Media Coverage Of Moorlach Proposal Already Skewing Off-Base

"Moorlach hates the unions" seems to be the emerging narrative theme of media coverage of Sup. John Moorlach's pension proposal.

Take the first three paragraphs of yesterday's Los Angeles Times article by David Reyes:

Already viewed with deep suspicion by the county's workforce, Supervisor John Moorlach on Friday proposed overhauling Orange County's pension system and shrinking what he sees as an overly generous retirement plan for deputies and other law enforcement investigators.

Moorlach did not propose "overhauling Orange County's pension system." What he did was propose repealing one portion of the 2001 pension spike awarded to one union - the Association of Orange County Deputy Sheriffs.

Moorlach, who unveiled his proposal during a news conference, said he was targeting the "3% at 50" pension formula for deputies and district attorney's investigators. The formula was approved in 2002.

Again, Moorlach said nothing of the kind. In fact, the opposite was made clear at the press conference. What is being targeted is the retroactive portion of the December 2001 Board action that spike AOCDS member pensions from 2%-at-50 to 3%-at-50.

The supervisor has already angered law enforcement ranks by suggesting that they should not be treated differently from other county employees and by calling union leaders "thugs." In response, the union has tried to ban Moorlach from attending law enforcement functions, including funerals of officers killed in the line of duty.

Some context would have helpful here: perhaps mentioning the tens of thousands of dollars the AOCDS spent last year on anti-Moorlach campaign mailers -- like the one suggesting he is against the widows and orphans of dead public safety officers.

This paragraph from yesterday's OC Register suggests the "this is because Moorlach hates the unions" premise:

The Association of Orange County Deputy Sheriffs, the only union Moorlach singled out, said it was surprised by the public announcement but will respond to the legal battle.

"Only union...singled out"?  Which other union could Moorlach have included? The retroactvity provisions of OCEA and SEIU's agreements don't violate the three-part constitutional test annunciated by Moorlach and Co. -- AOCDS' retroactive pension spike does. That's because, as Moorlach chief-of-staff Mario Mainero pointed out, OCEA and SEIU members directly contribute to paying for their retroactive spikes -- AOCDS members do not. To my mind, saying AOCDS is the "only union Moorlach singled out" is patently unfair.

There is clearly no love lost between Sup. Moorlach and the public employee unions. John is a principled conservative who believes in keeping government small and limited -- both in its size and its burden on the taxpayers. Public employee unions are, as a wag once said, government organized as a special interest. That Moorlach and the government unions should clash should surprise no one.

But that is ancillary to the issue at hand: does awarding retroactive pension spikes to public employees violate the state constitution? Moorlach and his staff have made a very compelling case that it they are in certain circumstances. I agree with his reasoning, but it will be up to a court to decide.

In other words, this is a state constitutional issue. The law is the law. And if the courts agree with Moorlach's case (assuming two other supervisors vote to pursue it), then the retroactive portion of the AOCDS pension spike must by revoked -- regardless of whether or not one supports that portion.

Comments

[Anonymous]

And let's not forget the story that the papers won't report because their reporters aren't all that knowledgable or sophisticated.

The 34 cities in Orange County have a constant choice between providing their own police services or contracting with the sheriff's department, just as they have a choice between providing their own fire services or contracting with the Fire Authority.

Because the Sheriff's department has a huge infrastructure in place, the marginal cost of extending service into another area can be relatively low, and a local agency can get more bang for the buck. In an era when every city is being squeezed by higher costs, and with the likelihood that sales tax revenue will continue to be relatively flat, that property tax revenue growth will slow dramatically, and with elections required for any tax increase, every local agency will be scrambling to find new efforts to balance the budget without cutting into the police and fire services that eat up about two-thirds of an average budget.

Santa Ana could have substantially more cops on the street for the same budget if they switched to the sheriff's department, and they could have more flexibility in deployment so they could have much more effective gang suppression programs.

Since the retroactive pension increase, any city that might consider switching has had to look at the huge unfunded pension liability of the county system, and try to figure out how that might someday be funded. One obvious scenario would have the county balancing their shortfall by squeezing the contract cities. Even without figuring out how the county will eventually fund the retirement shortfall, it's fundamentally irrational to look at short term savings from contracting out police services, when there's a huge looming uncertainty about pension funding.

If Moorlach has any success, the dynamics of all of the police contracts in the county could change.

Another interesting dynamic will play out inside the police unions, where the negotiators are more senior, closer to retirement, and will have huge incentives to preserve the retroactive bump, rather than moving to a blended system, while the newest officers will not be affected by Moorlach's move, and might benefit from bigger raises if there were less money going to pensions and more available for salaries. Predictably, the union negotiators, like the OCTA negotiators, will seek to preserve the benefits of the most senior employees, while selling out their newest members.

[cold as ice]

moorloch has consistently said he wants to change the pension system so how are they off base?

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4176/is_20060620/ai_n16491365

clearly states he wants to "overhaul Orange County's pension system."

[cindy fisher]

First. Moorlach wants to take the retired safety member's medical grants and put it in a "split pool" thus forcing retiree's to pay much higher premiums for medical insurance. Now he springs this unconstitutional stuff in regards to their pension benefit. I'm sure he has been researching this for quite sometime and of course he never brings this to anyone's attention. He just let unsuspecting employees retire and make life altering decisions. Some have moved out of California. He should have consulted with all parties who are affected. Now you tell me if Moorlach doesn't loath safety employees? His motives are transparent. Anyone can see it. He knew what he was doing all along

[Long-time politico]

While attending the press conference I was struck by one point that has received NO coverage. There is no legal action being proposed against the pension improvements for County employees outside of law enforcement. Why? Because they funded the entire deficit (according to the discussion) created by a retroactive 'gift'. This begs the point, why don't these civic minded members of law enforcement offer to pick up the same tab themselves? The other employees did it. Problem solved. Just a bit of simple logic to consider.

[recall Norby]

Pretty sneaky if you ask me. Yeah, it is obvious he has an ax to grind for sure. But if in fact this is unconstitutional, each supervisor who approved this pension benefit needs to be held accountable for dereliction of duty . I hope the victims of this mess sue them personally. Starting with Chris Norby.

[redperegrine]

The victims of the "mess" seem to be the taxpayers. And Norby didn't support pension spiking or gift of public funds.

[recall Norby]

red, I don't know which supervisors voted for the pension plan back in 2001. What I do know is that this was decided 5 1/2 years ago!. And if NORBY knew at the time it was unconstitutional, he should have addressed it then. If he didn't know the facts about it, he SHOULD have!. My point is that he and the others were derelict in their duties for not knowing what the board as a whole can and cannot approve lawfully. And the real victims ARE those men and women who retired under the new plan. Many made life altering financial decisions accordingly. Like selling their home and leaving the state. Or began to withdrawal on their 457 plans. The list can go on and on. By the way, most of these retired folks had paid, for many years, already taxed dollars into their retirement fund via payroll deduction. I feel very bad for them. Now they are faced with much uncertainty. But heck, it's only a little over 500 hundred of them. Right? And of those retiree victims some are already dead and buried. They don't live long after that many years in the business.

[redperergine]

So Norby is responsible for all dubious actions taken by previous BOS? That's just dumb, even for the most ardent Norby hater.

[recall Norby]

No, not just Norby but all of them. Go back and read my comment again. Norby just seems to be hanging on to Moorlach's coattails. I think he is a terrible leader.

[Norby Lover]

Norby did in fact vote for retractive 3 % @ 50 retirement benefits for safety members of the Fullerton Police Department in 2001 while he was a sitting councilmember. Hypocrisy at its finest!

[redperegrine]

"Norby did in fact vote for retractive 3 % @ 50 retirement benefits for safety members of the Fullerton Police Department in 2001 while he was a sitting councilmember"

If that's true then he made a big mistake; and he owes the good folks of Fullerton a titanic mea culpa. But, he can't do anything about that now - except perhaps, help establish the unconstitutionality of the County's retroactive gift. Maybe we can hear from Norby about this in the next riveting edition of his "Norby Notes."

[Chris Norby]

M-E-A C-U-L-P-A

We do live & learn.

[redperegrine]

Holy Cow! I didn't know they taught Latin at Oxy.