 |
 |
By KEVIN McCALLUM
THE PRESS DEMOCRAT
County-employee pensions have taken center stage in the race for the Sonoma County’s 3rd supervisorial district, with incumbent Shirlee Zane touting her leadership on the issue as her opponent accuses her and the board of foot-dragging and proposing “cosmetic” changes that won’t solve the problem.
Tim Smith; Shirlee Zane
Zane says she supports the array of changes outlined in the pension overhaul she co-authored with Supervisor David Rabbitt with a goal of getting pension costs under 10 percent of payroll within 10 years. It’s currently 18 percent when bonded indebtedness is included.
Approaches include a cap on pensions, a higher retirement age and less-generous benefits for new employees, and a change in the makeup of the county’s pension board.
“You’ve got to do it all,” Zane said.
She said that county has begun executing the board’s strategy in negotiations with its many of the 3,400 employees, and has made it clear that county leaders will share in the sacrifice.
“County management will lead in this effort,” County Administrator Veronica Ferguson said in a letter to union leaders.
She stressed that all employee groups must share in an “equitable sacrifice,” and that included managers and supervisors, who will “reset their own total compensation … at the same time as negotiated settlements” with union groups.
To control soaring pension costs, the county seeks through negotiations to eliminate pension spiking, reduce overall salary by 3 percent for the entire workforce, and make some kinds of pay no longer count toward pensions.
Those all sound good, but they don’t go far enough, said attorney and former Rohnert Park Councilman Tim Smith. That plan would allow existing workers to continue accruing pension benefits at the unsustainable formulas that got the county into such a mess.
Smith said the first thing he would do as supervisor would be to not accept a county pension. This would eliminate for him the inherent conflict he sees of supervisors voting on changes that directly affect them financially.
He also would support the supervisors and top county management immediately reducing their benefit formula to what it was before the more generous formulas were instituted a decade ago.
Instead of the 3-at-60 formula (three percent of highest year’s pay times years of service) that allows workers to retire at age 60 with 90 percent of salary after 30 years, Smith would roll it back to 2-at-60 for new accruals. Under his plan someone who has worked for the county for 25 years would keep that vested 3 percent per year benefit, but would accrue benefit at a lower level for the remainder of their service. He believes this is both legal and necessary, though others disagree.
Neither candidate called for a 401(k)-type plan to replace the county’s defined-benefit plan.
Smith said he would also demand that the county consider the pension system’s entire debt when negotiating with unions, not just the $353 million unfunded liability figure cited by county officials.
That total figure is “over $1 billion” when pension obligation bond debt and retiree medical obligations are considered, Smith said.
Unlike Zane, whose plan proposes to “cap” pensions at the amount of highest salary, Smith is proposing a “hard cap” in the “low-six figures” for all workers, no matter what the pension formula says.
But Zane argues that such proposals would certainly incur legal challenges and result in lengthy and expensive litigation. The county’s effort is better spent negotiating with its workers than fighting with them in court.
“I don’t think pensions are bad. There needs to be sustainability and fairness and equality. And part of the fairness equation is the taxpayers.”
Subscribe by Email
Follow us on Twitter
@Annie Erving-you are correct in your observations. The pension problem needs to be fixed, and now. It should have happened 2 years ago when Public Employees were in negotiations, but as they were told, ‘you can’t negotiate for management’, yes, this is true, so true. So, while the rank and file line staff negotiated for mandatory time off, management and department heads kept their luxury PENSIONABLE, perks….car allowance, deferred compensation (a percentage of their base pay)…etc. I invite you all to become informed, http://hr.sonoma-county.org/content.aspx?sid=1024&id=1215, copy and paste. This will take you to the Labor Contracts and Agreements. Look at Salary Resolution for Department Heads, Sonoma County Administrative Management Council (SCAMC)/Unrepresented Administrative Management, and Sonoma County Confidential Employees’ Association (SCCEA). Sure, it may be tedious reading, but oh so informative.
“In a state with nearly 38 million people, few have more influence than the top 100 donors to California campaigns – a powerful club that has contributed overwhelmingly to Democrats and spent $1.25 billion to influence voters over the past dozen years.
The biggest special interest donor, the California Teachers Association, spent more than $118 million on campaigns in the state during the past five election cycles and the first half of this one. The union has focused overwhelmingly on initiatives, spending $100 million of that war chest advocating and opposing ballot measures over the past dozen years.”
Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2012/06/03/MNTQ1OPB2V.DTL#ixzz1wrOk4HKc
After reading the “Sonoma County Board of Supervisors Ad Hoc Committee On Pension Reform” that was pushed by Zane, I want to know what has the Board of Supervisors accomplished with this report since it has been published. All I have heard from Zane in her campaign rhetoric is that everone must make a “Shared Sacrifice”. How do you equate a sacrifice from someone making less than $40,000 a year with one making $160,000. I think that County Supervisors salaries should be limited to less than $60,000 per year since they only work part time and that should include the elimination of their excessive benefit package!
Well, unfortunately MOST if not NEAR all UNION members have the VERY SAME FALSE INFORMATION THAT THE PUBLIC HAS …
UNION DUES ARE NOT USED …. for ANY POLITICAL mailers, fliers, newspaper ads etc.
UNION COPE fees/consented payroll deduction…. Campaign for Political Action.
EACH union member MUST BE INFORMED & SIGN a separate payroll deduction form for COPE…the political arm of the union.
COPE union costs are separate from ANY REGULAR UNION DUES…must be signed off on separate LEGAL form.
Union dues are always SEPARATE from COPE fees (COPE fees are used for political purposes).
Maybe the PRESS DEMOCRAT needs to do some research ON UNION COPE FEES versus regular UNION DUES.
They are TOTALLY different things.
Let us SEE if the Press Democrat cares enough about the lowly clerical union worker working at the WELFARE OFFICE, MEDI CAL worker, IHSS worker, FOOD STAMP worker ETC. that the PUBLIC SEEMS to think makes 6 figure incomes, car allowances, management perks, 5% retirement bonuses for giving one year quitting notice………the list goes on.
Yes – maybe the Press Democrat needs to really compare the BIG APPLES (management) to the worn out oranges (rank & file line staff who answer the phone & help you fill out your forms).
Yes – LET US TELL the…….absolute TOTAL TRUTH about this whole NIGHTMARE.
No NOT blame public employees for this mess…….BLAME management SOME departments have 2.3 employees for every MANAGER…….
Maybe more FOOT SOLDIERS to do the REAL WORK IN THE REAL WORLD is an answer.
Press Democrat you need to get the STATS on the WORST county departments and the BEST county departments.
Let’s compare the Board of Supervisors’ pay/benefit history to that of State Legislators.
In the early 2000′s Legislators were stripped of Pension benefits when term limits came about.
In 2009 their pay was cut 18% and just this week by another 5%.
Their average base pay will be close to $90,000.
In 2000 the Board of Supervisors’ individual pay was $64,852, in 2010 it was $147,252 according to the information on the home page of Watch Sonoma County.
That’s a 127% increase.
In the early 2000′s the Board of Supervisors granted themselves a Pension increase that allows them to collect at age 60 and vests at 3%/year.
I suggest we tie Supervisors’ Salary and Retirement to that of our legislators…with Salary being set at 75% of that of legislators.
County supervisors, department heads, and managers can start leading the way by giving up their car allowances, cell phone/PDA/tablet reimbursements, extra paid time off (60+ hours per year on top of the regular accrual), extra retirement money (they get money in addition to the regular retirement contributions), and the 5% bonus they receive if they give a year’s notice of retiring or quitting. That, to me, would signal they are serious.
No doubt some 401k plans charge excessive fees, but then CalPers investment advisers have been found to accept bribes from money managers.
Managing money costs money. A 401k plan must, by law, disclose its management fees. What does SCERA charge? Their services are not free, believe me. Try to find out. If the information is available, it’s less so than any 401k plan.
I appreciate that a defined benefit plan is going to be more attractive from an employee perspective. It isn’t, however, attractive from a taxpayer’s standpoint, or the next generation’s. I expect elected leaders to represent more than the narrow interests of employees.
Those of you who keep advocating for 401Ks should know that the principal of these investments are eaten away by excessive fees over the years until retirement. It is estimated in a report I read, that about 30% ends up in somebody else’s pocket NOT YOURS. The further problem is that most people don’t know how to invest their money and make mistakes. I have a little deferred comp money put away, and saw such little interest being applied to it. I inquired and it turns out, because I didn’t specify, it was put into a .5% (1/2percent) account. I have now made a better choice and get more interest.
Giving your money for others to handle is giving it away. That’s your 401K accounts. That’s why I would prefer a defined pension. If you don’t believe me, look at the ENRON employees who lost EVERYTHING including their pensions where they put all their eggs in the ENRON basket. Lost their jobs, their homes, and their 401Ks.
A 401K, unless you’re rich as well, won’t give you security. And you have to pay taxes on it when you get it.
CW,
Are you advocating a 401k program for county employees? If so, you’re on the right side of pension reform.
Let the unions negotiate the largest employer contribution they can. Whatever it is, the cost will be visible and the amount contributed to the employee yearly. None of this unfunded stuff or unknown liability passed on to the next generation.
Sadly, none our fearless leaders, who like to talk the talk, seem capable of taking a step in the right direction.
Bill,
Since I am forced to pay into both systems and only get one of them, what would you do with all of my money I put into my retirement AND SS since I cant get the SS? Just keep my money? I have personally paid in over $200,000 in my career. Are you suggesting YOU keep my money? Just checking.
Until we as citizens give our elected public officials the demand that their retirement compensation looks like our Social Security in payout then we must not forgive ourselves for voting them into office.
Amazing how members of the SEIU and other non elite/non Public Safety Unions don’t realize that they’ve been sold down the river by their “Union Friendly” candidates?
Budgets will eventually push out most workers outside of Public Safety.
Don’t you get that?
The fatter Public Safety gets as a % of the budget the skinnier and skinnier other departments will get.
The layoffs have barely begun of “non elite” Union members.
I’m guessing people like Allen who pushed to fatten Public Safety’s already very generous pay and bennies in the early 2000′s thought that enhanced benefits would eventually “trickle down” to other Union members.
They were completely wrong and warrant “non elite” Union members’ scorn, not support! You’re being used as pawns.
The enhanced benefits, however, did “trickle up” to management and members of the Board of Supervisors; of that there is no question.
Shirley Zane has done some things that the Unions like and also done some things that the unions don’t like. All the unions expect is to have a voice for their members. Without a voice, workers in the community can’t compete with the voice of big corporate money. It’s unrealistic to expect more. Unions know that they aren’t being carried in politicians’ back pockets, but hope that one candidate will be more pro worker than another. That’s how endorsement of candidates work.
Most of the public don’t pay attention to the nitty gritty workings of county government. Apparently, many people on this blog don’t either. There is a lot of presumption and knee jerk hate of unions and public employees.
Unions work to improve the community because good economics benefit all workers including union members. Local unions are working together in this county and with other local progressive groups to achieve mutual progressive goals. Someone should look up SEIU goals for the future. They CLEARLY are not for union members only, but for ALL WORKERS and targeted to benefit communities as a whole. Healthy communities means jobs for all.
Zaney is your candidate if you want nothing done in the county except more of what has gone on for the past 4 or 5 years.
Higher and higher pensions, higher and still higher wages for her union supporters working at the county.
More off the wall comments, decisions and more county road money diverted to her smart train experiment.
She is another tool of SEIU and the other public unions.
Every local politician knows that rounding up significant blocks of voters is essential and difficult. There is no better block than public employees. They know their support will make a difference come contract time, so they vote in high numbers.
And many council members aspire to higher, and better paying, offices. Having public employees on your side in low turnout elections is, in California especially, the difference between victory and defeat.
Noreen Evans is a textbook example. In 2005 she was asked about the early predictions of pension funding crisis down road and whether the 3%@50 wasn’t too generous. Quite the contrary, she replied, no it wasn’t too generous. In fact, she favored bumping it to 100% at 30 years.
No private employer can afford to be as generous as good old Noreen.
“How are public employee unions different from other unions?”
“Are you kidding? Are you kidding?”(N. Pelosi)
For a start they never negotiate with their employers, only the employees(politicians) of their employers(taxpayers).
Second their pension benefits are not paid by themelves nor their municipalities but by generations yet unborn.
When Big Govt Union employees mobilize their minions to vote, pols make whatever insane promises needed to get their support. Conflict of interest anyone?
Next, there is no alternative to hiring them at whatever hallucinatory terms pols have agreed to, as there is no competitive alternative to Big Govt police and fire services. The taxpayer has no choice of other providers.
Long after pols have retired, taxed-payers are on the hook forever to pay and pay without receiving any services in return.
Think GM with 6 retiress for every worker assembling cars. Ever wonder why they went bankrupt?
Bottom line, when Big Govt employees unionize, the normal world is tuned on its head.
We actually/factually work for them!
Reread FDR’s objections to Big Govt Unions for a 75 year old argument from The Original Big Govt Democrat!
@follower
How are public employee unions different from other unions? They all spend money on elections, as do the billionaires. Do you really think unions have more resources, and control local elections? And dictate the terms of collective bargaining agreements?
This would be entirely wrong. Sorry.
Keep in mind that every pension or benefit deal the BOS – who YOU elected – AND management get the same or better benefits. Talk about a conflict of interest! Look there and don’t hesitate to look at the pay and benefits going to retired, or about to retire, elected officials.
With all that time not being a licensed doctor on his hands, one would think Gunderson would be able to write some new material.
Is Tim Smith in favor of the County’s reneging on municipal bonds? If not, why not?
Tim Smith is grandstanding again. He knows perfectly well as an attorney that his so called “pension solutions” will end up costing the county and taxpayers much more in legal costs than they could ever save. He is not even running a real campaign (Much like “Dr” Gunderson who seems to think hanging out on the WSC blog and commenting on every article makes him qualified to help run the state)
Timmy has no intention of ‘fixing ‘ anything, he’s just running because he is still mad that Shirlee Zane beat the pants off him in the last election. Talk about a sore loser…
@Steveguy
They don’t need to “rat”… they can just file a Union grievance!
Maybe people are starting to “get it”. It’s time to end the corrupt farce of Public Employee Unions.
Many hard core Union supporters hear the words “Ban” and “Union” in the same sentence and that’s ALL THEY HEAR!
NOBODY IS CALLING FOR THE BANNING OF “UNIONS”!
Just Public Employee Unions.
Civil Service IS NOT the same as a Private Sector Job. Never was, never will be and there is NO defense for the existence of Public Employee Unions.
Every time I call for the banning of Public Employee Unions I get tons of “thumbs down” and NOT ONE post defending these shams.
There IS NO DEFENCE! Unions were created for valid reasons, exist for valid reasons and NONE of those reasons apply to Civil Service!
If you want to help pension reform, better vote for anyone but Mediocre Michael Allen. As the executive director of SEIU, the county’s largest labor group he was responsible for getting the contracts that are sinking Sonoma and Marin counties. In the PD’s Sept. 25 2011 “How soaring Sonoma County pension costs began” Allen said, “No one thought of a catastrophic meltdown.”
He’s getting upwards of eight hundreds of thousands of dollars from out-of-the-area unions and they are his biggest contributors. They helped him abandon Solano and Napa’s voters by moving him to San Rafael to try to takeover Jared Huffman’s new assembly district. Also, in Sacramento he’s in charge of the pension reform committee.
So Mediocre Michael created the problem, he’s getting hundreds of thousands of dollars from the unions that are benefiting the most from no pension reform, he getting a pension from SEIU, plus extra personal income from other unions and now he is in charge of fixing the problem in Sacramento. Mediocre Michael, the professional politician.
Wow, the rank and file REAL County workers are taking it in the shorts. Their pensions are a blip. Time to whistleblow.
Do the County employees have the gall to rat on their bosses ? Same with SRJC, or SSU employees.
Do you have to kiss the feet of your $200 K plus per year ‘managers’ ? Tell us all about the ‘team building’ events at 5 star hotel/resorts.
” The Managers” will decide that rank and file needs a pay cut and higher contributions, but they will get a HUGE raise for doing so.
The public has been dooped and is standing up to no avail. I do think it is time for the REAL County workers to stand up and rat on the bosses.
Convene the Grand Jury, like that would even end the scam. Ohhh, I almost forgot. No money ? No problem, as we have a BRAND NEW Courthouse coming! It only costs $160 Million. They will fine us all into submission.
Tim has it right on this issue. Rethink it for new hires, and reset it this point forward for current employees. I really don’t see why a 401K would not be best for all new hires henceforth. Its good enough for the masses its good enough for the public team.
This is the reason why FDR did not allow government (aka – public) sector unions to form.
Even the grand daddy collectivist himself knew that once the government sector was allowed to unionize, it would usher in an unstoppable currupt marriage of elected officals and government union dues.
Government sector unions and elected officials negotaite for thier own good, the interests of the people both are serving do not even have a place at the table.
“County management will lead in this effort,” – I am pretty sure this is how we got in this situation to begin with.
Smith has it right.
If Zane wanted to show “leadership” she would “lead” the Superisors to cutting their benefits immediately.
The fact that the budget for the Supervisors exceeds the budget for Road Maintenance is outrageous.
Might reforming public pensions risk legal challenges and costs? Hmm, no kidding. Is there anything in California that doesn’t risk legal challenges?
Who to vote for here is not difficult to decide.
“’County management will lead in this effort,’ County Administrator Veronica Ferguson said . . ”
If so, what’s taking so long? The problem, after all, isn’t something that just came up. Egads, people this dense are running county government. Scary.
“County management will lead in this effort,” County Administrator Veronica Ferguson said in a letter to union leaders.
Bull, the employees that do the work have been taking it up the you know what for years while they got their COLA’s, etc… How about them taking all of the brunt, rank & file workers have given enough.