- NEWS
- SPORTS
- BUSINESS
- ENTERTAINMENT
- LIFE
- TRAVEL
- OPINION
Anaheim could cast tie-breaking vote on pension hike in Los Angeles
October 10th, 2009, 5:00 am · 21 Comments · posted by Teri Sforza, Register staff writer
(UPDATE: Murray says that she has spent a great deal of time on the issue, gathering information from all sides, and plans to vote no on Tuesday.
“I have concerns with the language in this agreement, and do not plan to support it,” she told us. “I’ve spent my last three years working at the (OC) Business Council , so I take the economics of any decision very seriously. In the current economic climate, with double-digit unemployment, and the drought, and the (water) rate increase… I have never wavered or been on the fence about this. I think folks are coming to the same conclusion.”
That, as we count it, puts the NOs at 51 percent.)
Tuesday’s vote is taking on mythic proportions.
It’s not just about whether the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California will approve controversial new contracts that would hike employee pay and pensions . To some employees, it’s become an issue of personal respect or disrespect; to some critics, a barometer of just how greedy and out-of-touch government actually is.
So! Will the new contracts pass? There’s a great deal of behind-the-scenes handicapping, and the tie-breaking vote could be in the hands of Anaheim’s representative on Met’s board - Kristine Murray (right), say some of our long-time Met watchers.
Murray’s day job is head of government relations for the Orange County Transportation Authority. The crystal ball predicts that if Murray attends Tuesday’s meeting and votes against the new contracts, the NO votes take 50.9 percent. Which makes her critical to either side. We tried to reach Murray by phone and email Friday to explore her thinking on the topic, but didn’t hear back by deadline.
Currently, the unions calculate the vote this way:
- 43 percent YES.
- 31 percent NO.
- 26 percent UNDECIDED.
So if just one-third of the undecideds go to the NO side, the deal goes down.
If you look at which pension formulas Met’s voting members currently have, you can get an idea how they might vote:
- There are 11 agencies with the low 2 percent (of pay for each year of service) at age 55 (which is what Met currently has.) These agencies control 30 percent of the vote.
- One agency has 2.16@55 - Los Angeles - and has 20 percent of the vote.
- Eight have 2.5@55- (the formula Met wants to go to), ahd have 32 percent of the vote.
- Five have 2.7@55 - and have 6 percent of the vote.
- And two have 3.0@60, and have 12 percent of the vote.
The Los Angeles delegation is expected to vote yes; all four were appointed by Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa.
Voting no will be the folks from the Municipal Water District of Orange County, the San Diego County Water Authority, the Upper San Gabriel Valley Municipal Water District, and many others.
It’s also sort of fun to look at Met’s officers; the agencies of all except one have retirement formulas of at least 2.5@55, so it’s sort of hard to say that others deserve less:
- Chairman Tim Brick - City of Pasadena - 2.5@55
- Vice Chair John Murray - City of Los Angeles - 2.16@55
- Vice Chair Angel Santiago - Inland Empire Utilities Agency - 2.5@55
- Vice Chair Fern Steiner - San Diego County Water Authority - 2.5@55
- Secretary Judy Abdo - City of Santa Monica - 2.7@55
We’ve pointed out before, and will point out again, that Met has one of the lowest pension formulas for public agencies in the area. But the issues many critics harp on remain: Are even the barest public pensions too generous already? And, even if not, is this the right time to hike them?
Stay tuned. We’ll be covering Tuesday’s meeting on OC Watchdog.
More Watchdog:
Reader Comments
Comments are encouraged, but you must follow our User Agreement.- Keep it civil and stay on topic.
- No profanity, vulgarity, racial slurs or personal attacks.
- People who harass others or joke about tragedies will be blocked.
21 Comments
Leave a Reply
You can follow this blog: on 
I predict a massive NO vote.
Then the MET whine will start all over again.
MWD History Lesson
1993 Employee’s negotiated to raise pension formula from 2% at 60 to 2% at 55. the district said NO
in 1996-1997 the district offered a early retirement incentive cost millions
in 1997 Employee’s negotiated formula increase to 2% at 55.
1998 district informed board, due to new formula, they saved 10 million, by not filling many positions.
To vote no now because a future board would give back district gains in future negotiations, is ???????
My lawn in dead from lack of water and these guys are trying to give themselves an “Attaboy” for doing what? They need to get a desalinzation plant going to get us water - do something spectacular and the public might not care. They all need to be replaced, they are just another form of politicians.
Not just “NO” but “HELL NO”
Just say no!
Or find another county to live in!
You will be finished here!
Why is a government employee on this board to begin with?
I’m a union guy and I’m embarrassed by this. Same regarding Irvine PD staging the protest over not getting a raise. Be grateful for what you have status-quot. It just seems so greedy. I’d vote against my own raise for fear of setting off a public firestorm. How can people be so brazen in these times? I can understand more trying to keep what you have, although I’m not against compromise in that area either, but asking for more, in this case MUCH more, in these times just makes me cringe.
JohnnyRocket:
The employees and management have argued that they have found a way to fund the enhancement of .5% via concessions. And, the actuary said IF both sides continue with the same concessions to fund this particular contract for subsequent contracts, it would be funded. Those railing against this don’t believe in defined benefit pensions for public employees altogether, and believe the wages are overinflated over and beyond a defined benefit pension. This has become a opening through the back door that they wish to drive their Hummers through. And, based on the vitriolic language from some, they want pounds of public sector flesh and won’t stop even if this contract does not get ratified. It is the crabs in the barrel mentality where misery does not love company it DEMANDS it.
What is sad here is that these folks dont understand how a unique entity MWD is, and how in the main, a vast majority of the employees are not the untalented lazy cubicle rats John and Ken would paint them to be. It is going to take a lot of work to get a more “balanced” view of the situation at MWD out there. Stay tuned. There are efforts in the making.
Jan the jig is up.
No spin from you will change that fact.
Deal with it.
The contract was negotiated in good faith. A contract is a contract! HONOR IT! I smell an unfair labor practice lawsuit with a heavy fine coming.
lincoln says:
The contract was negotiated in good faith.
====================
Lincoln, there is no contract yet-so there is nothing to “honor”.
Deal with a NO vote coming down next week.
And please, do file a lawsuit so you get spanked in civil court to go with the court of public opinion.
I will shed a crocodile tear or two for you if that will help
Jan.This is all about perception. Perception from the public, who are MWD’s customers. That is something that employees have never really understood, but i’m sure you do now.
No amount of press releases are going to help……the condescending tone that you and others have used to describe the very people that pay your salaries is, frankly, disgusting.
Yes, MWD is a unique entity. But that doesn’t give you a free pass.
I can well understand the concerns about whether the CALPERS will be adequately funded for the first 2% we have now, much less whether the additional .5% will be adequately funded long term by the concessions offered in this contract. And, I can understand the frustration that those in the private sector feel about their NOT having a defined benefit package and that there wages, in the main, are not as good. But, if there is way that the enhanced package can be funded and if the taxpayers and MWD all al the employers were taken off the hook by legislation, so that if CALPERS were to be underfunded, why bedgruge it? What, if on top of that it were changed to a defined contribution system?
Ah, but for those spewing the vitriole about piggies, trough feeders, etc, it won’t be enough will it? I get the sense that many of these folks have been screwed in private sector with jobs going overseas and labor devalued perhaps ought to spend AS much energy going after the CEOs and shareholders that are riding ever more on the backs of the employees here and in third world countries. I have good friends working in private sector right now that don’t get as much as a break during the day doing jobs that used to be split among a few people, yet they are not getting paid more. This is where a check and balance with a strong bargaining unit, whether an employees association or a union is needed. Not to protect the slackers, but to prevent the pendulum from swinging too far against the employees who make the businesses run.
So for those that call us knob turners, cubicle rates, piggies..don’t go screaming at us for being condescending. Talk about the height of hypocracy.
Jan,
What’s your pension like at the OCR? Can OCR reporters and workers retire at 55 with 90% of their ending (highest salary) for life, plus cost of living expenses. And don’t forget they can contribute to 403b’s to further increase their pensions or move into other government jobs.
Do you know of any Company Plan with high end workers with a more lucrative pension plan?
When does the government employee comparisons stop? As soon as one negotiates in increase, they all seem to think they deserve the best pension available.
When you compare the salary, job stabiility and benefits (pension, healthcare and vacation time) you see a privilaged employment package that does not exist in the private sector.
If these are professional jobs, why do they need a union? If they are underpaid or the benefits are too low, they can change jobs.
The increases should only be considered if they are required to attract and retain high quality workers. I don’t see anything in your article about employee retention or special skill jobs that are very hard to fill.
I know most government workers are intelligent and provide significant contributions, but this pension issue is pure greed.
You are 100% correct
Anaheim ducks… what’s the difference ?
EARTH TO MWD….
THE WORLD AS WE KNOW IT HAS CHANGED….
please try to contain your greed……..
I just don’t understand the greed involved at increasing these pensions when it is a well known fact that paying these things out is virtually impossible. Even the head actuary for CalPers agrees on this. So the tax payers will ultimately be on the hook to make up the difference. This is why there is such a firestorm surrounding these pension debates.
Reeling in these pensions in future elections is of the utmost importance.
Don’t know if you remember but in 1997/98 district claimed 10 million savings when 2% at 55 was implemented.
Of course to right size in 1996/97, district offered incentive to encourage retirement , costing millions. Kind of like the city of LA is doing this year.
What is trully sad is the contract has been hijacked by blogs and sensationalized to such a degree, that the truth no longer seems relevant.
But then sometimes things are the way they are for a reason we can’t see. So on behalf of the team, you should know this;
We considered everything, and then developed an innovative, cost saving, groundbreaking agreement. One that reduces pension liability , while providing a direction to the rest of Southern California and the public agencies we represent, on how Interest Based Negotiations and the product they can produce, work.
All four bargaining Units, agreed to make it work and they did. Regardless of the outcome They should all be very, very proud!
Counting down the days till Anaheim Mayor Curt Pringle gets a public relations contract from MET while Kristine Murray doesn’t show up to vote. It will not be forgotten when she runs for Anaheim City Council next year.
Mr. Pringle already has Met as a client - see his firm’s website for his
client list.
Rumor has it that the proposal has been pulled……
Don. ‘Interest Based Negotiations’ is a sham. The whole management culture of the company would have to change for that to work.
It was a nice try. Hope you guys can get something from the Board for this.