… an auto allowance of $7,200 a year plus a mileage reimbursement for most trips at 57.5 cents a mile. … An independent committee that reviewed supervisors’ compensation found none of the other comparable counties it surveyed allowed such double-dipping. The committee recommended ending the mileage reimbursement except for travel out of county.

 

The committee’s position was buttressed by county calculations showing the auto allowance alone covers the costs of operating a car for county business, even for Piepho, the supervisor with the most mileage.

 

Nevertheless, supervisors decided to keep the auto allowance and mileage reimbursement for trips outside their own districts. In Piepho’s case, she will keep almost the entire mileage allowance.

 

Based on her 2014 travel expenses, 93 percent of her trips have been to destinations outside her district. So the board’s decision means that she will retain mileage reimbursement of about $4,400 a year. Under the committee’s recommendation, it would have been trimmed to about $1,580.

Board sparked furor with its big pay raise

This sort of controversy is nothing new to the 1.05 million residents of Contra Costa County, located due east of the Bay Area. Last October, supervisors faced a public backlash after voting themselves a big raise. This account is from the Contra Costa Times:

MARTINEZ — After giving most of their employees raises of about 4 percent in contract negotiations this year, Contra Costa supervisors Tuesday decided they deserved something more: a 33 percent hike, boosting their annual salaries to more than $129,000 a year.

By a 4-1 vote, the supervisor salaries will now be permanently tied to those of Superior Court judges, which is a common practice among county boards throughout the state and eliminates the need for the elected bodies to vote themselves an unpopular pay bump.

 

In Contra Costa, the salaries are now set at 70 percent of judicial salaries …

 

The Richmond Confidential website placed this pay scale in context:

 

“[The] new salary structure gives Contra Costa County’s board more money than the Board of Supervisors in San Francisco, San Mateo and Marin counties. It’s also higher than those of California state Senate and Assembly members, who make a base salary of about $90,000. …”

Backlash leads to reduction in salary boost

But after critics quickly rounded up 40,000 signatures opposing the pay hike, the supervisors voted in January to rescind the entire raise. Last month, they approved a plan in which their salaries would go up in phases by a total of 20 percent, to $116,840, with the final increase on Jan. 1, 2018.

The controversy could haunt the political futures of some of the supervisors, particularly Mary Piepho, the ambitious daughter of former state Sen. John Nejedly, who is now deceased. San Francisco Chronicle columnist Chip Johnson, who normally doesn’t pay much attention to Bay Area bedroom communities, lampooned Piepho in January for insisting that the $33,000 pay hike was a “salary adjustment,” not a raise.

But this ridicule didn’t stop Piepho from leading the push to have Contra Costa supervisors get both a flat vehicle reimbursement and a per-mile repayment.

“For more than a decade, lawmakers have ignored the increasing shortfall. Consequently, the California State Teachers’ Retirement System is now $74 billion underfunded, holding only 67 percent of assets it should have.

“Brown now wants to start paying down the debt this year. But he would stretch the installments until 2046, meaning it would take 32 years to restore full funding and that the debt would continue growing for the first 12 years.

“That’s not fiscally responsible; it’s merely less irresponsible than what lawmakers do now.”

It’s not irresponsible enough for Dem majority

And guess what? In the least surprising development of all time, even the governor’s irresponsible plan is too responsible for the Legislature. This is from Dan Walters:

“State legislators heard a heavy litany of complaints from school officials this week about Gov. Jerry Brown’s plan to make the State Teachers Retirement System solvent and in response temporarily toned down the bite on their budgets.

“The Brown plan aims to close a $70-plus billion unfunded liability by eventually raising contributions to $5-plus billion a year, with the lion’s share coming from the budgets of local school districts.

“But school officials told a joint legislative hearing that the sharp increases would wipe out much of the gains in state aid they are scheduled to receive during the remainder of the decade.

“In response, the chairs of the two legislative committees involved asked for a modification and on Friday, the Legislative Analyst’s Office released a revised chart that would reach the same level of financing sought by Brown by 2020, but lower the increase in the early years and raise it later.”

Yeah, sure, they’ll “raise it later.” To paraphrase an old Baltimore Sun columnist, no one will ever go broke underestimating the people in charge of the California Legislature.

Because districting is based on population, not number of citizens, Democrats do better in Sacramento from the get-go then one would expected based on voting on high-profile state props. Our Legislature should be strongly Democratic and thus generally pro-union — not overwhelmingly Democratic and reflexively pro-union.

And on those state props, the Attorney General’s Office works to thwart anti-union ballot measures with dishonest ballot summaries, and the state Public Employment Relations Board targets them with extreme tactics, too. At the local level, unions try to sandbag ballot measures with skulduggery, and the authorities usually look the other way. Direct democracy is the biggest threat to union hegemony, and the California power structure reacts accordingly.

2011 law enables more legal looting

But there’s still more. Leave it to Dan Borenstein of the Contra Costa Times to point out a new way the public is brutalized by the union-favoring California status quo:

“A bill Gov. Jerry Brown signed in 2011 gives labor the right, when negotiations break down, to demand a nonbinding fact-finding inquiry before most local governments can impose terms.

“In theory, a neutral party approved by both sides evaluates competing positions. In practice, the fact-finders, professional mediators and arbitrators, lack objectivity because they cannot alienate unions if they want to receive business elsewhere.

“Consequently, the costly, time-consuming process produces biased findings devoid of common sense that place additional political pressure on elected officials to make concessions they cannot afford.”

Shock: Lawyer does favor for Dem status quo

I don’t assume this is just a failure of a split-the-difference process. It may well be yet another example of the fact that lawyers are a key part of the Democratic Party’s coalition, and that lawyers who do favors for the most powerful part of the Dem coaltion can expect their favors to be “paid forward.”

Dan’s fact-finding doesn’t make one think the “fact finder” he writes about is fair or competent, that’s for sure:

“In Concord last year, attorney Carol Vendrillo concluded that the city, already facing a $5.5 million structural deficit, should raid revenues from a temporary sales tax increase to fund permanent salary and benefit increases of 12.3 percent. 

“Vendrillo ignored that voters had been told the tax money would be used only to protect core services, cover the city’s structural deficit and rebuild badly depleted city reserves.

“She revealed her bias as she warned that ’employees’ expectations, labor peace, and a positive labor/management relationship, while difficult to measure in monetary terms, must weigh heavily in the (City) Council’s response’ to her recommendation.”

Great, just great.

What was that again about Jerry Brown being some sort of genius? He signed this law. It’s on him.

The first is the fact that many Golden State public agencies routinely act in ways that would yield criminal and civil legal action and shareholder lawsuits if the same shenanigans took place in the business world.

The second is that in special districts — exemplified by the Metropolitan Water District but seen in water, transit and other agencies around California — there is a disincentive for top officials to play tough in salary negotiations because they personally benefit from overly generous pay and compensation practices. If such practices lead to higher bills sent to ratepayers or to poorer services, so be it.

Take it away, Dan:

“… what the district calls ‘perhaps the most significant change agreed to by unions’ … amends a decades-old contract provision that required union approval before BART managers could alter past work practices.

“That provision has impeded attempts to improve technology, reduce paperwork and increase efficiencies. BART leaders made its elimination a top negotiation priority; they got an alteration instead. Nevertheless, they claim the new language will enable them to improve technology and switch equipment without union approval.

“In fact, changes must still be negotiated with the unions. Unresolved disputes will be subjected to binding arbitration. And the arbitrator may provide relief, including ‘additional compensation.’

“That means unions will demand, and likely receive, more money in exchange for modernization, thereby eroding cost-savings BART desperately needs.”

This part is particularly rich: The concession-that-didn’t-happen was treated as if it happened.

“BART officials cite the contract modification as a key reason for agreeing to the financial terms. But they also misrepresent the monetary aspects.

“For starters, they claim employees, already some of the best paid transit workers in the nation, will net a 9.4 percent increase over the four-year contract. That counts salary increases offset by increased contributions to pensions and health care. In fact, the net benefit to workers is 11.7 percent.”

Will BART bosses pay for their perfidy?

Wait, there’s much more — a list of BART’s financial deceptions:

“First, officials claim the deal will save $2.7 million due to retiree health care changes. New employees will now be required to work 15 years before vesting in the plan, rather than the current five years.

“But most of the savings will materialize decades from now. Nevertheless, BART calculated the savings for 30 years and then credited half of that during just the next four years, thereby grossly inflating the contract savings. It’s fictional accounting.

“Second, BART claims it will save $5 million by encouraging employees with spouses who have health coverage to opt out of the transit district’s insurance. Employees will be offered $350 a month to do so. The question is how many people will take the deal. BART estimates 150 employees will, but they really don’t know.

“Third, the district left a $16 million retirement item out of its accounting.”

“The transit system not only provides traditional pensions, it also funds retirement savings accounts similar to 401(k)s. The district currently contributes $1,869 per year. And until 1991 it also kicked in 1.627 percent of salary.”

So as bad a deal as it looked when it was first reported, it was actually far worse. Will top BART officials face any repercussions for their dishonesty and profligacy?

In a just world, of course. But not in California.

By Chris Reed

On Monday, the day that finally saw criminal charges filed over CalPERS’ brazen pay-to-play bribery scheme, there were signs that some Democratic state lawmakers finally are figuring out that believing California’s pension status quo is ridiculous isn’t just partisan right-wing posturing.

Ed Mendel, one of a handful of elite reporters on pension machinations, has the scoop at Capitol Weekly:

“Assemblyman Marc Levine, D-San Rafael, an upset victor last fall in a new election process, has introduced a bill containing Gov. Brown’s stalled proposal to restructure the CalPERS board, adding financial expertise and loosening labor control.

“The proposal to change the board, which needs voter approval because of a labor-backed initiative in 1992, would double the number of gubernatorial appointees to six, matching the number of labor representatives.

“’In the past, the lack of independence and financial sophistication on public retirement boards has contributed to unaffordable pension benefit increases,’ said the 12-point pension reform proposed by Brown in October 2011.

“The proposal said pension boards need members with ‘independence and sophistication’ to ensure that retirees receive promised benefits ‘without exposing taxpayers to large unfunded liabilities.’”

‘Unsophisticated’? Or union double agents?

Journalistic decorum requires Mendel to pretend the problem is a lack of sophistication on board members’ part, not the fact that they are union tools. Why is this problematic? More from Ed:

“CalPERS sponsored legislation, SB 400 in 1999, that gave state workers a major retroactive pension increase. A deep pension cut in 1991 was rolled back. Retirees received a 1 to 6 percent increase in their pensions.

“Highway Patrol pensions increased 50 percent, setting a costly bargaining benchmark for local police and firefighters that critics say is unsustainable. All of this, CalPERS erroneously said, would be paid for by investment earnings, not costing taxpayers ‘a dime.’”

Here’s a factoid that goes a long way to explain why California is so screwed up. Who is the president of the CalPERS’ Board of Administration?

Is it a UC Berkeley economist? A CEO of a thriving Califoria firm? A respected former statewide official considered an independent straight-shooter?

Nah.

It’s this guy.

“Mr. Feckner is the Past President of the California School Employees Association. He also serves as an Executive Vice President of the California Labor Federation.”

How insane that a guy with such preposterous and extreme conflicts of interest is CalPERS’ board chairman.

How … California.

By Chris Reed

The Jerry Brown ego trip is still running strong, nearly three months after he sold much of California and nearly all of the media on the idea that raising sales taxes on everyone and income taxes on the rich would make the Golden State a much healthier place.

But what’s absolutely perverse is that the governor, even as he wallows in his undeserved acclaim, isn’t fighting for his one genuine achievement. I know many of my fellow CalWatchdog writers weren’t that impressed with Brown’s pension reform. But he didn’t have to fight for a reform that won’t start paying dividends for decades. He could have ducked it like Illinois state leaders are ducking their pension crisis.

And one provision of Brown’s reform doesn’t get nearly enough credit: the requirement in coming years that all public employees pay half of pension costs. When that kicks in, we will see local governments up and down the state suddenly finding unions eager to make pensions much smaller so workers can have much more take-home pay.

So what is the governor allowing to happen? According to Dan Borenstein of the Contra Costa Times, Jerry Brown’s administration isn’t even fighting back against employee unions in three counties that are trying to overturn part of his reform law so as to preserve policies allowing grotesque pension spiking:

“Employees in three counties — Contra Costa, Alameda and Merced — have sued to block implementation of the new law. If they prevail, they will continue counting unused vacation time as income when computing pensions.

“An appellate decision in their favor could invalidate the law statewide, leaving a new legal loophole that would allow workers in 17 other counties, including Marin and San Mateo in the Bay Area, to start boosting pensions, too.

“Pensions are calculated based on years of service, retirement age and final salary. By increasing final salary, employees can fatten retirement pay. ..

“Employees sued the retirement systems that administer pensions in the three counties. But the systems say they are indifferent and will abide by whatever the courts decide.

“The retirement systems don’t ultimately pay the bill. The cost is passed on to taxpayer-supported local governments. Yet the three counties’ boards of supervisors have sat on the sidelines, as has Attorney General Kamala Harris, whose job includes defending state laws, and Gov. Brown, who vowed to end this sort of abuse.

If this is more of Jerry Brown’s super-sophisticated political Zen that we’re all supposed to be in awe of, I don’t see how. It looks like the Brown administration taking the path of least resistance.

As for Kamala Harris, she has proven over and over again that she represents California public employees, not Californians in general. Her refusal to defend this particular state law is a pathetic confirmation of her loyalties. People forget that she killed pension reform much more sweeping than Brown’s a year ago. But even Jerry’s version is too much for the public employee unions’ partner in thuggery and theft.

By Chris Reed

Legislative Analyst Mac Taylor’s budget report does have plenty of caveats that his somewhat upbeat view of coming years may never come to pass. But Taylor’s opening statement about there being a “strong possibility of multibillion-dollar operating surpluses within a few years” is so Pollyannaish that it could do permanent damage to his reputation. What happened in 2006 is the template for legislative behavior whenever revenue grows: fresh demands quickly eat it up.

I made the case that Taylor ignored many warning signs Thursday in this U-T San Diego editorial.

Dan Borenstein makes a similar case in today’s Contra Costa Times.

What’s particularly aggravating about Taylor’s misleading forecast is that it will certainly embolden a lot of bad behavior both in Sacramento and at the local level in agencies like school districts that depend on state funding.

I know people who know Taylor and they say he prides himself on being a constructive force in a state capital without enough such people. What he did last week was far from constructive.