to modification per the Supreme Court in Allen,above. To my knowledge, in all of the cases supporting a finding of vested rights, the fact that the rights were vested, was not contested. Vested rights cannot be granted by contract, unless there is a grant of authority by the statute, and, or, the Charter. As to Central Falls, Chap 9 is authorized by Ca.. As the judge said in the Vallejo case, case, if you have the right to Chap. 9, then fed law controls the entire proceding. Ca. is just like R.I..
December 10, 2011 at 11:39 pm
As to Central Falls, Chap 9 is authorized by Ca.. As the judge said in the Vallejo case, case, if you have the right to Chap. 9, then fed law controls the entire proceding. Ca. is just like R.I..
THANK YOU John Moore,
I have been beating the above fact into their heads everyday but they just don’t have the intelligence to compute it 😛
December 10, 2011 at 11:40 pm
If you hang around here for awhile, you’ll find that it’s Rex who’s the consistently sarcastic and proudly stupid participant here.
Skippy, can you remind ALL OF US once again if contracts can be VOIDED in BK?????????????????????????
😛
December 10, 2011 at 11:42 pm
Oh, here you go Skippy, please read for of all of us here docket entry #35 😛
http://dockets.justia.com/docket/california/caedce/2:2009cv02603/197753/
December 10, 2011 at 11:43 pm
ORDER signed by Judge John A. Mendez on 6/14/10, ORDERING that IBEW’s appeal of the Bankruptcy Court’s Order granting the City’s Motion for Approval of Rejection of IBEW’s Collective Bargaining Agreement is DENIED, and the Bankruptcy Court’s March 13, 2009 Memorandum decision and August 31, 2009 Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law are AFFIRMED.
December 10, 2011 at 11:58 pm
LOL—hmmmmmm….sounds like the Poodle boi is VERY close to yet another one of his famous legal predictions! Well….he has lost every other one before this……maybe his luck will change?
Of course Poodle you’ll still have to cite that case authority– still waiting!
Oh………and I love it when they still cite to often distinquished Allen case from Cal App 2d !!!!
December 11, 2011 at 12:31 am
REX
I can tell you precisely why many of the comments make no sense on this forum. It is because some persons live up to their word and others don’t if they find it inconvenient.
No one likes high taxes. On the other hand few people like being lied to especially about some thing as important as a 40+ year contract for retirement.
By the way, the State of California changed their formula from 1/60th at 60 to 1/50th at 60 in 1971. That was an increase of 20% and no one bitched about it. I was there when that happened. Which kind of drives the wooden stake into your vampire’s heart that retroactive raises in retirements are NOT legal. Either that or it took more than forty years to figure out that it had happened.
You seem to have a strange like for telling hardworking people that they will get cheated. And hopefully lose everything they have worked for. I don’t now where your sickness comes from but I suggest you consult doctors who can deal with your kind of bizzare sickness.
Whatever the Legislature approves and the Governor signs is in fact legal by the powers vested in them by the Constitutions of California and of these United States
Maybe you can reduce the retirements of persons who signed on many years ago going forward. Maybe you can reinstitute slavery. There will always be persons like you. You keep truly responsible adults amused, but also always on their guard.
December 11, 2011 at 12:42 am
By the way, the State of California changed their formula from 1/60th at 60 to 1/50th at 60 in 1971. That was an increase of 20% and no one bitched about it
Actually that is not a 20% increase, but a 16% increase.
In 1971 GED educated cops and firehwiners were not making $100K PLUS in base salary and $250K with overtime, not counting another $150K in benefits.
December 11, 2011 at 1:12 am
Actually Rex, the 2% to 3% pension enhancement I received in 2001, translated to a 20% increase in my pension benefits–not 50%.
December 11, 2011 at 1:21 am
That overtime would not make any difference, in the CalPERS, pension benefit, Rex. Overtime is not included, in the pension calculation.
Why don’t you bring forth just one PS employee, with a GED, only, who is making $100,000+ in salary, at the time of retirement; provide his/her name, and the name of his/her employe? If there is any person in that category, I think he/she should be celebrated. No proof–no credibility.
December 11, 2011 at 1:26 am
Well said Charles—-
December 11, 2011 at 3:43 am
Actually Rex, the 2% to 3% pension enhancement I received in 2001, translated to a 20% increase in my pension benefits–not 50%.
seesaw, did you NOT pass 1st grade math???????????????? Really, are you as dumb as Skippy????? a 1% multiplier bump onto a 2% multiplier is a 50% increase.
A 2% per year multiplier boosted to a 3% per year multiplier is a 50% INCREASE-retroactive too.
OK, hang in there seesaw, we will work this one out, for you and Skippy and Teddy Steals, since math is NOT your bag 😛
That is 2% (pre-SB400) +50% (1%)= 3% (SB400)
December 11, 2011 at 3:58 am
Why don’t you bring forth just one PS employee, with a GED, only, who is making $100,000+ in salary, at the time of retirement; provide his/her name, and the name of his/her employe?
OK, you asked for it, but don’t blame me for this ultimate SMACK DOWN, in public no less.
1) Name: JoAnn Galinsky
2) Employer: OC Sheriffs Office
3) Highest Education Level: GED
4) Highest Salary: $225K, $450K w/benefits
BAM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Seesaw, you owe me a lunch over that smack down.
It is a well known fact that Gaminsky was promoted based on her brown nosing ability, and that she never graduated from HS.
December 11, 2011 at 3:59 am
Rex– you’re a child. You have been consistently out classed out here in every way. We are still waiting for you to back up ANY legal claim you have ever made out here! Bam! Once since reading entire posts is not your strong point….Charles was 100% correct.
December 11, 2011 at 4:11 am
Oh and Poodle—– JoAnn Galinsky is your only example??? LOLOL She was the county Undersheriff. A super high management position and there is only one in a HUGE department. She was a rock star– a woman in a sea of male dominated leaders! Is she the only example of a 220k plus comp’d cop??? LOL— she is an exception little buddy , not the rule!
Why do you hate yourself so much? Did you fail at whatever life handed you? I see your posts on all of these sites— super super angry….sad amigo— talk to a shrink, there is zero shame in that. It would help you, seriously.
December 11, 2011 at 4:19 am
Oh….and after you finish a few sessions with a shrink, please get me the case citations you owe me! Rookie !!
December 11, 2011 at 4:26 am
bOh and Poodle—– JoAnn Galinsky is your only example??? LOLOL She was the county Undersheriff
Galinsky was the SHERIFF you GED moron.
What part of that do you not understand?? A person who could NOT even graduate from HS running a LE agency with 1,40 sworn sheriffs (obviously why they could never manage a budget).
ONLY in the Fantasyland of government employemnt.
Show me ONE private sector employer who would promote a GEDer to anything above fry cook!
BAM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! DOUBLE BAMBAM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 🙂
December 11, 2011 at 4:27 am
Teddy, did Peoples Collge of Law kick you and your GED brain out yet 😛
December 11, 2011 at 4:29 am
Hey Teddy, where did you go???
Couldn’t take the heat????
Better stay out of the fire if you can’t take the heat lil buddy……I know you are mad at me for exposing your scams-but don’t hate the messenger, that is life lil buddy, the weak and stupid eventually get spanked back to the curb where they belong, nit my fault you never went to college and your pension is going up in smoke 😛
December 11, 2011 at 4:46 am
lol wow strange response…. you remain desperate little buddy! Galinsky was Acting boss a short time— mainly Undersheriff—– That’s your best and only example?????? LOL Bam, bing, boom, ooooouch you are a sleepy little troll!
…and lol where is my case cite! LOL
December 11, 2011 at 4:49 am
Rex, the 2% at 55 formula, which was the formula I had prior, to 2001, caps at 2.418 percent, by age 63 (the 2% at 60 formula does too.) The difference in what I got with the 3% formula, and what I would have gotten, with the 2% at 55 formula, was 21%. Now, are we going to quibble, over the fact that I was off, by 1%? (I had 36.4 years, service credit–you do the math.)
I would also add, as I have on many previous forums, that I did not receive the unmodified amount, because I forfeited 13%, to name my spouse, as beneficiary. I would guess that the majority of retirees, do not take the unmodified amount. My spouse and I are close, to the same age. If one has a younger spouse, or younger beneficiary, such as a child, the forfeiture is much more.
December 11, 2011 at 4:58 am
Your example seems to be an exception, not a rule, Rex. She is not exactly rank and file. As I said, anybody who attains that rank and salary, with no more than a GED degree, is to be celebrated. I would have no problem, buying you a lunch, even though I don’t credit you, with a takedown–but you would have to graduate from obedience school, first.
December 11, 2011 at 8:15 am
As I said, anybody who attains that rank and salary, with no more than a GED degree, is to be celebrated.
Are you for real-celebrated?? For what?? Cronyism and nepotism hiring and promotions?????
Do you seriously think, for one second, that someone like Galinsky- WHO NEVER EVEN GRADUATED FROM HIGH SCHOOL- could EVEN be hired, mush less promoted, without strings being pulled in the real world??? PLEASE! No WAY!!!!
She was not hired on merit. She was APPOINTED sheriff, not on elected on merit, no one in gov gets promoted on merit, it is all cronyism and nepotism. I have proven that fact time and time again.
I was going over the cops that LAPD hired who were involved in the infamous Rampart scandels from a few years back, ALL of them had criminal records, including drug use and crimnal convictions INCLUDING a DUI! A DUI is one of the most serious drug offenses on the books, and NO one should EVER be hired for a LE job with a record that includes a DUI. LAPD is passing over applicants with CLEAN record, with college degrees, with no drug use, for losers thst sre fsmily or firends or consent decree hires. Gov does not hire on merits, and I have posted the hiring factors a million times on these blogs;
1- Family
2- Friends
3- Military (for cops)
4- Lawsuit consent decrees (for doing 1&2 above!).
Every major metro PD and FD in this state has been sued and lost for nepotism and cronyism hiring. LASD has been under a lawsuit hiring decree since 1980- over 32 years!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! LAPD just got out from under theirs 2 years ago, after having one in place for 15 years…..it is the rule to hire incompentent and unqualified cops and ff’s over far superior applicants based on nepotism and cronyism.
Teddy Steals is a good example, he was connected in, no way he could get hired on his own. Same with Skippy, w/o that military connection no go.
December 11, 2011 at 8:35 am
Well, it doesn’t look like Obedience School would cut it! You are in need of brain surgery!
December 11, 2011 at 9:38 am
Dear Birdbrain Rex, the wonder canary. 1 60th at 60 is 1.666667%. One fiftieth at 60 is two percent. 2% divided by 1.66667% is in fact 20%. If your little brain can’t get this 2 divided by 5/6 is 20 percent.
Thank God you are not an Engineer. It really is important where the decimal point goes. I have never had a bridge collapse on me, but I bet you would.
From your GED friend (me) but also a licensed Civil Engineer #35404. Before I retired I was making $110,000 per year. Now I only make $99,000 plus about $16,400 in health insurance.. It is amazing what a GED can do for you.
Thank you for your tax money and I was worth every cent of it. The last project I worked on was $37,5000,000 and I saved the State about $250,000 just by paying attention to what an Engineer should do. Since the project only lasted two years, Caltrans got my services for free.
A Resident Engineer is above all else resourceful. (It says so right in the Construction Manual.)
Your Friend and Admirer, Charles Sainte Claire.
December 11, 2011 at 5:54 pm
There are all kinds of successful people without high school degrees. Just a few are Dave Thomas, who managed to get very rich with his Wendy’s business, and Peter Jennings who was very successful news anchor.
Those are just some famous ones. I am surprised at the naivete of someone who even postulates that nobody has been successful in private sector without a high school diploma. The very notion of the private sector, and capitalism, is to work hard, pull yourself up by your bootstraps and you will be rewarded. Get off this forum and into the real world with hard working people in both the private and public sector if you need to. Sheesh.
December 11, 2011 at 6:02 pm
Well Observer– good point— it appears that the stone thrower out here, well, Poodle, may actually be the least educated poster on this site. At least given his inability to do simple math! Ouuuuuuch !!!
December 11, 2011 at 7:41 pm
Teddy Steal now posting under OCO’s handle-Pathetic!!!!!!!!!
Teddy, I told you before, you need to spread the posts out from your Teddy Steals handle and your sock puppet accounts, 8 minutes is a dead give away lil buddy!!!! I wish I had a penny for every sock puppet you posted under, I would be a BILLIONAIRE by now!!!!!!!
BTW, if you and your GED buddies want to go into the REAL world with that big bad GED and invent Wendys, or anchor the ABC national news, go for it, but you’re no Dave Thomas or Peter Jennings, now are you GED Wonder 😛
Hahhahaha…I bet you think you could have invented Google if you didn’t have your government workfare job!
BAM~!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
December 11, 2011 at 7:44 pm
BTW BirdBrain Teddy, this is what Dave Thomas thinks about EDUCATION;
Dave decided to stay in Fort Wayne, dropping out of high school to work full time at the restaurant. Thomas, who considered ending his schooling the greatest mistake of his life, did not graduate from high school until 1993 when he obtained a GED
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dave_Thomas_(American_businessman)
BOOM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
December 11, 2011 at 7:51 pm
Charles Sainte Claire, as you and I both know the unskilled jobs in government are the jobs that are GROSSLY over paid and over compensated.
The FEW jobs that pay less in the public are the skilled professional jobs, like engineer, lawyer and doctor, but those employees account for a SMALL minority of the gov trough feeders.
The vast majority of expednitures on the local government local go to unskilled, uneducated public safety jobs-cop and firewhiner, who make MORE, and are compensated much more, then professional skilled jobs like engineer, lawyer and doctor.
So ease up, you need to be going after that GED Wonder Teddy Steals, those are the losers wrecking it for you and the everyone else in the gov trough.
December 11, 2011 at 8:00 pm
Poodle boy!— I SKIMMED YOUR POST
1. I love that you think I am posting now as observer—lmao!
2. I love that you think I read your entire posts or follow your links to ANYthing! I never read your whole posts or ever follow your links– you bore me little buddy!
I LIVE IN YOUR TINY BRAIN! POST NOW SLAVE TROLL!! LOLOL
December 11, 2011 at 8:09 pm
Now, you are adding more water, to your own slop, Rex. There is skill involved in every govenrment position, whether, or not, it be the ability to understand and work with finances, the ability to diagnose and solve problems, the ability to plan and carry out programs for the public, the ability to supervise others, the ability to handle the public customers, in a proper and efficient manner, etc. Every applicant for a public job goes through the application process first–there is no step after that, for an applicant, who does not have education, with the mimimum requirement, or equivalent, of a H.S. Diploma. Then there is the oral board process, and the individual interview process, in the final stage. For you to consider police offiers and fire fighters, as unskilled labor, just goes to show how deep, you are wallowing, in the mess, you have made for yourself, on this forum. Run, don’t walk, to your nearest mental health clinic!
December 11, 2011 at 11:32 pm
Teddy, how many sock puppets are you going to post under in this thread?????
As a doctor, as OCO, who else????
You truly are a GED Wonder 😦
December 11, 2011 at 11:34 pm
There is skill involved in every govenrment position, whether, or not, it be the ability to understand and work with finances, the ability to diagnose and solve problems, the ability to plan and carry out programs for the public, the ability to supervise others, the ability to handle the public customers, in a proper and efficient manner, etc.
Gov employees are bottom of the barrel, hired on nepotism and cronyism. They have no useful skills. My untrained circus chimp could do a bettter job in most cases 🙂
December 11, 2011 at 11:43 pm
Well I am certainly pleased that the unlawfulness of San Jose’s effort is no longer the topic for discussion any longer. John Moore pay special attention to the Kern v. City of Long Beach section.
Here, for all to read is quick primer on the vested rights doctrine:
VESTED RIGHTS DOCTRINE ACCORDING TO ART HARTINGER FROM THE MEYERS NAVE LAW FIRM
The Meyers Nave Law Firm is the one advising the City of San Jose, go figure. Mr. Hartinger was also on the losing end of the recent unanimous California Supreme Court ruling that expanded vested rights to include those rights that were implied. Below is from: The Public Law Journal, Winter 2011 Art Hartinger, Chair Meyers Nave Labor and Employment Group.
A benefit is considered “vested” if the employee is deemed to have a contractual right to receive that benefit. Thus, a public agency’s decision to discontinue a vested benefit has been viewed as an unconstitutional impairment of the employee’s contractual right to the benefit. For a right to “vest,” it must be created under a valid contract. The “contract” between the employer and employee generally consists of the statutes, ordinances, policies or other official actions of the governing body of the employee that set forth the terms of the benefit the employer agrees to provide.
The case law surrounding the vested rights doctrine is well-established with respect to traditional pensions. A long line of cases confirms the proposition that “since a pension right is an integral portion of contemplated compensation, it cannot be destroyed, once it has vested, without impairing a contractual obligation.” In Kern v. City of Long Beach, the Supreme Court confirmed that the right to receive a pension becomes vested upon acceptance of employment.
In addition, please read:
105 WORDS THAT CONSTITUTE THE CENTRAL COMPONENTS OF THE VESTED RIGHTS DOCTRINE
This is from the San Jose Federated City Employees Retirement System August 1, 2011 Legal Update from Russ Richeda, Legal Counsel.
1. “A public employee’s pension constitutes an element of compensation, and a vested contractual right to pension benefits accrues upon acceptance of employment.”
2. Such a pension right may not be destroyed, once vested, without impairing a contractual obligation of the employing public entity.”
3. “…pension rights are obligations protected by the contract clause of the federal and state Constitutions.”
4. “…upon acceptance of public employment [one] acquire[s] a vested right to a pension based on the system then in effect.”
5. “…an employee’s contractual pension expectations are measured by benefits which are in effect not only when employment commences, but which are thereafter conferred during the employee’s subsequent tenure.”
December 11, 2011 at 11:50 pm
Well, Rex, I suppose that’s why you couldn’t get a job in the public sector–how could you have, possessing skills, less than those of an untrained,circus chimp! Where is the next Stop, on the schedule, for your traveling flea circus?
December 12, 2011 at 2:37 am
seesaw, I have worked in the public sector, it is a JOKE, no one is hired or promoted on merit, no one, gov is the worst managed employer on the face of the planet!!!!!
Teddy Steals is Exhibit #1,
JoAnne Glanisky is Exhibit #2.
Do you think a person who NEVER graduated from HS could be hired into a management job, then a CEO position in the real world-with NO business, financial or management experience??? It only happens in gov, where there is no profit and loss pressure, where you have no fear of losing your job nor going out of buisiness if you go 500% over budget!!!!!!!!!!!!!
December 12, 2011 at 2:38 am
BTW-my circus chimp may be untrained but he has innate intelligence and knowledge, something public employees lack 🙂
December 12, 2011 at 3:14 am
Hey poodle— where is that case citation?? LOL Oh my………….you have been beaten to a pulp out here! God Bless ya little buddy!
December 12, 2011 at 4:43 am
Well, I took from your previous posts that you were a teacher, Rex. I’m sure you stormed away from that sector, because you just couldn’t stand the other teachers–they were all so much dumber than you, right. And, those benefits–you just didn’t feel right, accepting those benefits, and that pension.
I worked in the private sector, too, by the way. Both, the public and private sectors are composed of people, just like me. Thankfully, most of them, are not haters–or, seething with jealousy.
I really wonder if you have any friends, except that chimp. Be careful–chimps can be very dangerous.
I just read an article on Mitt Romney in Parade Magazine, last week. When asked about his father, he related that his Dad never went to college–yet he was President of American Motors, and was also Governor of Michigan. Oh boy–I just made a smackdown!!!!!!!!!!!
December 12, 2011 at 5:15 am
Richard Bransen
Matt Drudge
Two more guys with no college degrees that some people think are successful…LOL
Bam! Man, I could list em all day!
December 12, 2011 at 5:28 am
Teddy, can I send you the rent check now, for all the time I spend in your head 😛
December 12, 2011 at 5:29 am
Oh, lol…and here’s a hundred more! LOL
http://www.youngentrepreneur.com/blog/100-top-entrepreneurs-who-succeeded-without-a-college-degree/
But none were as smart as Poodle boy!
December 12, 2011 at 6:59 am
Keep fighting Tom Saggau. Based on your arguments, relating how amendments have occured, in the negotiating process, resulting in lower pension liabilities, for the City of SJ, one wonders why the Mayor, and his cronies, insist on continuing their punitivie actions, against the public employees, of that City.
December 12, 2011 at 7:04 am
Teddy, I am paying you double my normal rent for this month, because I have beein inside your head so much it is the least I can do!……………the funny thing is there is so much room in there because your brain is the size of a pea!
BOOM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
December 12, 2011 at 7:08 am
Based on your arguments, relating how amendments have occured, in the negotiating process, resulting in lower pension liabilities, for the City of SJ, one wonders why the Mayor, and his cronies, insist on continuing their punitivie actions, against the public employees, of that City.
LOL @”lower pension liabilities”…you so funny seesaw. You’re in such denial, you and Tom both.
SJ is in a fiscal EMERGENCY, what part of that don’t you understand (don’t answer-it is a hypothetical question, you will never understand it).
Tom, did you know the AVERGAE Calpers pension for an employee with 30 years in service and has retired in the last 3 years is $70K at age 55???????????????????????????? And the average SS pension at age 67 is $12K????????
Tom, did you know that a GED educated government janitor making $40K in salary is equal to an independant contractor (with a Harvard MBA) making $100K per year in the private sector?????????????
December 12, 2011 at 7:35 am
If I had to guess, Rex, I would say that Tom is a lot more knowledgeable, on the subject of public pensions, than you.
December 12, 2011 at 7:39 am
I would say that it is not true that the average age of a worker retiring from CalPERS, with 30 years service, in the last three years, is 55, with a benefit of $70,000. Provide the documentation for such statement, Rex.
December 12, 2011 at 4:50 pm
This just in…
Mercury News editorial: San Jose needs to continue bargaining on pension reform
Mercury News Editorial
Posted: 12/10/2011 08:00:00 PM PST
Updated: 12/12/2011 07:34:34 AM PST
The San Jose City Council’s momentous decision last week to place a pension reform measure on the June ballot made it clear that a 6-5 majority is dead serious about reform — even though the immediate fiscal and service emergency expected to hit next year apparently will not materialize.
But the six did a poor job of explaining from the dais why they needed to approve specific wording of the measure Tuesday. The ballot deadline isn’t until March. And even as they pressed forward, they said they wanted to continue mediation with employee unions toward a mutually acceptable plan.
The apparent contradictions inevitably fueled the perception that Mayor Chuck Reed and his allies don’t want a negotiated agreement and would rather go to court. We don’t believe that, but the burden is on them to show that serious alternative ballot proposals will get a fair hearing.
Layoffs and pay cuts have reduced projected pension costs for the next fiscal year by some $50 million from previous estimates, sidelining the mayor’s proposal to declare a fiscal emergency. But pension costs still are not sustainable. Even as the actual bill goes down next year, the percentage of payroll it consumes is rising — to 60 percent for public safety. Reform still is urgently needed. Some and probably most union leaders understand this.
We continue to believe that a negotiated plan will be in the public interest: Nobody needs years of costly litigation with its inevitable toll on public services and employee morale.
It appears the main reason for the rush to a ballot measure Tuesday was a newly-passed state law on public employee bargaining that takes effect Jan. 1. It adds a fact-finding procedure to the usual sequence of contract bargaining, lengthening the time it would take to declare impasse if no agreement can be reached.
Lawyers say if the current ballot proposal had been dropped, it could have been construed as restarting the bargaining process under the new law, and the addition of fact finding would have left too little time to get to the ballot in June.
Or maybe Reed just wanted to send the message that, in case anybody didn’t know, he’s really serious about going to the ballot.
Later last week, the police union leadership showed good faith by asking members to drop their arbitration with the city over whether last year’s 10 percent pay cut should be one time or permanent. Giving it up, assuming the union membership agrees, will save thousands of dollars in costs.
The police and fire unions also have made an interesting pension-reform proposal: They’ve revived the plan that was in place from 1962 until Gov. Gray Davis started the cascade toward 90 percent benefits during the turn-of-the-century dot-com boom. The old plan, 75 percent of salary after 30 years’ service, would be an option, but police association President Jim Unland says he would expect to negotiate ways to encourage officers to opt in. It shouldn’t be hard. It’s still a good plan, and it would cost less.
Would this save enough to stabilize city finances? We don’t know. But it’s not a frivolous offer.
Fortunately, most of the City Council — not just Reed’s bloc — recognizes the need for some form of pension reform. And while some union leaders are still in denial, most of them recognize it, too. Something has to go on the ballot in June — and the proposal passed Tuesday is far more reasonable and clear than Reed’s first proposal last summer. We remain hopeful that some agreements can be achieved before the final language is approved.
December 12, 2011 at 5:12 pm
I would say that it is not true that the average age of a worker retiring from CalPERS, with 30 years service, in the last three years, is 55, with a benefit of $70,000. Provide the documentation for such statement, Rex
seesaw, I just destroyed you on the GED dork Galinsky earning $225K poer year and now has a pension over $200K and she only had a GED-dropped out of HS in the 10th grade.
But YOU asked for it seesaw, now I want you to OWN UP and admit I AM RIGHT and you ARE WRONG!
For seesaw;
From the CalSTRS Annual Report, page 135:
Click to access cafr_2010.pdf
CalSTRS participants who retired during the 12 months ending June 30th, 2010 (the most recent data), earned pensions as follows:
25-30 years service, average pension $50,772 per year.
30-35 years service, average pension $67,980 per year.
35-40 years service, average pension $86,736 per year.
From the CalPERS Annual Report, page 151:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/48290940/CA-CalPERS-2010-Comprehensive-Annual-Financial-Report
CalPERS participants who retired during the 12 months ending December 31st, 2009 (the most recent data), earned pensions as follows:
25-30 years service, average pension $53,182 per year.
30+ years service, average pension $66,828 per year.
December 12, 2011 at 7:35 pm
Those are cherry picked groups Rex. Show a report that includes all retirees in the same year, and then show the average pension. Where is the line that says that all those retirees, in that cherry picked group, retired, at the age of 55?
December 12, 2011 at 8:12 pm
No they are not cherry picked, they are right out of the annual reports of FULLTIME CAREER employees, and they are compared to the same FULLTIME CAREER employees in SS, where the retirement age is 67 after 40 years and max pay out is $31K
December 12, 2011 at 8:42 pm
The group itself, is cherry-picked, by CalPERS, to give out one, specific list, of pension figures. The average pension amount for all retirees, in the same year, with service credit of 30 years–how many are in that particular group, 10? 100? 2?. And, now, you avoid your claim, that they all retired, at the age of 55.
I retired at the age of 72, with a pension of $48,348, and 36.4 years, service credit (thanks to three tiny COLAS, since, I now receive $50,844). My rank in the CalPERS listing for average pension amounts, using all current retirees, is above the average. That ought to tell you, that your quotes, using lists of selected groups, do not relate, average pension amounts, for all retirees. Added up, you get the total amount of benefits, that CalPERS, pays out, in one year. Isn’t that figure, more important, than what a few people, in a small, selected group, make?
CalPERS could select me and my former CM, as another cherry-picked group. For that calculation, the average pension amount for two people, who retired, within two years, of each other, is $177,500.
December 12, 2011 at 8:52 pm
What is the point of comparing CalPERS recipients with SS recipients? The CalPERS benefits amounts are calculated, using one to five years, total earnings–SS benefits are calculated using total earnings, for the recipient’s highest 35 years’ earning period. Some people supplement 401k plans, and some don’t. Some SS receipients are very rich, some are very poor. It makes no sense, trying to compare apples and oranges, when it comes to retirement plans.
December 12, 2011 at 10:24 pm
What is the point of comparing CalPERS recipients with SS recipients?
Because it clearly shows that whensimilarly situated employees in gov and the private sector, using the same working years, the gov emoloyee has a pensions 2-10 times better, for the same years worked, for similar/same type jobs.
December 12, 2011 at 11:14 pm
Next, you will be comparing CM’s with Corporate CEO’s. They have similar qualifications, and similar/same type jobs.
December 13, 2011 at 2:31 am
Next, you will be comparing CM’s with Corporate CEO’s. They have similar qualifications, and similar/same type jobs.
No they don’t.
December 13, 2011 at 5:28 pm
To Ted Steele: It is not Allen v City of Long Beach Cal App2d, as you quoted. It is 45 C2d 128 (1955) which has never been modified or overruled. FYI C2d, means the California Supreme Court.
December 13, 2011 at 10:15 pm
Who you going to compare the CM’s with then, Captain? Even if you look at the local Macy’s or Nordstrum’s managers, I bet you will see severance packages that both have, and stock options, that those Managers have, and CM’s don’t have. Perhaps, people should realize that the public sector is what it is, and the private sector is what it is. There are choices in life. Stop trying to match up apples and oranges.
December 18, 2011 at 6:40 am
John– I know that– I was lookng at the App court case—
December 26, 2011 at 10:56 pm
Absolutely Beautifully Stated! So let me understand , Either It was Really Bad Math on the City’s part or The Mayor Weed Lied , Either way the residents of San Jose must start asking the hard questions of this Dishonorable Administration. People now have to Question , The Ballpark financing , Illegal Ballot Measure,Improper shifting of RDA debt to General Fund (Reed sits on both Council and RDA as do other council members, No Conflict there!),real estate gift to Billionaire , rezoning to continue to build Low income housing(Favors for Reeds Developer Buddies , City Manager (Unearned/gifted)Benefits. This is just a small list of things that need to be looked at closer…………………….Lets see out Open the Mayor and Council are to “Open Gov/Sunshine”??? How bout Mayor and Council giving away millions 26 million real estate to Billionaire developer for only 6 million dollars like Austin Powers! How bout Council’s excessive Redevelopment 5.2 billion dollar spending? How bout the 152 business enterprises that are popping up all around City of San Jose Marijuana Pot Clubs, which are a direct violation of Federal law. Yet City and Council are allowing these businesses under lawn care logo? Ya mr Weed, now u can blame the City of San Jose employees! So now councilwoman Denver Pyle wants to tax residents more and Council and Mayor Weed want to spend, spend, and tax more!