It would have been oh so easy to press the "Yes" button and to go along with the majority of the council members who lined up in support of an item that calls upon the state legislature to outlaw the granting of increasing pension benefits retroactively.
Sounds so politically correct, doesn't it? So tough. Call upon that damn state legislature to stop allowing pension increases from being applied for past service.
The only problem, is that any increases allowed under the state pension system CALPERS were not mandated to be given.
No one in the state held a gun to the past City Council's heads to make them retroactively increase city employee pensions.
Oh, no. The prior mayor and city council (not the state legislature) agreed to apply a pension increase retroactively to city employees because it allowed the city council to forgo increasing salaries in bad budget times by giving employees better retirement benefits in the future. (Let's examine: the city council agreed to give city employees an increase in the percentage of their salary they would receive at retirement from 2.0% to 2.7% for non public safety and 2.5% to 3.0% for public safety. The increase applied for every year the employee worked for the city -- before and after the increase. The City had the ability to limit when that increase would apply but it didn't.)
Oh, no. The prior mayor and city council (not the state legislature) agreed to apply a pension increase retroactively to city employees because it allowed the city council to forgo increasing salaries in bad budget times by giving employees better retirement benefits in the future. (Let's examine: the city council agreed to give city employees an increase in the percentage of their salary they would receive at retirement from 2.0% to 2.7% for non public safety and 2.5% to 3.0% for public safety. The increase applied for every year the employee worked for the city -- before and after the increase. The City had the ability to limit when that increase would apply but it didn't.)
The dirty little secret is that this current council cannot take away the pensions that the prior city council gave because of a pesky little problem called the state constitution which clearly prohibits a governmental agency from taking away that which it has contracted to give.
Also there are all those cases in which the courts have held that the city can't take away that which it contracted to give and that it is perfectly legal when a city increases benefits and those benefits are given to everyone who is part of the employee group.
I find it interesting that some of the very people asserting that pension increases are "gifts of public funds" are the very same people who voted to ram through real estate transactions which sold city assets at fire sale prices and to give back sales tax to businesses -- which should have been given to the city -- as an enticement for the business to be in Long Beach.
Do I believe we need pension reform in Long Beach? Absolutely. That's why I offered several permanent, real proposals to deal with the problem which were soundly rejected by the City Council. First, I proposed a charter amendment that would prohibit this and future city councils from spending pension funds when CALPERS is superfunded and the city doesn't have to make contributions. This happened several years ago and the City spent the money.
Secondly, I offered a charter amendment that would have permanently required the city council to "sunshine" all negotiations so that the public could find out what was being given before it was a done deal. The council would also have to verify that the city had the funds to meet the obligations of the contract for the duration of the contract.
And what was the response to these real, permanent changes in pension and benefit matters? Oh no. We can't bind future city councils. Oh no. We don't want to change the way we disclose our negotiations. Oh no.
Really.
So I guess it must have felt good to vote for something that looks like "pension reform" but really does nothing to impact the current or future situations. I just couldn't join in the charade.