“With more than $200 billion in retirement debts and skyrocketing costs crowding out the investments we need in education, health care, transportation, public safety and the environment, it is time for a statewide solution to our retirement benefits crisis,” said foundation president Marcia Fritz in a prepared statement.

“By requiring all new non-safety public employees at all levels of government to work until their Social Security retirement age for full benefits and ending the politicians’ raids and abuses of public pension funds, California public agencies can offer secure retirement benefits that are fair for taxpayers and their employees,” she said.

The Public Employee Benefits Reform Initiative would apply a benefits cap to the benefit plans offered to all new state, local government, school district, university and special district employees beginning July 1, 2011.

Early estimates show the initiative would save more than $1 billion the first year, and $500 billion over 30 years, as new workers replace those who retire.

How? By raising the age at which workers can retire with full benefits, and by limiting guaranteed benefit formulas to 75 percent of pay for a full career’s work. ”Significant additional savings would come from requiring new employees to wait until they reach MediCare eligibility age before supplemental retiree health benefits begin,” the foundation says.

The “Ten Commandments” of both versions of the initiative include:

• Honor all pension contracts
• Death and disability benefits shall not be changed
• Pension benefits must be fair and adequate
• Pension benefits must be guaranteed
• Pension spiking abuse must be discouraged
• Future generations should not pay retirement costs for today’s workers
• Retiree health funds must not be diverted to any other purpose
• Retirement benefit costs must be sustainable
• Local agency voters shall retain the right to change benefits
• Bankruptcies must be avoided

The two versions of the initiative can be found here and here. One would allow agencies to increase benefits for new workers; one would not. Only one will make it to the ballot; the foundation will poll voters to see which version they prefer.

After ballot language is approved by the state, the foundation will gather signatures to place it on the 2010 ballot. Judging by the vitriol around public pensions as of late, that shouldn’t be hard to do.

“California’s huge legacy retirement costs have been aggravated by pension benefit enhancements granted to public employees over the last 10 years combined with average pay increases of 50 percent to 70 percent both at the state level and among local agencies,” said Fritz in a press release. “Actuaries did not anticipate wage hikes of this magnitude, nor did they expect the market losses that have seriously reduced the value of pension assets set aside to pay for pension benefits. Workers are retiring earlier because many can receive more in retirement than while working. Defined benefit plans are viable tools if they are not abused, but generous guaranteed retirement benefits plus high wages have overburdened our public pension systems and ultimately our taxpayers.

“Sound fiscal policy, simple budget planning, and retirement benefits that ensure a dignified and secure retirement after a full career of public service are all possible, and this initiative will help lead the way for all levels of California government.”

More on pensions:

More Watchdog:

Post from: OC Watchdog

California has more than 9,000 nursing and residential care facilities for the elderly, and 290,000 licensed beds, according to federal statistics. Riding herd on them are about 1,000 “long-term care ombudsmen” - people originally meant to be watchdog/mediators, doing spot checks of facilities, following up on complaints, and helping make life better for residents by serving as intermediates, and advocates, with management.

But something else has happened entirely, according to the report.

Because of laws California has adopted, these watchdog/mediators have morphed into the front line for investigating serious reports of elder abuse and neglect. That gives rise to several problems - the least of which may be that there’s no time for the routine spot checks and patient advocacy that was originally envisioned.

Ombudsmen - now legally tasked with very serious investigations of suspected abuse and neglect - can only tell law enforcement about problems if the complaining parties agree to release their names and complaints.

Only one-quarter agree to this. Which means 75 percent of complaints essentially disappear.

What precisely are we talking about here? Assault, sexual  harassment, financial exploitation, physical neglect…. grim stuff.

Why won’t people sign their names to complaints? Well, if you had to keep living in the place you were complaining about - or have your most basic and intimate needs attended to by someone you were complaining about - you might be a bit frightened of attaching your name to the complaint, too.

And in cases where suspected abuse is reported by staff - on behalf of a resident with dementia or the like - well, that person can’t give informed consent.

The ombudsmen program had a budget of  $5.7 million in 2009, almost 27 percent below where it was in 2007-08, the report says. Not surprisingly, that has corresponded to a tremendous drop in the number of abuse cases ombudsmen recommend for follow-up to law enforcement.

This being a report by the Senate majority - which happens to be Democratic - it blasts the budget cuts imposed by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger. But those budget cuts did not cause these problems, so much as lay them bare.

So, what can be done to protect California’s vulnerable seniors? 

• Sacramento should pass legislation “to enhance the ability of the ombudsman to act as an independent voice for the elderly, as required under the Older Americans Act, and require the state ombudsman’s office to develop a comprehensive plan of advocacy,” the report says.
• Residents, their family members and staffers should be able to report abuse, and get action, without fear of being exposed. To that end, the Legislature should  require the state ombudsman’s office “to develop a detailed protocol for reporting elder abuse even without resident consent if the situation poses an imminent threat to long-term care residents or others.”
• Ombudsmen should be able to return to their watchdog/advocate role, and leave investigation of possible crimes to the likes of local Adult Protective Services offices and law enforcement.
• Ombudsmen volunteers - and yes, there are many of them - should not be tasked with undertaking such serious investigations, at least not without more training.

In 2004, 12 percent of Americans were over age 65.

By 2050, that figure will grow to 21 percent , the U.S. Census Bureau says.

These issues will only get more and more acute.

“The last thing we should do is handcuff those who we entrust to watch over the care and safety of our elderly loved ones with conflicting and ill-conceived mandates, confusing protocol, and inadequate regulations,” said Senate President pro Tem Darrell Steinberg (D-Sacramento) in a prepared statement. “The Senate will take a close look at the thoughtful recommendations provided in this report and respond appropriately.”

You can see the full report here: elder-abuse-report;  and the Senate press release here: senate-release.

More Watchdog:

Post from: OC Watchdog

Read the main story here

It’s “reasonable and customary” for local governments to provide full insurance coverage to part-time elected officials, the mayor of Laguna Hills says - and many public entities do just that.

We thank Joel Lautenschleger for responding to our question about the insurance issue, which makes that part-time city council job much more valuable than it might otherwise appear, in a pure dollars and cents sort of way. (Lautenschleger’s stipend as a councilmember was just $7,484 last year; but the city paid nearly $24,000 for his medical, dental, vision and other insurance, plus $1,324 into a retirement account.)

He didn’t like it that we singled out Laguna Hills. “It’s insulting and demeaning to suggest that we’re doing this just for the insurance,” he told us on the phone.

“The 18 years I have put in to public service have been ones of dedication to improving my community,” Lautenschleger said in an email. “I am very proud of not only helping to form this city but to have it run efficiently, honestly, safely, and with tremendous fiscal responsibility. It is why we get re-elected and if you would bother to look at some of the accomplishments instead of being a mouthpiece for a council challenger, you would see why people have expressed great satisfaction with this council over the years.”

(We object to the “mouthpiece” bit; we do not have feelings for or against council challenger Barbara Kogerman, but we certainly do like the public documents she has forwarded to us.)

Lautenschleger’s medical insurance is high because he is 65, he said, and the law allows insurance companies to price based on age (the older the participant, the higher the rate). He’d actually like to opt out of the city insurance altogether and go on Medicare, but Medicare won’t let him. So long as he’s working, and insurance is offered, that’s what must cover him, he said.

The rest of the “Laguna Hills Response” to our story about Cadillac benefits (It’s the health insurance, stupid!)  this morning follows:

1. The City Council conducts all of its business in an open and transparent manner in which the public is invited to participate. All expenditures are available for public review.
2. It is considered reasonable and customary to provide insurance coverage to elected officials. Many public entities do so. It should be noted that Laguna Hills does not provide City Council Members with retiree health coverage.
3. Recent changes in law now allow Insurance Companies to provide insurance pricing based on age. In the industry this is known as age-banding. The older the participant the higher the rate.
4. The City Council receives a monthly stipend of $623.66 in compliance with State law. This is a fixed amount and doesn’t change no matter how many City- related meetings they attend, how long the meetings last, and no matter how much time and effort is put into investigating and researching every agenda item or resident concern.

Once we get the data in from the dozens of other local governments in OC, we promised Lautenschleger that we’d run it past him. Laguna Hills does not appear to be any more or less generous than other local governments, and we don’t want you to get that impression. They’re just, you know, all sort of generous. Details to come.

More Watchdog:

Post from: OC Watchdog

Read the mayor’s response here

Why do people run for local office? Why are they willing to perch on those daises hour after hour, year after year, decade after decade, pondering sewer systems, street repairs, budget shortfalls and zoning updates?

Is it altruism at its purest? Is it a form of masochism?!

Certainly there’s great satisfaction in public service. And the prestige attendant to being a democratically elected representative is certainly nothing to sneeze at. But stipends for city councilmembers are notoriously low (especially when compared to, say, water districts), with the highest-paid city councilmembers getting just $1,500 a month or so, and most getting much less.

So it can’t be about the money. Or, can it?

Public documents obtained by a challenger in the Laguna Hills council race tell a very interesting story:

• Yes, the annual council stipend is low: just $7,484 per member.
• But the city pays nearly three times that much on insurance - health, medical, dental, vision, etc. - to the tune of $23,902, for a single councilmember, for a single year. (One Laguna Hills councilmember gets less - see details below.)
• The city also pays into the California Public Employees Retirement System for councilmembers - $1,324 per councilmember last year.

Some of them also get travel and meeting expenses of several hundred dollars per year…. Not bad for a part-time job!

Let’s look at Joel Lautenschleger (right), who has been on the council since 1991. In 2008-09, his medical insurance cost $22,164; dental, $1,360; vision, $301; life and disability, $77. The PERS contribution was $1,324, and he got $898 for travel and meeting expenses.

You can see figures for previous years for him, and the rest of the council, below.

Now, lest you think we are picking on Laguna Hills, let us say for the record that we will be requesting this identical information from every city, school and special district in Orange County, in precisely the format you’ll see it below. We kick off with Laguna Hills because, well, these documents fell into our lap via council challenger Barbara Kogerman, and we will not look a gift horse in the mouth.

Here are the details, per councilmember (and we note here that Randal Bresette’s health insurance cost $8,497 last year - less than half what was spent on other council members):

1. joel-lautenschleger; 2. r-craig-scott; 3. allan-songstad; 4. melody-carruth and 5.randal-bressette.

More Watchdog:

Post from: OC Watchdog

The NRC has been cracking down on people-related performance issues at San Onofre, and the nuclear plant has vowed to improve.  San Onofre  is run by Southern California Edison.

 The NRC has taken a tougher-than-usual tone with SanO this year (read colleague Vik Jolly’s story on a packed May meeting here).

• The feds are concerned about continuing human performance problems at the plant, which So Cal Edison has promised to fix, but without much success.
• SoCal Edison reiterated promises to improve, and said that, this time, things will be different: A new senior leadership team of nuclear industry experts is in place, and will be working with federal regulators as the feds do more intensive inspections.

The action Thursday will be in the Trestles Room of the Doubletree Guest Suites, 34402 Pacific Coast Highway, Dana Point. Folks are welcome to ask questions of NRC and San Onofre staff.

In a written statement, SoCal Edison’s Chief Nuclear Officer Ross Ridenoure said, ”We encourage participation in this public discussion of steps we take to ensure the safe, reliable operation of our San Onofre facility.”

More on nuclear stuff:

More Watchdog:

Post from: OC Watchdog

Bruce Channing didn’t return our phone call or emails, but he did respond to our colleague Alejandra Molina - saying, essentially, that he wouldn’t say anything.

“It’s just unfortunately inappropriate for me to comment and weigh in on a part of a political campaign platform,” Channing said in a telephone message to Molina.

Read  Molina’s story about how Channing got the maximum performance bonus of $23,000 (10 percent of his salary) last year, as the economy was crumbling to pieces.

Post from: OC Watchdog

Sanchez saw no cars at the intersection of Washington and Freeman streets, so he buzzed through the stop sign, as cyclists so often do. That’s when he saw the Santa Ana policeman, half-way up the side street.

Moments later, sirens blaring and lights flashing, Sanchez was pulled over. Santa Ana police Officer Berg told him to sit on the curb. How are you going to hear someone honking at you with earphones on? the officer asked. I heard you, Sanchez said. What music were you listening to?  the officer asked. It was just the news, Sanchez said. If you were in your car, would you have stopped? Yes, Sanchez said. Are you going to give me a warning? No, the offficer said. I’m going to cite you for running a stop sign.

The ticket was yellow, just like you’d get while driving a car. “Schwinn,” it says in the spot for “Year of Vehicle” and “Make.” And Sanchez was cited for violating two parts of the California Vehicle Code:

• Section 22450(a): Failure to stop at stop sign;
• and Section 27400: Wearing head set or earplugs.

Infraction, the ticket said. So when the courtesy notice landed in his mailbox from the Orange County Superior Court, Sanchez nearly choked: “Bail amount: $397.”

For riding his bike?! This offended the 26-year-old’s sense of fair play. (Sanchez had, after all, once registered to vote as a Libertarian.)

Now, Sanchez is not quite a traffic choir boy. He’s had several violations over the past decade - including a DUI in 2002 and a property damage hit-and-run in 2004, for which he paid restitution and did community service. But he was much younger then. His most recent traffic faux pas was for pulling a U-turn across a double-yellow line: “I was on my way from school to work and wanted to get some food,” he said somewhat sheepishly. “That wound up being a $200 Jamba Juice.”

That a bicycle infraction could cost more than a moving-violation-in-a-car ticket seems, well, odd. We’re waiting to hear from the Orange County Superior Court on how it arrives at fines for such ticket; the court’s 2009 Bail Schedule  doesn’t shed much light on how the figure could get close to $400.

Bulletin, kids: Bicycles riders on public streets have the same rights and responsibilities as automobile drivers and are subject to the same rules and regulations as any other vehicle on the road, the good California Department of Motor Vehicles reminds us. Each year in California, more than 100 people are killed, and hundreds of thousands more are injured in bicycle collisions.

“I suppose going through a stop sign on a bike is something that a lot of people do, and they’re not aware of the violation,” said SAPD Commander Doug McGeachy.“But stop signs apply to cyclists as well as motorists. Same thing with the earphones. You can have one, but you can’t have two.

“We do on occasion have serious and fatal traffic collisions involving bicycles. Officers have a lot of discretion in what they choose to enforce and not enforce - if they see something that’s particularly unsafe, they’re more likely to enforce. I don’t know if this is common, but it’s a violation.”

Sanchez was to appear in court today, but got an extension until Dec. 21 so he can research his situation and figure out how to proceed. 

He’s a returning student at Santa Ana College, studying environmental science. He pays his way by working as a teaching assistant when those spots are available, and by installing office furniture. “I ride my bike to school whenever I don’t have a big load of books,” Sanchez said. “I’m trying to be environmentally friendly.”

We’ll keep you posted. In the meantime, bicyclists, stop for those stop signs - and don’t cross any double yellow lines.

More Watchdog:

Post from: OC Watchdog

Far better, then, to be the strategic communications consultant hired by the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, to help shepherd tentative labor contracts to fruition.

Lichtenstein & Associates - doing business as Marathon Communications  - inked a deal with Met in July that pays it $295 per hour, “plus necessary expenses at Consultant’s actual cost without mark-up.” The mission: “To provide strategic communications consulting and counsel in support of Metropolitan’s labor agreements.” (See contract below.)

Marathon pulled down $25,000 in July, and $17,026 in August. (No billings yet for September.) The deal, for up to $100,000, runs through next year.

It may also be worth noting that the labor contracts Marathon was to champion to the public were withdrawn from consideration, after Met’s board signaled its displeasure last month. (The contracts included a pay raise of up to 23 percent over five years, and a pension hike of 25 percent forever. Board members - from SoCal cities and water districts - couldn’t vote for that in the midst of recession.)

Marathon Communications’ job was not to simply respond factually to questions about the contracts, but to mount something of a campaign in their favor. To wit:  “Consultant shall provide a strategic plan and timeline to announce recently negotiated agreements, assist in writing and producing collateral materials including but not limited to: message points, project information fact sheets, FAQs, press releases, direct mail, and op-ed articles to implement the strategic plan.”

Op-ed articles?!

Marathon was needed because it would have been a conflict for Met’s own public information department to handle questions about the contracts, since its employees would have directly benefited from said contracts, Met officials said. (One could argue, of course, that Marathon benefited as well.)

BIGGEST PAYCHECK

Anyway, Marathon has made only a fraction of the money pulled down by Met consultant Agreement Dynamics, which referees labor negotiations from a kinder, gentler “interest-based bargaining” standpoint. Agreement Dynamics has been paid nearly $300,000 through July - and will be working for many more months as the negotiations are reopened to find a way around that controversial pension hike.

SMALLEST PAYCHECK

It could be argued that Met’s lowest-paid consultant on the labor contract front is the one that provided a most vital service: Trying to determine what the heck the new contracts would actually cost the district over the long haul.

Details, details. Actuarial firm Bartel & Associates earned $17,795 for work in July and August. (Again, no billings for September yet.)

You can see the Marathon contract here (marathon); and the Bartel contract here (bartel), and the consultant billings to date here (met-billings-to-date).

More Watchdog:

Post from: OC Watchdog

By Lindsey Ambrose

America’s biggest retailer is in trouble with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission for improperly disposing of  radioactive  exit signs throughout the United States and Puerto Rico.

The NRC has cited Wal-Mart for violations concerning improper disposal and transfer of exit signs containing tritium, a radioactive isotope of hydrogen. The violations were issued on October 28 claiming that from 2000 to 2008 Wal-Mart failed to properly dispose of 2,979 tritium signs. The company also failed to appoint an official responsible for complying with regulatory requirements issued by the NRC and failed to report broken or damaged signs as required.

Exit signs containing tritium do not pose a large threat to the public’s health, but a damaged or broken sign can cause minor radioactive contamination of the immediate environs and calls for prompt clean up. Thus, we’d say that proper record-keeping of broken signs isn’t a petty request.

The NRC could have imposed a $369,300 fine, but once Wal-Mart caught wind of the problem, it made a speedy effort to clean up its act. We are told Wal-Mart made a record of all tritium exit signs at its facilities nationwide, corrected contamination from damaged signs at several stores, and consequently removed all tritium exit signs in its stores and swapped them with signs that do not contain radioactive material.

“Because Wal-Mart realized it had problems and took significant and effective corrective actions, we believe it is appropriate not to impose a civil penalty in this case,” said the NRC’s director of enforcement, Cynthia Carpenter.

A media spokesperson for Wal-Mart said that it no longer use these signs because of the complex regulatory requirements.

In January, Wal-Mart concluded after a year long audit that approximately 15,000 of its tritium exit signs were lost or unaccounted for.  From 2001 through 2007 Wal-Mart purchased approximately 70,000 signs to install in its facilities, and after discovering that some were missing, the company initiated the inspection.

Take this as warning if you yourself are a tritium sign possessor.

The NRC is subsequently requesting that more than 60 other organizations known to have hefty quantities of tritium exit signs send in reports of their radioactive signs and how they are being monitored. The NRC will review the reports and take further enforcement action if necessary.

“Our inspection, and the extensive actions Wal-Mart had to undertake to resolve our concerns, should stand as a warning to other organizations and corporations not to be lax in their handling of devices containing radioactive material,” said Carpenter.

For the list of the other 60 companies receiving a demand for information see the NRC’s website here. A few of our favorites include NASA, the U.S. Postal Service, and Home Depot.

More Watchdog:

Post from: OC Watchdog

Agreement Dynamics advocates a kinder, gentler approach to negotiating called “interest-based bargaining.” This produced a controversial labor contract that was withdrawn earlier this month, and sent back to the drawing board - which has given rise to some hard feelings on the part of some employees. 

We asked Agreement Dynamics what their thinking was about the procees now, and where things might go in the future (Met hopes to have a new agreement on the table by February). Here’s the response we got from Rhonda Hilyer, president of Agreement Dynamics:

Thank you for your question about interest-based bargaining at the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California. In my opinion, it’s a very important question because the outcome of this process will have a profound influence on this organization and those it serves.

Having been involved in labor relations for over 35 years, I have never seen unilateral approaches benefit any party over the long run. Interest-based bargaining is more challenging than traditional, position-based methods because it requires all parties to seek mutually-acceptable solutions. Like any negotiations, it can get very turbulent at times.

What will happen at Met? I am confident that solutions that are beneficial to labor, management, the Board and the ratepayers are achievable. Having spent countless hours with labor and management at Metropolitan, I have witnessed up close and personal a deep commitment to problem solving,
integrity and mutual respect. These are incredibly bright and resourceful managers and labor leaders. They never abandoned their commitment to meet all parties’ interests. I believe that as long as their commitment to the process is supported, success for all stakeholders will result.

Thanks again for your question.

Sincerely, Rhonda Hilyer
President, Agreement Dynamics, Inc.

More Watchdog:

Post from: OC Watchdog