From Steven Greenhut:
Yes, it was bad timing for supervisors to add a few thousand dollars to their defined-contribution retirement plans as they battled deputies over their retroactive defined-benefit plans. But let’s quit with this silly “hypocrisy” charge. The supes are getting a few thousand dollars, whereas the Spitzer/Silva/Coad/Wilson/Smith RETROACTIVE pension spike will end up costing the county hundreds of millions of dollars. Yes … hundreds of millions.
Deputies got an instant 50 percent increase in their defined-benefit plans. A defined benefit means that the taxpayer promises a set amount of pay — as much as 100 percent of the final year’s pay forever. The retroactive portion gave an instant 50 percent hike for past work, which is a gift of public funds. These dollar amounts are killing the county and will eventually lead to tax hikes or bonds (which are tax hikes also), which will mostly be paid by people who will retire on piddling Social Security payments.
The union flaks are trying to create splashy headlines to divert attention from their outrageous milking of the taxpayer. Keep things in perspective is my only caution.
Where’s your outrage over this action by the Supervisors being done in closed session away from the public scrutiny you demand of others. Moorlach has stated he wants to send further employee benefits to a public vote. Why didn’t he lead by example and do that action with the benefits he voted to give himself?
Is there an engineer out there who can invent an ironometer? Our fortunes wait to be made just on the actions of Moorlach and writings of one Steven Greenhut.
Legal strategies are considered in closed session. Of course, if the sheriff’s department, the deputies union (which refuses to even allow an independent audit of its health plan), etc. want to waive attorney-client privilege also, then we might be getting somewhere.
And what’s your point Steve? You ask an action of one group and excuse another. You and Moorlach are practicing the classic deception tactic of debate. Not that I’m surprised.
The “H” word doesn’t even come close to describing your stance on this issue.
Nothing stopping the supes from leading by example. Except the public outrage or denial they might receive.
Steven your argument defines self serving greed by the dollar amount rather than the act that occurred. Does the dollar amount change the fact that the supervisors increased their own retirement contributions by 33 percent? Especially while claiming to be against pension spiking!
I think the title of Peggy Lowe’s article was absolutely on target. Hypocrisy is oozing out of the Hall of Administration.
Stevey, I love it when you guys can’t make admissions when your boys are wrong– i love it. I know it hits close to home. Because I know you’re not a hypocrit, right? There is no compelling legal theory at all here. The emporer has no clothes but a nicely remodeled offfice.
I am amazed by your continued lack of information on issues. For someone who covers OC Politics and such, you would think you could write more accurate information. The issue of an independant audit/report on the Deputy Sheriffs health trust(not plan) is an issue of their current negotiations with the County, according to your paper. Unless you have a breaking story, last time I checked they are still negotiating their contract terms with the county. The independant audit that is currently provided by AOCDS to the County was acceptable to Mr. Norby(fellow Union hater) according to previous stories in your newspaper. Which leads me to believe that Mr. Moorlach is using political grandstanding to rehash an issue that was apparently solved according to his fellow Supervisor. I am disturbed that you are the one who uses splashy headlines to elicit a favorable response and then lambaste others who do the same. Also last I checked Unions don’t have newspapers, so I guess you are really upset with your employer’s printing of splashy headlines that you don’t agree with. Talk to your editor and demand editorial control of headlines, you have proven that you deserve it. This is your first new headline: Extra, Extra read all about it , John Moorlach is now God, bow down and serve him he knows and sees all. here’s another proposed gem for you: Unions proven to cause cancer. Every week you become more ridiculous and transparent. Thank you for your tirades they are completely useless, yet so entertaining.
Good point Dan. We now know Steve isn’t concerned with the priniciple of the act, only the dollar amount.
I would have to do some digging on the Register’s archives, but Steve has already stated one needn’t be concerned about the desires of the public but the letter of the law itself. Using that as a yardstick we shouldn’t be too hard on the Supes. They did what they were allowed given the verbiage of the law and past practice. Yet that same belief doesn’t apply to those Steve doesn’t like.
AS FAR AS THE UNION OPINION PRINTED HERE ABOUT “HYPOCRISY”, IT IS NOTHING MORE THAN THE AGE OLD GRIND ABOUT ” KEEP ‘EM SWATTING AT GNATS, WHILE THEY RUN AN ELEPHANT THROUGH THE ROOM” THAT SACRAMENTO IS FAMOUS FOR. QUIT FOOLING WITH THIS AND GET A JOINTLY APPOINTED AND AGREED UPON ACTUARIAL FIRM AND DO THE REAL NUMBERS, THEN CALCULATE HOW MUCH CAN BE AFFORDED BY THE NEGOTIATING PARTIES. THE FEDS WON’T ALLOW YOU TO REDUCE EXISTING EMPLOYEES BENEFITS THAT ARE ALREADY PROMISED, ANYWAY. YOU HAVE TO WORK WITH FUTURE BENEFITS (TAKING AWAY FROM THE YOUNGER PEOPLE IN THE PROCESS) OR YOU WILL END UP EXACTLY LIKE SAN DIEGO AND OTHER ORGANIZATIONS THAT HAVE LET BOTH UNION AND MANAGEMENT RAID THE PLANS.
Cat got your tongue Steve? Amazing how quickly you abandon a topic when your double standards are exposed.
Gloss over fails to accurately describe what you do, Steve. Money amounts, acts, whatever. The reality is, the supervisors can vote themselves a pay raise whenever they want. They can vote to increase their benefits whenever they want. The fact is, there are few constraints on the supervisors in regard to giving themselves benefits. Who, after all, approved the remodel of John Moorlach’s office when he came into power?
Union employees answer to the supervisors and the people. Let me ask you: In proposing that the people vote on all changes to benefits and pension changes for county employees, will that affect the supervisors as well? Of course not! His majesty Moorlach and his cronies do not want that kind of oversight. They just want to use whatever works to get what they want. And you are more than willing to let him do it with your biased opinion.
The little-known fact is, the supervisors have set themselves up with a plush retirement fund that, had they been forced to join OCERS, would not be nearly as potentially lucrative because no supervisor (unless he was a former employee of the county), with current term limits, could draw from. The best they could do is pull the money, theirs and the county’s, out and hopefully roll it over into an IRA. I can pretty much guarantee that, whatever the sheriffs and county employees are getting for pension would not have been touched had the supes been forced into the same retirement system with the same benefits. They (I’m sure with your help) would be able to justify the level due to the hard work they do.
Still waiting Steve.
What’s the problem? Your silence only tells us you approve of the Supervisors doing the things you heap scorn upon when done by others.
While I agree that the Supervisor’s benefit increase should have been discussed in an open meeting, I didn’t see in his article where Mr. Greenhut specifically approved or disapproved of the fact it was a closed meeting. Anyway, the salient point of his article was, ” the union flaks are trying to create splashy headlines to divert attention from their outrageous milking of the taxpayer. Keep things in perspective is my only caution”.
According to a 2003 report on Orange County employment figures, 11 percent of the people who live here work for a government agency. There are too many people feeding at the public trough providing too little service, and all are eating quite well. When a particular group demands doggie bags of Filet Mignon and Lobster for later, they’ve gone too far.
Sheriff Deputy’s work for the people. Most provide a valuable service to the community, but the skill required to perform the job is not remarkable. These jobs require no more than a high school education, no criminal record, and a psychological propensity to live life as a hall monitor. They should be paid fairly for the public service they perform, but not as an elite class, which for some baffling reason they feel there are entitled.
The Deputy’s were given an unjust windfall with the retroactive aspect of their benefit package. I agree it was tantamount to a “gift of public funds” and that portion of the contract should be voided on that basis. Also, if the Supervisor’s do not volunteer to rescind their increased benefit package or put it to a non-special election public vote prior to enacting, we need to vote them out of office in the next election.
Steve,
Still waiting.
Dave. Steve is critical of any government employee. He doesn’t discern by cost. You state, the skill to be a deputy is not remarkable. How would you know? Have you ever performed the duties of someone in law enforcement?
I haven’t. Nor do I intend to be in law enforcement. I do know that law enforcement agencies are having a difficult time finding qualified candidates given the so called generous pay packages disparaged by Greenhut and his ilk. Obviously the pay isn’t generous enough to attract people. Given my background on the principles of the “free” market that tells me the package is too low.