OC Blog

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.

More Video From Moorlach Press Conference Q & A

OK, I've finished editing and uploading the rest of the video of the Q & A segment of Sup. Moorlach's press conference on repealing the retroactive portion of 3-at-50 pension spike for sheriff's deputies.

As Peggy Lowe mentioned on Friday, once the Q & A started in morphed from conventional press conference into something closer to a discussion group. But informative nonetheless.

Q & A From Moorlach Press Conference on Retroactive Pension Spiking

Following Mario Maineiro's presentation and Sup. John Moorlach's summation, the press conference was opened up to questions.

Here are the first few questions. I'll have the rest up tomorrow night.

More on Moorlach's Proposal - From Moorlach

In a featured column over on the FlashReport this morning, Supervisor John Moorlach pens a column concerning his proposal to discontinue what he believes is an unconstitutional retroactive pension hike for law enforcement retirees.

The column begins...

Let’s say that your employee starts working for you at age 25.  You provide a starting salary of $54,000 per year and promise that when he/she retires in 25 years that you will pay him/her 50 percent of their last year’s salary for the rest of their life, plus an annual 3 percent cost of living adjustment.  This formula is known in the public sector as “2 percent at 50.”

In order to pre-fund this obligation, you need to hire an actuary and a money manager.

The actuary tells you that your 25 year old employee is expected to live to age 80.

How Will Board Vote?

As I mentioned in a previous post, I predict the Board of Supervisors will ultimately vote 5-0 to support Sup. John Moorlach's proposal to rescind the retroactive portion of the 3%-at-50 pension spike for AOCDS members.

That Moorlach and Chris Norby will vote "yes" is a given. But what about the other three supervisors?

This issue really boils down to constitutionality: Moorlach and his staff made an extremely strong case that it's unconstitutional to retroactively hike pensions when the money is coming from the general fund. I think the other three supervisors will find those arguments very persuasive.

During one conversation today the subject of the AOCDS' support for Pat Bates in her hugely expensive campaign battle with Cassie DeYoung last year. I don't recall the exact dollar total of AOCDS IEs on Pat's behalf, but is was significant.  Frankly, I don't see that swaying Pat's opinion. No doubt she's grateful for the AOCDS' support last year, but my gut is she'll support Moorlach's proposal on its merits. Furthermore, for a conservative like Pat Bates to oppose rescinding the retroactive pension hike would open Pat to charges of payback for AOCDS support.

Chris Norby On Rescinding Retroactive Pension Spike

This is from the Norby Notes that came over the transom a little while ago:

Moorlach Leads Pension Challenge

Second District Supervisor John Moorlach announced today that he will challenge aspects of the 3% at 50 pension granted in 2001 to the OC Sheriff’s Deputies.

Parts of the pension benefit may have unconstitutionally exceeded the County’s debt limit, only allowable by popular vote. By granting retroactive pension hikes, the previous Board may have also violated the state’s ban on gifts of public funds.

Prediction Contest: How Will Board of Supes Vote On Moorlach Pension Propsal?

I'd like to take advantage of the controversy aroused by Sup. Moorlach's proposal to rescind retroactive pension hikes for OC deputies by having another prediction contest.

It's a simple one: how will the Board of Supervisors vote on July 31, when the pension recission item comes before them?

I usually don't join the contests, but my prediction is a 5-0 vote in favor of rescinding the retroactive pension hike. Your answer has to specify the Supervisors by name and which way they vote.

The prize: what else -- a Magic 8-Ball!

Moorlach: Retroactive Pension Spike For Deputies Is Unconstitutional

When I first got wind Wednesday evening of the topic of today's press conference by Sup. John Moorlach, my reaction was two-fold: I was glad that some way out of the unfunded pension mess had been found, and at the same time felt bad for those sheriff's deputies who had based the retirement-timing decision based on the retroactive pension deal. I may not have liked the deal, but those deputies thought they had one.

The gist of Moorlach's proposal: the retroactive portion of the pension increase given to OC sheriff's deputies -- spiking it from 2% to 3% at 50 years of age -- violates the states constitution and must be rescinded.

Following today's press conference -- most of which consisted of Moorlach chief-of-staff Prof. Mario Maineiro leading those in attendance through the law and reasoning behind the conclusion the retroactive portion of the 3%-at-50 pension spike is contravenes the state constitution -- I'm fairly convinced the law is on Moorlach side, and the Board of Supervisors need to follow the law by rescinding the retroactive portion of the deputies' pension spike.

I'll post more thoughts later, but for now here's the PowerPoint presentation given by Maineiro and Moorlach's memo to his fellow Board members, and video of the press conference (posted as YouTube is able to digest it):

In America (and in Anaheim) Property Rights Should Trump Local Government's Quest For Cash

I know that everyone here at the Red County/OC Blog is probably tired of hashing and rehashing the politics and antics going on inside of Anaheim these days, but like moths to the flame, bloggers here are drawn to controversy.

This morning the Register is reporting that study paid for by SOAR (Disney) shows that a hotel being built on the parcel of land near Disneyland that SunCal would like to make into residential units would produce more revenue for city government.

Guess what?  If you are a homeowner in Anaheim, there are uses for your land that are more economically beneficial for government than your house, or condominium.

The good news for you is that it is YOUR house, not the government's.

We had all buckle in for a scary movie if local governments start restricting reasonable use property by those who own it because the city isn't getting a big enough cash take from the chosen use of the owner.

There is an argument made in the story that the study itself is skewed and that the numbers aren't right.

I would actually argue that it doesn't really even matter.

If the Mayor and Councilmembers in Anaheim believe that increasing city revenues is a higher calling than fighting to preserve the property rights of city residents and business owners who want to make reasonable use of their land, then there is a big problem in the Big A.

We all understand the need for common sense zoning -- but I can't think that any reasonable person would think that condominiums are an improper use for that land.  There isn't enough space in this post to list the number of cities in America that feature urban residential living.  Now some people might not want condo's there.  If that's the case, they should go buy the land.  But using government to prohibit a reasonable use of someone's private property is a taking from that property owner, and is immoral.

I am not from Anaheim, but from the outside, I will say that it is hard to understand why there is so much drama going on about the building of some condominiums.  You would think that SunCal is trying to put a toxic waste dump on that property. 

I will close by saying that there have been a number of articles in the MSM that throw out this faux argument that somehow this is an issue of 'affordable housing' -- um, no.  It's an issue of property rights, plain and simple.

Stand Firm, OCTA

This passage from today's Los Angeles Times speaks volumes about who's responsible for the OCTA bus driver's strike:

Art Leahy, the OCTA's chief executive, said talks broke down at 11:30 p.m. Friday, about 30 minutes before the court-ordered 60-day cooling off period expired.

He said transit negotiators increased their offer to $209 million in the afternoon, an $18-million increase from the three-year contract that has expired.

But just before midnight, Leahy said, the Teamsters countered at $209.7 million, a $200,000 increase from their previous demand.

Leahy said the 14.6% raise in wages and benefits in the OCTA deal would give younger drivers, those with five years or less of experience, an hourly wage of $14.27. Top drivers would make $23.87 an hour.

"The offer we made was 10% higher than the one we made two weeks ago," Leahy said.

So, with minutes to go before the cooling off period expired, Teamsters Local 952 (the bus drivers' union) president Patrick Kelly responded to an OCTA concession by increasing his demands.