Pacifica Tribune/Jane Northrop, 1/13/12. "Two council members face recall attempt."
"Disgruntled
with the way a couple of council members have conducted business over
the course of their terms, one local resident and her supporters seek to
have them recalled.
 |
| Pete DeJarnatt |
The allegations in the recall notice also refer to violations of city codes forcing a whistleblower to resign, an alleged violation of state law by encouraging a biodiesel project that failed. Also, rejected developments, lack of action regarding city properties and waste of taxpayer funds. And finally, an alleged lack of disciplinary actions regarding employees' neglect that cost the city millions of dollars, the notice states. Dyer said she has already collected more than the 20 signatures required to place a recall on the November ballot. "They are part of the big three that held up development for so many years," she said. "Why not have a clean slate in November? If we don't have some good candidates running, I think we should consider becoming a charter city. We'd have more control."
 |
| Sue Digre |
Digre and DeJarnatt will have seven days to respond to the notices. After that time, Dyer will continue to gather signatures on petitions for recall. She said she is seeking to recall DeJarnatt even though he said he wouldn't run again and his term expires in November. She believes he may change his mind.
"If she wants to try and recall me, she's welcome to do so. That's her right," said DeJarnatt. "With that said, I don't agree with any of the charges that she has listed. They are all very vague with no examples pointed out of individual acts and I disagree with them entirely. They are a bunch of general charges that don't make sense. I voted in a fashion that caused the city to lose money and stop development? We haven't stopped development. Therese (Dyer) has disagreed with much of what I've done so far, so I'm not surprised. "DeJarnatt said he is definitely not running again. That could preclude the recall attempt because it cannot be brought within six months of an election where the candidate seeks reelection. Digre was unavailable for comment."
Posted by Kathy Meeh
86 comments:
Is Therese Dyer misquoted or just mistaken? It'll take lots more than 20 signatures to put the recall on the November ballot. It takes 20 signatures just to file the intent with the county elections office. Once that's approved it takes the signatures of 20% of the number of registered voters in Pacifica to qualify for the ballot. That's 20% of 21,158 or 4232 signatures.
That's a mis-quote I think. Therese is aware it will take more than 4000 Pacificans to sign.
I say great! Where do I sign? These two have been horrible for Pacifica. The last straw was they wanted to raise our taxes after they caused this financial mess we're in. Oh wait, I forgot, then this week Sue Digre wanted to appoint Leo Leon to Vreelands seat. Just what we need, another anti growth pro tax council member. They have no clue.
"..misquoted or just mistaken.." Anon (1222).
There's several steps prior to soliciting citizen signatures. Therese has mentioned notification to those being recalled, and is referring to the 30 citizen signatures needed to notify the city. She said she has already obtained 20 of these signatures. She did not write the article, Jane Northrop of the Pacifica Tribune did.
My understanding of the 20% of citizen signatures required to put the recall on the ballot is dependent upon those who voted in the prior election, rather than total voters. The collection of these signatures occurs within 120 days once the initial filing has been legally approved.
20% of last turn out is about 3000.
Steve, would you, or Therese, publish the text and 20 signatures of the recall petition. Thanks,
Paul
I don't have the list, Paul. If Therese wants to send it in, we can post it.
I hope that's right Kathy.
It looks like about 8500 people voted in Nov so we would only need 1700 signatures to get the recall on the ballot.
hey, stop guessing and read the procedure.
http://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/recall.pdf
page 14: local
page 20 number signatures: 22,000 reg voters = 20% or 4,400 verified signatures.
just the facts folks! .
good luck with that
Keep in mind they ran at different times so your turnout number is different thereby making the number of signatures different for each. Recall efforts take months to complete and the rule against a recall in the final 6 months of a term would seem to make Pete immune.
Read and Count @102? Try again!
According to page 20 of the link, 20% of registered voters is correct. So about 4400 signatures are required.
Each?
It really doesn't make sense to try to recall DeJarnatt, even if he does run again. What would happen if he runs and wins reelection, yet also gets recalled?
I don't get the sense this has been well thought-out.
you and a lot of other people
who pays for this
The public of course will pay for a recall election. The last time Theresa and her pals tried this was in 2003, to recall Jim, Pete, Julie and Sue the estimated cost to the city was around $120,000.
I'm sure that the cost to the public for this regurgitated farce will be more than that.
From Therese Dyer's LTE in today's Trib referring to signatures needed, she says the recall effort will require "at least 4000 by August". Is that for one or both?
From the link given on here earlier it seems it would be 4400 each. But then same link clearly states no one can be recalled within 6 months of end of term so isn't Pete untouchable? Why bother and spend money?
perfect
How could it have cost the city so much last time, Todd? The recall never even made it to the ballot.
You need 4000+ signatures for each person you want to recall.
Thx Steve, that's what I thought.
Well, the only thing that seems to be correct about my 801 comment was that there are "several steps in the recall process". For initial notification only 20 signatures are required. Therese said she wanted 30 signatures (that's the personal choice I heard).
My search lead to the same 12/23/03, revised 2007 State Recall of Local Officers" document that "I can read Anon" referred to at 1:02pm. Steve's "20% of registered city voters is 4400" comment at 2:40pm follows that theme. With some variation, the Recall attorney said 4000. But, if Steve's calculation of 4400 is the actual number, add a 10-15% verifiable voter signature cushion: about 5000 recall signatures are needed.
Earlier, I bumped into California Recall rules described by Ballotpedia. Unless "I can't read", local (city) seems to be included with state, described as: "20% of the votes cast in the last election for the official being recalled." Apparently that information is WRONG, too bad.
each
Ballotpedia is not the official state of calif elections website and as such should not be relied upon . Calif. Sec of State as quoted by anon 102 is the defining website. Hence the Sec of State doc posted at 102 should be read. Or call san mateo county elections.
Even a casual reading of the sec state recall doc shows recalls of state officers at page 5 and recalls of local officers starts at page 14, with required signatures at page 20. So no combining of recalls regarding different offices. Recalls of local city officers correct as stated by anon 102.
Regarding the 22K voter figure for Pacifica: San Mateo Cty elections statement of the vote after the final count 11/2011 elections at page 129 shows Pac reg. at 20,794, which is the number 20% is calculated from.
https://www.shapethefuture.org/elections/results/nov2011/final/SOV_Nov2011.pdf
2003 attempt to recall "..the estimated cost to the city was around $120,000."
Todd (339) $120,000, really? I don't remember the 2003 Recall effort actually going to ballot. I do remember you crashing one of our events.
Its unfortunate that your "our environment is our economy" pals Vreeland, DeJarnatt, Digre and Lancelle were not recalled then. So much economic damage to this city could have been avoided.
Was that the event at the Pacifica Resort? Good it was crashed or you'd have had 3 total attendance.
Todd was the life of the party til he was kicked out.
wow I could've stopped reading pretty much after the first commenter and had the right answer.
Kathy, I was sent an invitation to your 2003 recall fundraiser event, you and your pals were beyond rude. And the estimated cost to the city of your failed 2003 was around $120,000.
Yeah, pretty much.
Adjust for slight flux in # of registered voters and remember you're going to do it twice and there you are.
"..I was sent an invitation.. recall cost was around $120,000."
Todd (654), NO and NO. You and your band of NIMBY city council defending friends protested our fund-raising event outside, across the street. But, only you came up the elevator to crash the party. And, really how much did a preliminary Recall at the signature collection stage cost the city, $120,000? Not even Cecilia Quick could have dreamed-up that one.
Anyhow, had the recall effort moved forward, the city likely would have the development it needs. And, as you grind-over the small city cost for that incomplete recall, consider the resulting years since: Fire Tax; many fees increases and attempted taxes; money funneled into the general fund stripping the WWTP infrastructure; city council "cash for medical benefits; Beach Boulevard not developed; Quarry not developed; more land gifted to "open space"; Beach front city hall; biodiesel plan; sewer-spills; city debt increase; employee pension bonds increase; city bonds flipped with monies removed; city debt increase; parcel owners pay for sewer-laterals; some parcel owners pay for their streets; City Hall not ADA compliant; city residents are subject to extreme volunteerism; dog park took 5 years, paid partially and maintained by citizens; city museum continues to be re-built and will be maintained by citizens; no highway improvement, but highway money spent on trails-- these to name a few. Then there is the ongoing polarized dissension and defense of "no improvement", priceless!
I totally disagree with Therese Dyer's recall campaign. It is ill-conceived, ill-timed, poorly reasoned and sloppily written. A recall would be, at best, a sideshow to the serious impending events at Council; at worst, it could be a rallying cry for Sue's many supporters. Remember, she came in 2nd in the last election, with over 5000 votes. I don't think those folks were induced to change sides by the clarity and logic of Therese's LTE this morning. The important thing now is the appointment (hopefully) of the 5th councilmember, the tie-breaker.
I totally agree with Paul. I think Sue is a horrible council person, but this recall is silly, undemocratic, and a waste of money we do not have. Put the efforts instead into backing good candidates.
Thanks Paul for your well reasoned post. I couldn't have said it better myself.
I never thought of Kathy as a flat out liar before but I certainly do now.
"I totally disagree with Therese Dyer's recall campaign."
Paul (958), that's fair. You support the golf course, some people would rather see it torn-down. Funny how I think Therese and others have already won. Vreeland is gone, DeJarnatt is going. 2 out of 3 isn't bad.
Sue Digre should step-down or continue to face the heat for cause: failure to act in the economic best interest of this city. Her 10 year track-record is clear enough. Its time to get rid of all the "our environment is our economy" mascots. 10 years of inability to understand the difference between a) environment, and b) economy is enough. Hopefully her supporters will wish her well on the way out.
Todd (1114), oh brother, now you're calling me a "flat out liar", without further specific complaint or explanation on your part.
Wonder how that $120,000 got spent by the city? Legal advice, campaign, petitions are all paid by the Recall Committee. City legal verifies the initial petition wording, and city clerk directs the PAC principals to Fair Practice rules. Maybe the cost was more like $120.00, that sounds more like it.
Again, I remember the recall party quite well, including your self-invited arrival, and our friend Mary inviting you to leave. Doesn't look like Pacifica had "anything" on the 6/3/03 ballot. Nope no recall, nothing.
I kind of like being on a more friendly basis with you Todd, because although we don't often agree, and you are devious, I recognize you have a brain. But, calling me a "flat out liar" has no substance, and tells me you're having a really bad day, sorry.
Kathy said: "Funny how I think Therese and others have already won. Vreeland is gone, DeJarnatt is going. 2 out of 3 isn't bad. "
Exactly Kathy. The pressure IS working very well. And for anyone saying that recalling incompetent law breaking council members is not democratic please know that a recall is part of our democratic system.
The anti growth contingent is on the run for once. Thank God, because Pacifica can't take much more love from them.
Todd, there's no way you did anything but pull the $120K figure out of your ass. The last recall attempt (which I wasn't involved with) probably didn't even cost the city $1K.
$120K? Trying to pass that off as a legitimate figure shows a lack of respect for other people's intelligence.
Paul Slavin said: "Remember, she came in 2nd in the last election, with over 5000 votes."
Well maybe breaking the law by harassing a building inspector (Mike Angel) who denied Vreeland a permit and blackballing our former finance director Maureen Lennon might change some voters minds about Sue and Pete. Both incidents resulted in the city being sued and very large payments to these employees who were wronged by De Jarnett and Digre.
Their incompetence is overwhelming. I don't believe voters are stupid enough to re-elect these two after they've caused our current crisis
What bothers me most about the recall campaign is that it smacks of retribution, a fiery, rightous punishment for perceived misdeeds. That might be satisfying on some level, but it does little or nothing to solve our problems, and might well make them worse. From what I've seen so far, the recall seems venghful and tawdry, more emotional impulse than calm consideration. Kathy, I've always admired your determination, your energy, and your dedication to our community. But I have to say that maybe, just maybe, on a rare occasion, you may get just a little bit carried away in the heat of the moment. For instance, we don't need to "get rid of all the 'our environment is our economy' mascots." The environmentalists are, after all, a part of our community, and as deserving of representation as anyone else. Minority representation, hopefully, which would be achieved by the appointment, and subsequent election, of just one more fair-minded, business-friendly, clear-thinking councilmember. Not, as I've said before, a hard-core ideologue or political gadfly (Therese seems to fit both catagories) but someone acceptable to most of the town and who can work intelligently with a new majority on Council and help lead us out of this mess. I hope that person is applying for the job.
Do bears have fur?
Paul (1044), we just need people on city council who can count, and are willing to fix the really bad structural situation in this city. The 10+ years "eco-minority" city councilmembers (Vreeland, DeJarnatt, Digre) with knowledge, including the consequences, and opportunity to fix the city did not do it, nor will their clones.
Personally, I don't care if city councilmembers "all get along". Cross-diolog is needed, and city councilmembers need to get done the important work of "saving this city" (and moving it forward).
I admire your logic and consistent effort to "save Sharp Park Golf Course", a productive, recreational "open space". By contrast, DeJarnatt, Digre, Vreeland and friends "saved 100% of Mori Point" from downtown development, even though we Pacificans voted to build it. The same "anti-development" councilmembers worked to "save 100% of the quarry". Both downtown location properties remain economically unproductive, and are "100% saved from fixing Pacifica."
Recall efforts are by definition not friendly to those civic leaders being recalled. After all, the underlying civic emotion of recall is betrail. Therese and others are doing our city a righteous service, which is stressful, time-consuming and expensive. Some people might consider helping and/or sending a donation.
Recall is direct democracy. From my view, this city council recall is way overdue, and needed. With 2 councilmembers down, 1 to go, timing seems okay to me. I agree focused "fair-minded, business-friendly, clear-thinking councilmember" are needed. These new city councilmember also need a "bold vision"* which includes development. Balance in this city was lost with the 60% land give-away.
*Actually Todd Schlesinger mentioned "bold vision" during the last city councilmeeting. I agree with that. A reminder, "vision" has been absent from decade-long majority city councilmember candidate statements and dialog.
This haphazard, poorly framed, and sloppy recall effort will not only rally the troops to defend the targets but it may well lead to more enviro wins in November. How ironic, when all that was needed was one more vote on Council to turn the tide in Pacifica. Just one good candidate would have done it! Instead, thanks to this misfire, we may get to see defeat snatched from the jaws of victory, once again. That should be the town logo.
Maybe Tod Schlesinger should put in an application. How do you think that would work out?
I don't think many people outside of his fans on Fix want to share any of Mr. Schlesinger's visions.
Placed my money on someone from the school crowd the minute the "letter of intent/interest" thing was introduced. Done.
Letter of Intent! What the hell does that mean? "I intend to do what?" Anyone can intend to do anything to anyone, anytime. Do you have to be a Pacifica resident? Over 18 years old? Should you be able to read? Can you be a felon? Is this a beauty contest? What a circus! Why wouldn't they require the same application they require from prospective planning commissioners?
"...I don't think..people outside of his fans on Fix want to share any of Mr. Schlesinger's visions."
Really, Anon 238? Without really running a campaign, Schlesinger got 2,512 votes in 2008. Bet, you wouldn't get that many.
Really, Meeh 3:45? Don't whine about others posting anonymously when you do it all the time.
Recall already effective, not your way..."it may well lead to more enviro wins in November."
Sure Anon 131, people with "no brains" will vote for more of the same. Let's continue to enjoy our cocktails on the Titanic.
bottoms up!
"Really, Meeh 3:45? Don't whine about others posting anonymously when you do it all the time."
Anon 350, does a person who snipes anonymously, deserve a reply from a named person? Currently I think NO.
Anyhow, its clear that that I don't post anonymously "all the time".
Barnum,
Watching that whole Letter of Intent oops Interest charade I do believe there was already a cooperative candidate. Letter imminent. And, that was always the intent.
And, no, I wouldn't have chosen anyone who ran before.
As City Clerk at the last discussed Recall Election, Todd is correct that the cost was estimated to be $120,000 IF IT TOOK PLACE. When you go to an election during a non-regularly-scheduled election year, the cost is much greater than adding on to the City's regular election cycle. That Recall didn't take place. Ergo, no $120,000 cost to City. And keep in mind, the CITY pays for the election, not the petitioners. The count of signatures required has nothing to do with amount of votes for each councilperson at previous election. It is entirely based on the number of registered voters. Save us all a lot of confusion; just read the Elections Code section that applies.
anon345 yes Schlesinger's claim to fame is he's a hell of a vote splitter. He may outdo himself with this recall.
oh anon @350 not to worry. Meeh's style of prose can't be disguised.
Flo thanks for being a voice of reason and expertise. And you bashed no one while making your point so very neatly. I'd vote for you anytime!
"Without really running a campaign, Schlesinger got 2,512 votes in 2008."
Cal Hinton lost to Pete DeJarnatt by about 300 votes. Tod, who was not a serious candidate, took those votes away from Cal. The result was Pete was able to stay on council.
Thank you Flo. Now I see what Todd was talking about. I wish he would have made it more clear that this was the cost IF the recall had gathered enough signatures.
No election, "...no $120,000 cost to City." And required petitions "based on the number of registered voters."
Thanks Flo (420) for your clear explanation of 1) election cost and 2) number of petitions required to move forward to election.
Steve (458), I voted for Tod Schlesinger and would probably do so again if he were able to run a full election. Tod did not run in the 2011 election, so that he would not split the votes.
Whether or not there was a cost to the City for the 2003 recall, the actual cost to the City and its citizens because the recall failed, was millions of dollars, plus a legacy to the citizens of Pacifica of diminished quality of life in this city, loss of some police and fire protection, stalled projects, lawsuits, etc.
What has fix pacifica done to actually fix Pacifica?
Thanks Marian. You are soooo right.
I'm really trying to be civilized when it comes to Vreeland. His ego, his lies and his friends completely destroyed Pacifica.
If we had spent $1,000,000 to get rid of his cabal we'd be ahead right now.
What a terrible and unnecessary outcome.
"What has fix pacifica done to actually fix Pacifica?"
Information and intelligence, except for you, Anonymous 7:15pm. There we failed.
Love you Floey!
Love you Floey!
Letter of intent means they are willing to serve. Council can't appoint anyone if that person isn't willing to step up to the meat grinder we call Pacifica. With absolutely NO good decisions ahead, I think anyone sane wouldn't do it. In short, our city is almost broke. It's that simple and all this sniping won't change it.
@ Anon 11:10 but this does put pressure on the council to deal with it. I have heard it's making a difference in negotiating new contracts. And I believe it helped force out Vreeland. With a little luck the other two will follow.
I bet Karen Ervin writes a great letter of interest. School board/crowd and member of FCSTF. Who else has those unique credentials? Unlikely to be anyone's lapdog. Might actually be approved by Pete and Sue. Or else, we can limp along til November, lose a project, gain a lawsuit, etc. Wouldn't predict how she'd vote on anything but at least she'd be there to vote.
I would like to sign the recall petition. The present City Council has not faced up to the problem of overpaid and underworked city employees. Instead of cutting employee pay and benefits, the City Council would rather use sneaky tricks to increase our taxes without following the Prop. 13 requiremetns. Meanwhile, city employees continue to retire with lifetime pensions that will cost us dearly for as long as they live. Let me sign. Just tell me where.
And for some who say wages and benefits are not the problem I point again to the 20+ million and growing pension obligation we have to Calpers http://royceprinting.com/jobs/FOSarchive/2010FOS/05_06_10_PacificaFOS.pdf
This Council better be pressuring negotiators into making big cuts this year.
Everyone needs to contact them and let them know.
Can I borrow Todd's broken record when you're through with it?
"Can I borrow ...broken record.."
Anon 154, your record must be broken. Can't track what you're referring to on this article.
Sorry Kathy... maybe I didn't have enough grammar mistakes for you to understand.
That was directed at Hutch and the fact that he (like Todd) refuses to look at anything other than cutting salaries, and they both seem to think that if they keep repeating "that's the only solution" enough times, it will become true.
We get it. That's your only solution. You've repeated it ad nauseam. There actually are other options though, and some of us think it's silly to discard them.
As soon as you guys solve Pacifica's $20,000,000 unfunded pension liability, give the Governor a call. He's trying to solve the $500,000,000,000, that's 500 BILLION, unfunded CalPers pension liability. It's all the same liability and it means CA taxpayers are on the hook for $500,000,000,000 just to pay the pensions promised to todays public employees. How'd that happen? Overly optimistic speculation on investment returns before, during, and after the crash. When CalPers investment fund managers bet and lose with public money, the taxpayers make up the shortfall because the pensions have to be paid. To limit our liability Pacifica's future union contracts must aggressively cut wages, benefits, pension obligations, and include effective reforms to the pension rules, but much of Pacifica's economic future still isn't really in Pacifica's hands.
"There actually are other options though, and some of us think it's silly to discard them." (Anon 328)
Really, "other options", what options,'ol nameless one who snipes others with names and content?
Are you sure you even found the related article to expand your "broken record" snips. "Other options"? Are you talking about 1) recall, 2) pension reduction, 3) employee salaries, 4) outsourcing, 5) needed economic development, 6) all of the above, or 7) none of the above. What are you talking about?
Anon 328, you have you own version of "broken record", but rather than specific ideas, you offer a vague comment about having "other ideas", along with snipes for others. You can change that: use you name and be specific. Why don't you try, maybe we can advance the conversation.
Pull your head out of the sand. Numerous other options have been proposed (reduced services, outsourcing, fees, library consolidation, taxes, etc.), and a combination of these will probably be required, despite Todd and Hutch's fixation on salaries. Economic development would be best, and even though that's your personal broken record, we don't have time for that.
The one thing that will not help and will actually cost us money is the silly recall effort, so I'm not sure why you would include that on your list.
anon642//Hang on. She's going to tell you why it's #1 on her list. Odd that finding and electing good candidates to take the majority didn't make the list at all.
Know what Aaon (642), you're a bully, and you need to get over yourself. Your solutions are YOUR laundry list of marginal city services, and increased taxes and fees. Other people exist and have different ideas. A broad range of ideas, and action strategies are all good IMHO.
From YOUR list and what the city is doing: we are definitely getting increased fees" AGAIN. 1) Fees have been increasing with new fees added for several years. 2) New taxes have been considered, AGAIN. Interesting how Finance Committee solutions led to new taxes. Taxes and fees seem to be the 10 year city council economic "bomb", en lieu of needed development advantages. 3) Continued reduction in services is a given, also part of the downward spiral.
The Recall committee originally included 10 year city councilmembers 1) Vreeland, 2) DeJarnatt and 3) Digre. That is THEIR list. Vreeland resigned, DeJarnatt will quit end-of-term. Digre still has 2 1/2 years of anti-growth influence, and potentially damaging anti-growth city decision making. Cost prior to the election is paid by citizen recall effort donations. And except for minor administrative work, the city pays nothing until citizen petitions are signed, verified and the Measure goes to ballot. Want to save the city money? Encourage Digre and DeJarnatt to step-down in advance of signed citizen recall petitions going to ballot.
Anon (741), good pro-economy candidates always exist. The pattern over several elections is too many good candidates. That causes vote dilution. Example 5 pro-economy candidates, 2 city council positions.(Oops, that's a losing strategy for an election where every vote counts). The anti-economy candidates do a better job counting their candidates-- another reason they get elected and this city is broken.
As always, Kathy offers lots of words to say nothing she hasn't said 10,000 times before (with just as poor proof-reading).
Someone who starts 90% of their comments with "10 year city council blah blah blah" to then start calling people bullies is both hypocritical and simple-minded.
"..hypocritical and simple-minded."
Your words, Anon 1017, intended for me, but hypocrite and simpleminded suit you perfectly. And, hiding behind an anonymous name while name-calling others, makes you a bully, an arrogant one at that.
People other than you read these blog comments. Some people may want to understand issues and move ideas forward, rather than take potshots at others. And, why would you assume everyone else is a mini-clone of your aberration? If they are, they too are a waste of time.
Ignore the anonymous cowards Kathy. They aren't worth it and are probably local union officials which explains why they're so against cutting the inflated union wages and benefits which are over 80% of our budget.
If you don't think wages and benefits are THE problem then you need to pull your head out of the sand.
Almost every city is making or will soon make huge cuts to wages and benefits. Pacifica is in the same boat.
Fresno Imposes 9% pay cuts http://www.kmph.com/story/16540990/unions-lose-attempt-to-strike-down-fresno-county-pay-cuts
San Jose Imposes 10% wage cuts
http://www.neighborwebsjdev.com/?p=1371
"Many California municipalities are facing crushing bond and pension debt, while eviscerating budgets in attempts to stay solvent. Among the worst hit is the city of Stockton, whose city council recently voted to default on bond payments. It’s a move widely seen as a precursor to filing for bankruptcy."
http://ivn.us/2012/03/12/california-cities-face-massive-budget-cuts-default-bankruptcy/
By any means available, cut away! But, don't think for a minute that will solve the real problem. What we save on Pacifica employees, we'll pay out in mandated increased taxes and contributions to California's 500 Billion dollar public employee unfunded pension liability. The pension fund investment managers can't make that up in the market. They have consistently over-estimated the return on their investments. The whole defined-benefit public employee pension system needs to be reworked. It is unsustainable.
It's also time to scrap that old image of gov't jobs meaning low wages offset by good retirement benefits, because clearly for some time now gov't jobs have meant very competitive wages, rich benefits and fantastic pensions. The retirement system needs to be updated and revamped to reflect the actual conditions.
I agree Anon 246 exept about the "mandated" tax increases. Brown can not "mandated" a tax increase and neither can the legislature. But they can do some sneaky stuff like Pacifica is doing with the sewer tax.
Ultimately Brown's plan will fail us and we'll have to cut much more because it doesn't include current employees and retirees.
It is unsustainable to be paying two retirees 90% of their pay for every worker on the job. In pacifica this means every Police Officer is costing us about $500K a year. Call me malcontent but we can't afford it.
Who said anything about Governor Brown mandating taxes? With the exception of the most vehement anti-tax crusaders, people will vote for more taxes when they can no longer tolerate the negative effects of budget cuts. Pacifica lives on denial and always has but even our whimsical little council is going to have to seriously wield the knife at some point...undoubtedly after the election. Between cuts by this city, the county, state, and feds we're going to see closed parks, shorter school years, fewer cops, fewer human services programs for seniors, kids, the sick and needy, more prison early release programs for felons, reduced and more expensive public transit, etc. Taypayers either make up the difference or live in a very unpleasant world. There's just no other choice. Pension reform, greater government efficiency, economic development are all important for the future, but we're going to live in the present. I think the anti-tax rhetoric is going to be less successful here and elsewhere as reality bites hard.
Post a Comment