San Francisco Public Defender Jeff Adachi. File photo by Luke Thomas.
By Luke Thomas
Editor’s Note: There’s no denying something has to be done to rein in unsustainable city employee pension and healthcare benefit costs in San Francisco. Last year, Mr. Adachi attempted to address pension and healthcare reform via the ballot and failed. After listening to those who support pension and healthcare cost reforms but who did not support Prop B last year, Mr. Adachi has crafted a new and improved ballot proposal. The new proposal, dubbed “The Sustainable City Employee Pension & Benefits Reform Act,” does not address spiraling healthcare costs, but it is considerably more progressive and equitable than its predecessor. FCJ was availed an opportunity to discuss with Mr. Adachi his latest proposal which is expected to be considered, among other competing pension and healthcare reform proposals, by voters in November.
Update, 4/13/11: City Attorney Dennis Herrera spokesperson Matt Dorsey has taken issue with comments made by Mr. Adachi in this interview. Mr. Dorsey’s response, sent as a letter to Mr. Adachi today, has been posted in the comments section below, timestamped 4/13/11, 10:25 am.
April 11, 2011
FCJ: Prop B lost last November. Why are you still pushing for pension reform?
JA: Because the problem of escalating pension costs is still here and it’s getting worse. Pension costs are going up nearly $100 million between this year and next year. In four years, pension costs are projected to climb another $243 million. We will experience cuts in services like we’ve never seen before, and job layoffs of city workers. That’s not something that anyone would want.
FCJ: Can you explain why pension reform is needed? Are there other ways, such as targeted revenue measures, that could help to solve this problem?
JA: Sure. If you assume that the voters will approve massive tax increases every year to support paying city employees’ pension, then that’s one way it can be addressed. Last November, San Francisco passed a new tax on property transfers that is projected to raise $30 million. You would need two tax measures that raised an average of $60 million a year, every year, for the next four years in order to keep up with pension costs.
FCJ: How did these pension costs get so out of control?
JA: Here’s the problem: City employees pay a fixed rate into the pension fund from their paychecks, but the City’s costs are not fixed and has been increasing every year. That’s because pensions are guaranteed and the taxpayers, under law, have to make up the difference when the pension fund isn’t adequately funded. The City’s pension bill is now twice what its employees’ pay, and in four years will be four times what the employees pay.
FCJ: What will happen if nothing is done?
JA: We will continue to see the disintegration of City services and programs that serve the most vulnerable. We’re already seeing AIDS, mental health services, after school programs for kids, senior programs, health services for the poor being slashed, but next year we’ll see even deeper cuts to basic city services, from street repair to education to parks. And we’ll see more city workers will lose their jobs.
FCJ: Why did last year’s pension reform measure fail?
JA: Prop B failed because voters were bombarded with campaign flyers over how increasing contributions might affect lower paid city employees. The opponents argued that workers who earned less than $35 thousand would be harmed by paying more for their pensions and benefits.
FCJ: Have you revised your new measure to address these concerns?
JA: Yes. The new measure completely exempts workers who earn less than $50 thousand from any increases in pension costs and provides a graduated scale of employee pension contributions to match the increases expected in the City’s costs, based on income level. In other words, better paid City employees will pay more while employees who earn less will pay less. This is a progressive approach to pension reform.
Also, increased health care costs were a non-starter with voters, so the new measure will focus on solving the pension crisis and not cloud it with health care, which is much more complex problem.
FCJ: How does your measure compare to the proposal put forth by Mayor Ed Lee?
JA: The proposals are similar, in the sense that they both address escalating pension costs and try to find a way to reduce the cost to the City. Both reduce benefits for future workers. But the proposals are significantly different in several ways.
As I said earlier, our proposal exempts all workers who earn less than $50 thousand from pension increases. It also provides a progressive, graduated increase in contributions rate based on a person’s income.
Mayor Lee’s proposal is a flat percentage charge for all workers. Under the Mayor’s proposal, if a person earned $45 thousand per year and then pension costs went up 10 percent, that person would have to pay $4,500 more a year. Under our proposal, an employee person who earned $45 thousand would contribute what they are already contributing now, but nothing more.
The other big difference is that Mayor Lee’s proposal treats public safety employees the same as other city employees.
I think this is unfair. Remember that public safety employees get much richer benefits because they can retire earlier and collect a pension of up to 90 percent of their annual pay when they retire. It should come as no surprise that their pensions are much, much more expensive than other city employees.
Police pensions are twice as expensive as other city workers, and firefighters are three times as costly. That’s why they call them “Platinum Pensions.” But because all employees now contribute at the same rate, other city workers essentially subsidize the cost of the police and fire pensions.
And most police and firefighters earn much more than non-safety workers. Last year, the 100 top public safety officers earned $247 thousand apiece. Is it fair for the city worker that earns $45 thousand a year to help subsidize the pension of a police officer who retires with a $200 thousand pension?
I don’t think it’s fair that a city worker who works until he/she’s 62, not 55, and doesn’t receive a Platinum pension benefit has to pay into the pension fund the same amount as a public safety officer. It’s basically making the other city employees pay for the costly benefits of a particular class of employees.
Our new measure will change that by requiring that police and fire employees pay 2.5 percent more than other employees. The Mayor’s proposal would continue to charge the same rate for all City employees.
FCJ: Several SEIU leaders criticized your new proposal in a Bay Guardian op-ed last week. If it is true that your new measure is more equitable, why would they not support it?
JA: That’s a good question. Maybe they haven’t read our proposed measure. Because if they had, they would have seen that their members are much better off with a progressive, graduated approach, since it is based on income, and many of their members are among the employees that would be exempted from pension increases or would only pay minimal increases, depending on their level of income.
Also, I can’t imagine that they think it’s fair that their members are subsidizing the richer benefits of public safety officers, which, as I mentioned earlier, costs two to three times more than a non-safety employee’s pension.
FCJ: Does your new measure affect collective bargaining in any way?
JA: Absolutely not. In San Francisco, pension obligations have always been decided by the voters in the City Charter. This doesn’t change that. All City employees have the right to collectively bargain for wages, and this measure ensures that the pension contributions by City employees are set in the Charter, as they always have been.
FCJ: Do you think that progressives will support your new initiative?
JA: Yes. Last year, some progressive leaders criticized Prop B because it charged all workers the same, regardless of income. So, if they are honest with themselves, they should step up and support this ballot initiative because it provides a progressive way in which to balance increasing pension costs and save essential services that progressives care about.
FCJ: What about City employees? Many were livid at your proposal last time. Do you expect their support this time?
JA: I spoke to a representative from the organization that represents city employee retirees, and she told me they were supportive of my proposal to increase pension contributions. She said that they realize if we don’t fix the problem, retirees won’t get their benefits in the future. I’ve spoken to many city employees who are supportive of pension reform. A high ranking police officer recently told me he agreed with charging police more for their pensions. Why? Because the system is not sustainable as it is. I understand that no one wants to pay more. But if we don’t begin sharing the cost of the pensions, we will see more city workers losing their jobs and fewer people will be contributing towards the pension fund, which will make matters worse.
FCJ: You work for the City. Does the new proposal require that you contribute more to your pension?
JA: Yes. I will have to contribute towards my pension if my measure passes, whereas I do not now. But the way I see it, if you expect a pension, you have to contribute towards it to make sure that the system is sustainable and doesn’t bankrupt the City.
FCJ: Do you think the Mayor will be successful in passing his pension reform proposal?
JA: The Mayor is trying to reach a consensus proposal, which is only possible if he gets six votes at the Board of Supervisors to put it on the ballot. This will be no easy task. If the Mayor’s proposal gets watered down to the point that it is not worth passing or ends up costing the voters more in givebacks, it won’t be much of a reform.
Let me give you an example from past history.
In 2008, voters were told that they were reforming the law that allowed city workers to get free retiree health care after five years of service. That’s one of the reasons we have a $4.3 billion unfunded healthcare liability. Well, tucked away in that “reform” was a provision that allowed the pension fund to pay out a “bonus” cost of living increase to retirees even though the fund itself was underfunded. This year, the Retirement Board approved a $170 million dollar “bonus” payment to retirees. By the way, this is one of the things our measure would change.
FCJ: Nathan Ballard, the spokesperson for the labor unions, recently said that your pension reform measure is a front for Republicans. What do you say about that?
JA: I think it is very ironic that he said that especially since Ballard’s public relations company, Burston-Marsteller, is run by President George W. Bush’s former senior aide, Karen Hughes, and former Bush White House Press Secretary Dana Perino. And, actually, most of the major financial supporters of our pension reform measure are Democrats. Ballard is a hired mouthpiece and he’s got to earn the $100 thousand Burston-Marsteller was paid in union dues to spin the issue, so that’s his job.
Politics aside, the most disappointing thing is that the city employee union leaders promised voters that they would have a solution within two weeks of the November election if Prop B didn’t’ pass. Here we are six months later, and they don’t have a single proposal. It’s revealing that they criticize us for having three proposals, but they don’t even have one.
FCJ: How much of an issue do you think pension reform will be in this year’s mayor’s race?
JA: I think that pensions will be the litmus test in the Mayor’s race in terms of fiscal accountability and independence. All the elected and former elected officials running opposed Prop B and campaigned against it, which is ironic, given that Prop B would have increased pensions by 9-10 percent, which labor leaders now concede has to happen.
(Senator) Leland Yee is labor’s chosen candidate so he won’t do anything that labor doesn’t approve of. Dennis Herrera, as City Attorney, is in a precarious position because he is the City Attorney and is in charge of reviewing ballot measures. For the last pension reform measure, the City Attorney’s office drafted a convoluted ballot question which was written in a way that sounded as if the City was going to pay more for pensions. His office also left out any mention of the word ‘pension’ in his official description of the measure, which has happened this time as well, even though it appears 59 times in the measure. The other candidates, to my knowledge, haven’t come forward to support the new ballot initiative even though it addresses all of the concerns raised in the last campaign.
FCJ: Do you think you’ll be successful this time around?
JA: Yes, but of course the voters will have the ultimate say. Whose proposal will they support and trust? I think in the end, the proposal that solves the problem without causing harm to the lowest paid workers and their families will have the best chance. Our polling has showed that San Franciscans will support pension reform, but that more liberal voters want to make sure that it doesn’t hurt lower paid workers. And they also want a proposal that actually solves the problem, and not one that makes it worse or doesn’t really solve it.
That’s why we changed our proposal and that’s why pension reform will be successful this time. Progressives will have a hard time arguing that pension reform isn’t “progressive” enough since contributions are based on a graduated scale based on income and protects the lowest paid workers. Moderate and conservative voters, who were among the 120,000 who voted yes for our last measure, will presumably vote yes on pension reform again. And the mayoral candidates and other elected officials will have a harder time opposing or side-stepping pension reform since it is probably now the biggest problem facing our City.
Jeff Adachi is the San Francisco Public Defender and the proponent of the “San Francisco Pension Reform Act.” To read the measure, please visit www.sfpensionreform.com.
Luke Thomas
Luke Thomas is a former software developer and computer consultant who proudly hails from London, England. In 2001, Thomas took a yearlong sabbatical to travel and develop a photographic portfolio. Upon his return to the US, Thomas studied photojournalism to pursue a career in journalism. In 2004, Thomas worked for several neighborhood newspapers in San Francisco before accepting a partnership agreement with the SanFranciscoSentinel.com, a news website formerly covering local, state and national politics. In September 2006, Thomas launched FogCityJournal.com. The BBC, CNN, ABC, NBC, CBS, Fox News, New York Times, Der Spiegel, San Francisco Chronicle, San Francisco Magazine, 7x7, San Francisco Examiner, San Francisco Bay Guardian and the San Francisco Weekly, among other publications and news outlets, have published his work. Thomas is a member of the Freelance Unit of the Pacific Media Workers Guild, TNG-CWA Local 39521 and is a member of the Society of Professional Journalists.
Follow Me:
The Hunger Site
April 15, 2011 at 12:08 pm
H Brown,
Ok, I guess when you get asked some harder questions you refuse to answer. Maybe someone else will ask you the same questions and you’ll give an answer?
April 14, 2011 at 1:35 pm
@ Matt Dorsey-
Thank you for the spin- we realize this is your job. We all know Herrera worked behind the scenes to defeat Prop B and carry the union’s water:
1) Herrerra never enforced Prop H 2002 and a a matter of fact, claimed the CA is not responsible to enforce the City Charter is this regard- yes, that Charter you so religiously cite. Yes, Herrera tried to write a ten page rationalization as to why meet and confer provisions for Police and Fire MANDATED by the voters were never enforced- it could not have held up in a kangaroo court.
2) Herrera in cahoots with the City’s unions smeared the Civil Grand Jury (during Prop B campaign) after it had findings critical of Herrera’s office for not enforcing Prop H
3) We all know the CA has influence over the ballot initiative process and the word “pension” was PURPOSELY omitted so as to defeat the measure. The three-sentence summary of Prop B which appeared on the ballot was convoluted and confusing for a reason- defeat the measure.
4) Herrera also directly discouraged the Chamber from supporting Prop B (I wonder where the Chamber got the idea that Prop B conflicted with other sections of the City Charter??) which discouraged other potential donors to the Prop B campaign.
HERRERA ACTIVELY WORKED TOWARDS THE DEFEAT OF PROP B.
You are not fooling everyone.
April 13, 2011 at 10:56 am
Sflocal,
Use your name and give your solutions or I won’t answer you. I don’t feed trolls.
Go Giants!
h.
April 13, 2011 at 10:38 am
HBrown stated: “Adachi/Gonzalez/Avalos? They’re the only legitimate Progressives left on the SF political landscape” Adachi is a progressive? Ha! I guess in your mind Scott Walker is a progressive too. Give me a break . . . what is progressive about trying to increase the cost of healthcare? What is progressive about attacking working people’s retirements? What is progressive about buying into the whole FOX news/Kock Brothers attack on public sector unions? Adachi is just playing into the right’s divide and conquer tactics. Get the left to fight over the crumbs and they will ignore the the billionares who fund these fights.
April 13, 2011 at 10:25 am
City Attorney Dennis Herrera spokesperson Matt Dorsey has taken issue with comments made by Mr. Adachi in this interview.
The following letter was sent to Mr. Adachi today in response to those comments:
Re: Refuting misrepresentations about the preparation of ballot materials in San Francisco
Mr. Adachi:
Several factually inaccurate news reports about San Francisco’s public and participatory process for preparing ballot materials have come to my attention in recent days, one of which is an interview you gave to the online publication, Fog City Journal, on April 11, 2011. Your direct quote, which is misleading in several respects, was published as follows:
“Dennis Herrera, as City Attorney, is in a precarious position because he is the City Attorney and is in charge of reviewing ballot measures. For the last pension reform measure, the City Attorney’s office drafted a convoluted ballot question which was written in a way that sounded as if the City was going to pay more for pensions. His office also left out any mention of the word ‘pension’ in his official description of the measure, which has happened this time as well, even though it appears 59 times in the measure.”
I am attaching for your reference a link to this office’s complete response of April 6 to another of your similarly baseless complaints: http://www.sfcityattorney.org/Modules/ShowDocument.aspx?documentid=777
I can only assume that you neglected to read the material that the Deputy City Attorney prepared and sent to you last week — and that you failed to recall, too, our substantially identical correspondence from last fall. Otherwise, you would certainly have been disabused of the mistaken notions you expressed to Fog City Journal and, apparently, to several other local journalists.
For your convenience — and as a helpful reference for those I am cc’ing on this correspondence — I have prepared the following Q&As to highlight key points from our previous correspondence.
Whose job is it to prepare summaries of ballot measures in San Francisco?
It is the Ballot Simplification Committee’s job, in accordance with the San Francisco Municipal Elections Code. It is not the job of the City Attorney’s Office.
What is the Ballot Simplification Committee?
It is an independent body comprised of five members — 2 appointed by the Mayor, and 3 appointed by the Board of Supervisors — who are nominated the League of Women Voters and organizations representing journalists and educators.
Does the City Attorney have a vote on the Ballot Simplification Committee?
No. A deputy city attorney serves as an ex officio committee member, but has no vote.
What are the benefits of having a Ballot Simplification Committee?
The Ballot Simplification Committee conducts a public hearing process, benefiting from extensive input by City residents and other interested parties, and transparent deliberation among committee members.
Who prepares the official digests printed in San Francisco’s Voter Information Pamphlet?
The Ballot Simplification Committee prepares official digests printed in the Voter Information Pamphlet mailed to all City voters. The City Attorney’s Office does not.
Who prepares other material in the Voter Information Pamphlet?
The Ballot Simplification Committee assists the Department of Elections in preparing other informational material for the Voter Information Pamphlet, like the glossary of the terms that appear at the end the guide. The City Attorney’s Office may be consulted for legal advice in that process.
Who determines the title of the propositions on the ballot?
The Director of Elections determines the titles of propositions. The City Attorney’s Office does not.
So, what does the City Attorney’s Office prepare?
The City Attorney’s Office drafts only: (1) the title and summary for petitions, which is what prospective signers see; and (2) the ballot question itself — both of which rely on language, whenever possible, chosen through the Ballot Simplification Committee’s public process.
Why does the City Attorney usually adopt Ballot Simplification Committee usage?
Because the Ballot Simplification Committee has had the benefit of extensive public input and citizen participation, and because the committee’s legal mandate requires the use of simple language understandable to all voters.
What is City Attorney Dennis Herrera’s role in this?
City Attorney Dennis Herrera plays no role in preparing or providing legal advice about ballot materials in 2011. Upon becoming a candidate for municipal office in the same election, he instituted a policy that screens him from such participation during the campaign period. That policy is available online here: http://www.sfcityattorney.org/Modules/ShowDocument.aspx?documentid=669
So, who decided to use the term “retirement benefits” instead of “pensions”?
San Francisco voters did, ultimately, by adopting “retirement” terminology as their primary usage in the City Charter. Also, the Ballot Simplification Committee devoted significant consideration to its precise word choice in public hearings about Proposition B, a very similar measure, last August. After careful deliberation and public scrutiny, the committee chose the term “retirement benefits,” and not “pensions.”
Is that why the City Attorney’s Office used “retirement benefits” in the current title and summary?
Exactly. As mentioned earlier, the City Attorney’s Office relies on the usage employed by Ballot Simplification Committee for the title and summary for petitions, and that was the case here.
Is there a place to argue for “pensions” instead of “retirement benefits” on the ballot?
Yes, to the Ballot Simplification Committee. If a measure qualifies for the ballot, proponents, opponents and citizens can raise concerns through the public process about how the digest for the measure should read in the ballot and whether the committee should revisit the word usage it adopted last year.
Can the Ballot Simplification Committee’s determination be appealed?
Yes, parties can petition the Ballot Simplification Committee for reconsideration of its determinations after they are reached.
Can the Ballot Simplification Committee’s decision be appealed after reconsideration?
Yes. There is a 10-day period after the Ballot Simplification Committee process concludes to allow for parties to seek an order from the San Francisco Superior Court to change ballot materials.
I hope this email summarizing our previous correspondence has been helpful, and that it serves to remind you about your own extensive participation in the Ballot Simplification Committee process last year. I trust that no responsible City official or officer of the Court would ever willfully misrepresent the important right of every San Francisco citizen to take part in a process by which ballot materials are prepared for the consideration of fellow voters. It would be gravely unfortunate if San Franciscans — reasonably believing such falsehoods — concluded that they have no voice in the process, which in truth invites civic engagement, and benefits enormously from it.
The political sphere affords ample latitude to vigorously debate public policy issues without employing unethical rhetoric. Given the risks of depressing citizenship, undermining our democracy’s integrity, or delegitimizing its outcomes, these inaccuracies warrant repudiation and clarification wherever possible. I appreciate your consideration.
Best,
MATT DORSEY
Communications Director
————————————————————-
OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY
San Francisco City Hall, Room 234
1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place
San Francisco, California 94102-4682
April 13, 2011 at 9:22 am
Marc,
The unions disagree with you big time. So does the Mayor. They want $190,000 as a ceiling for retiree’s with the City supplementing that. Adachi started with an $85,000 cap and then went to $100,000 and ended up at $140,000 which is still a bundle less than the unions will accept.
Hellman and the unions promised a better measure than Jeff’s, within a couple of weeks and they’ve been over 6 months. Now they’re saying they’ll have their proposal in just a few more weeks. Adachi is set to collect signatures.
What will happen?
My own feelings are that the Adachi measure is so modest that the unions will be hard pushed to attack it without focusing only on personalities (never stopped Haaland before) … doubt the unions will even field a measure.
Which will leave Jeff as the only level-headed office holder in the City and in a perfect position to enter the race for Mayor against a bunch of budget-busting unions and a Downtown dominated Board of supes determined to destroy our tax base and give away our waterfront and parks to the super-wealthy.
Think about this. Adachi/Gonzalez/Avalos? They’re the only legitimate Progressives left on the SF political landscape and they are shunned by all quarters. Progressives have become an outsider minority. Who’d uh thunk it?
Poverty pimp extraordinaire, Randy Shaw is calling for the demotion of Brandon Belt to the minors. I’m just noting this because I think Shaw is walking puss and I want to be able to refer back to his column today when Brandon is crowned Rookie of the Year.
Go Giants!
h.
April 13, 2011 at 9:10 am
Jeff Adachi, please go crawl back into the hole that you came out of. And everyone who talks about capping pensions as a solution to the current situation doesn’t know a lick about how pensions work. If they did know something, then they would understand that those caps wouldn’t have any effect on the pension payouts until new hires retires in 30 years. Capping pension is a politically popular idea that does nothing to deal with the losses incured by the pensions during the stock market crash in 2008. This issue sums up Adachi, going for the easy politically popular issues that do nothing to solve the actual problems.
April 13, 2011 at 8:43 am
Cap salaries at $100K except for patient-serving nurses and physicians until revenue rises over two consecutive years and then ease back into pre-crash salaries.
Cap pensions at $50K, if you can’t make it on that plus Social Security, that is not a San Francisco taxpayers’ problem.
Everything else is just dancing around the problem.
-marc
April 12, 2011 at 6:23 pm
Interesting comments, the only ones that make real sense comes from H.
Jeff for mayor
April 12, 2011 at 1:01 pm
Mr. Wright:
You state that “[b]ut I don’t believe it should be up to me, you, Michael Moritz or David Crane. Pension contributions and the method of determining benefits should remain squarely in the purview of the members who pay into the fund through their elected representatives and the collective bargaining process.”
Don’t you think taxpayers should have a say? Members aren’t the only ones “paying into the fund.” The City is paying several hundred million dollars into the pension fund this year. That money comes from the general fund–and was sourced by our tax dollars. The money could have been allocated elsehwere–city services, money for social programs, fixing potholes, etc.–and instead is being diverted to the pension fund.
As for you suggestion that we need to tax the “ultra wealthy” and go after “corporate landlords,” you need to be realistic. The City has very little power to tax and is is barred by state law from passing income taxes. And I don’t think ruminating about landlords solves our math problem that is present in the here and now.
April 12, 2011 at 7:39 am
Mr. Wright,
Please tell me which number I posted that was, “inaccurate”. I said there were 113 cops in the DROP program making nearly 300k total each. This morning’s Examiner confirmed it. I said that over 300 cops were eligible for the program. The Examiner confirmed it as did Gary Delugnuts, the head of the POA. By Fall we could easily have 400 cops making around $300,000 a year each.
I know, I know, I don’t understand cause it’s a union thing.
Again, please point out any numbers I’ve posted that are incorrect.
Go Giants!
h.
April 11, 2011 at 6:47 pm
Mr. Brown,
I’m open to suggestions.
I certainly have my own ideas – tax the ultra wealthy the way that they ought to be taxed – the way they were taxed up until the Reagan era. Scrap the payroll tax and switch to gross receipts, actually fight corporate landowners when they take go crying to the Board of Appeals – unfortunately, these won’t address the current unfunded liability.
We should also deter spiking, ban pension holidays and put all surplus in a fund for retiree health. A temporary sliding scale increase in employee contributions might make some sense as well – again, my ideas only. I am only speaking for myself.
But I don’t believe it should be up to me, you, Michael Moritz or David Crane. Pension contributions and the method of determining benefits should remain squarely in the purview of the members who pay into the fund through their elected representatives and the collective bargaining process.
City workers have shown time and again how they will step up and give back when the City comes hat in hand – which is actually contributing of the current problem. The fund is underfunded in part because all employees have given back at least 5% over the past year alone – less in, less out.
SFERS is one of the best performing pension funds of its size in the country, if it hadn’t been managed so well leading up to the crash, then your mean-sprited and inaccurate statement might warrant a second glance.
I’ve said all I can on this issue with you or others who don’t seem capable of looking beyond the rhetoric fed to you by the tea party or anyone else hellbent on deflecting the blame for the current crisis away from the real source. It’s like arguing with a LaRouchian or Jevohas Witness.
Cheers,
Jonathan Wright
April 11, 2011 at 6:32 pm
Seej,
Anytime I get a number wrong and you prove it, I’ll retract. Right now you’re just running at the mouth.
Giants and Dodgers 0-0 after first.
No riot yet.
Lotta cops down there tonite. Bet lots of em are on the DROP probram. That means they’ll make well over $1,000 for the shift. You make that much for 9 hours?
h.
April 11, 2011 at 5:22 pm
First, thank you Luke. Hopefully you will have a sit down with the mayor and do a similar piece on his plan for comparison.
It obvious that something needs to be done. As others have said, its not sustainable. And, you have to consider the TAXPAYERS, not just labor. S.F. is already over taxed when compared to other municipalities. The City has gone to the well much too often. That’s why companies are threatening to leave town. Whether it’s the Adachi, the Lee plan or another plan, city employees pay and benefits has to be in line with the private sector’s.
April 11, 2011 at 5:00 pm
H,
Are you sticking with an earlier post that you believe the Controller’s office accurately estimated the cost to the City of the DROP program…?
April 11, 2011 at 4:58 pm
@ Jonathan,
I was trying to be a bit light-hearted in my critique of your post – I’ll try to do better next time…
I am only interested in the math, not the politics. The City’s pension system was not sustainable PRIOR to the 2008 crash.
You cannot create a pension sytem that relies on 8% annual returns forever- at the very least it forces SFERS to make overly risky investments for which taxpayers are on the hook. City employees/retirees are on the SFERS board and are electing to invest in “wall street.”
Do not know how many sworn officers are eligible to retire. With DROP review pending this will become important topic.
My understanding is public safety not eligible for SS.
April 11, 2011 at 4:22 pm
Mr. Wright,
You admit there’s a problem? What’s your solution? Go on, I’ll wait ….. ….. …. …
I’m waiting.
What’s your solution?
Over 300 cops are eligible for the DROP program. 113 are enrolled as of the Controller’s last report. They’re double-dipping (tks, Larry Bush at: Citireport.com) to the tune of around 300k a year. They get it for 3 years and can then re-apply. I talked to Harvey Rose about this a couple of years back when there were just 30 or so cops in the program and he agreed that if it became fully utilized, it would cost the City 30-40 million a year. At least.
You bitch about Wall Street taking your money. Who put it there? That would be the SFERS board which is totally dominated by retired City workers. They might have chosen a bit more wisely. Hey, you went to Vegas with the rent money and now you want us to pay your rent?
Go Giants!
h.
April 11, 2011 at 3:46 pm
Thank you Jeff for being brave enough to take this issue on because it is the progressive thing to do in order to make sure the City continues to be able to do the most good for the most people.
April 11, 2011 at 3:16 pm
@Seej – you are correct and I misspoke, please accept my apology.
Am I allergic to math? Hardly. Do I want to join you in your anti-worker tirades, no thanks.
You see Seej, I made a mistake and I’m willing to admit that I did. Will you ever be able to admit that you’ve bought into the lie propagated by the ultra wealthy and their political tools over the last 30 years? Will you ever be able to admit that public worker pensions are not gifts from above but, in fact, a form of deferred compensation that, in more years that not, actually completely pays for itself?
Can you ever admit that the entire reason we’re even having this discussion is because of unfettered misuse of the investment and banking systems that led to the crash of 08 and subsequent global depression coupled with the concerted effort of the wealthiest of the wealthy in this country to steadily pay less in taxes year after year, thus defunding government by shifting the burden of maintaining services to the working and middle classes?
Can you tell me how many current sworn officers at the Police Department are eligible to retire in the next year? The next 2 or 3? I can tell you but you’ll just think I’m off my math-allergy meds. But I will tell you that by retirement alone soon there will be hundreds of new hires entering the SFERS at the new (and possibly Seej-approved) 9%.
True or false – public safety members of the SFERS are eligible for Social Security?
April 11, 2011 at 2:08 pm
City employees luv to make stuff up on this topic but this is a whopper:
“Finally, Public Safety classifications currently contribute more than miscellaneous employees into the pension system. No non-safety workers are subsidizing firefighter or police pensions.”
You have to be kidding. No, public safety contributes 7.5% like everybody else except for public safety hired after July 1, 2010 who contribute 9% but this is < 5% (<1% ?) of the public safety workforce. Read a Cheiron City actuary report released every January and you will see that if Fire for example were not being subsidized by the rest of the City workforce the City contribution for Fire alone would be 38% instead of the aggregate 18% now required for ALL CIty employees.
I have come to learn that union folks are allergic to math…
Thank you Mr. Adachi for your continued work to save our City from bankruptcy…Please keep it up.
April 11, 2011 at 11:45 am
Lucretia,
You have a big mouth until it comes to giving your own solutions to the problem. Then, you are quiet. Please share your ideas on how to balance the budget without firing a few thousand SEIU workers. You have a plan, right?
Go Giants!
h.
April 11, 2011 at 11:09 am
Pension or deferred compensation for working for the city is once again on the table, Jeff Adachi’s table. He cries foul when our collective bargaining (unions) organized to fight back after he takes millions from his real support system, Micheal Moritz and his tony friends.
Jeff, as arrogant as ever, didn’t invent the words “Pension Tsunami” which along with “Labor Watch” are actually right wing phrases developed by right wing tanks to take from the middle class while we give billions in tax breaks to the rich.
Mr. Adachi is our own local version of Governor Walker. He is anti-labor and using hysterics ginned up by right wing think tanks to get a name for himself at our expense.
What defeated these measures last year was a grand coalition of workers who stood up and gave back millions to the city before Jeff ever came upon the scene. He tried his own version of destroying collective bargaining but a judge and a lawsuit stopped him.
I find Jeff Adachi neither courageous or smart. Just another political opportunist with money to burn.
April 11, 2011 at 11:05 am
Mr. Wright,
Clearly you aren’t part of the 1021 bargaining unit. Other than one “bullshit” you were accurate and fair. Other than Sean Elsbernd, Jeff is the only elected official in Sf to recognize, sound an alert, and provide the beginnings of a solution.
Y’all read Larry Bush’s piece at Citireport.com? There are presently over a hundred cops making more than the 279k Heather Fong is taking in yearly. That number could easily bloom to 300-400 of the force if the DROP program is extended by the BOS.
Adachi for Mayor!!
Gonzalez for Mayor!
Avalos for Mayor.
Daly’s Dive Fridays Noon to 3pm for Bulldog Salon.
And, if you see someone wearing Dodgers colors over the next 3 days? Shake their hands and buy em a drink if you can. Show em that SF knows how to treat guests.
h.
April 11, 2011 at 10:55 am
Thanks Luke, much appreciated as always.
April 11, 2011 at 10:34 am
@Jonathan, thank you for your post. Rest assured FCJ will provide all sides of the pension/healthcare reform debate opportunities to make their cases.
April 11, 2011 at 10:31 am
Thank you Jeff for all your hard work to help the City I know you love so much by meaningfully addressing the pension problem.
At this point, you are the only one who has a detailed plan to fix this thing. Ed Lee did a press release regarding his competing plan — that isn’t even on the Mayor’s Office website yet — much less the text of the plan.
Regardless of how pension reform actually gets done, Mr. Adachi deserves credit for bringing the problem to light and putting pressure on anyone in power who can fix it to do so, rather than slinging platitudes and one-liners and kicking the can down the road in hopes it just goes away (their modus operandi last year).
Without Mr. Adachi getting Prop. B on the ballot last year, Labor and the Mayor’s Office would still be pretending there is no problem. Due to Mr. Adachi’s courageous effort, they have changed their tune.
Now we await the details of their plan for pension reform. It is up to every responsible San Franciscan to actually read these details and not rely on summaries or new stories about them.
While we wait for competing plans’ details to be revealed, the least we can do is give a close look to Mr. Adachi’s plan here:
http://www.sfpensionreform.com
April 11, 2011 at 10:25 am
Hi Luke,
I sincerely hope that you intend on offering equal space to those in opposition to Mr. Adachi’s blatant efforts to offer the anti-union, anti-worker tea party ideologues an entry into San Francisco.
A few quick points before those far more articulate than me join in:
Prop B failed because it was a disgusting attempt to camouflage an assault on the lowest paid City workers in in so-called pension reform and San Francisco voters are smarter than Mr. Adachi and his ultra-wealthy backers gave them credit.
Additionally, Prop B was an absolute attack on collective bargaining in clear violation of state and federal law – so heinous, in fact, that the nastiest portions were deleted by a judge before the measure was even put to a vote. For the Public Defender to even pretend that he is now a champion of collective bargaining rights is beyond laughable. Considering how destructive losing the right to negotiate over wages and working conditions actually is for any worker, public or private, I consider his hypocrisy to be nothing but malicious and shameful.
Capping pension contributions is a foolish idea – anyone who understands how pension funds actually work knows that limiting input will limit output. In time, this will only lead to an increased drain on the General Fund.
Raising the age of retirement for future hires will not achieve savings for 3 decades – hardly worth discussing if we’re truly attempting to deal with the looming unfunded liabilities of the next 3-4 years.
Finally, Public Safety classifications currently contribute more than miscellaneous employees into the pension system. No non-safety workers are subsidizing firefighter or police pensions. Sorry but I have to call outright bullshit on this one.
For full disclosure – I am employed by SEIU 1021 but in no way am I writing as a representative of my employer, only as a resident and taxpayer of the City and County of San Francisco and a son of retired public employees.