votng by Pascal, http://www.flickr.com/photos/v50/3596102006/in/photostream/
By Councilmember Libby Schaaf, Jim Blachman, CFA, and Jay Ashford, PMP CSM
Measure J, one of the three measures on Oakland’s November 15 special election ballot, would reform Oakland’s Police and Fire Retirement System. It would give Oakland some relief from skyrocketing pension costs and force us to manage pension payments more responsibly in the future.
Like many cities, Oakland’s mounting pension costs and unfunded liabilities are threatening our ability to deliver the most basic city services. Past commitments to generous pensions for retired city workers are overwhelming our ability to pay them and still fund current services like police, fire, public works, libraries and parks. California law severely limits the City’s ability to change these costs and prohibits us from modifying any past commitments.
Oakland’s Police and Fire Retirement System “PFRS” has been closed to new hires since 1976, but still pays benefits to about 1,000 retirees. Because this retirement account is not fully funded, the City must pay the PFRS fund almost $46 million every year until 2026.
Measure J would reduce the strain on Oakland’s budget by trimming $4 million from the annual $46 million payment, in exchange for a modest deadline extension of two years. Oakland’s PFRS obligation is not a loan, so the 2 year extension under Measure J would not add interest charges. An analogy would be like giving yourself two more years to reach a savings goal.
Measure J’s amortization provision would force Oakland to make stable payments and add protections from market speculation and volatility.
An independent financial expert, or actuary, will control how Measure J is used. The PFRS deadline would only be extended if the actuary can assure that it will be financially responsible and sustainable. Extending the PFRS deadline would not increase or extend any taxes or add any debt to the budget.
This modest adjustment would reduce the strain of Oakland’s annual pension payments by $4 million a year, enabling us to redirect that funding toward pressing matters like hiring more police.
In its endorsement, Make Oakland Better Now says “Measure J represents a reality-based response yielding budget relief and securing our promise to pensioners without the requirement of additional taxes or bonding.” Measure J also is endorsed by the Democratic Party, Chamber of Commerce, Oakland Firefighters Local 55, Association of Retired Police Officers, East Bay Express, Alameda County Central Labor Council, and the Wellstone, MGO and East Bay Young Democratic Clubs. Measure J was inspired by the work of Oakland’s Budget Advisory Committee, particularly its Ad-hoc Committee on Unfunded Liabilities, to whom we’re grateful.
Please vote YES on Measure J. This is a mail-only election. Please be sure your ballot reaches the Alameda County Registrar of Voters by November 15th.
Have an opinion? Oakland Local welcomes op-ed and opinion pieces, For more view on Measure J, look at http://oaklandlocal.com/tags/measure-j
The endorsements tell the whole story.
The mailer for J that residents received the last couple of days would have cost at least 15K just for part of District 1 and 4 alone.
Read the tiny letters on it to see who paid for it: Firefighters Union and SEIU :)
The foxes guarding the hen house.
Pension reform supported by some of the same unions that our City Council gave 35% retroactive pension increases to in 2003/04.
-len raphael, cpa
Vote Yes on Oakland
by VOTING NO on H, I, J
RECALL QUAN and most of the City Council
Oakland Tribune editorial: Oakland voters should reject Measures I and J
Oakland Tribune editorial
© Copyright 2011, Bay Area News Group
Oakland's financial situation is serious: After irresponsibly rapidly ramping up spending a decade ago, city officials have repeatedly failed to make tough choices about budget priorities. At the same time, they gambled on the market and lost hundreds of millions of dollars. Then the real estate collapse of the Great Recession badly eroded property tax revenues, leaving the city struggling to fund critical public services.
No reasonable person wants more killings and less law enforcement. But Measures I and J in the Nov. 15 vote-by-mail election are symptoms of the problem, not solutions to it. For more than a decade, officials have managed city finances as if they had a limitless credit card. They have gone back to voters repeatedly for more funds while running up astronomical debt.
http://www.insidebayarea.com/opinion/ci_19207560
Councilmember Schaaf, you're doing the heavy lifting for the SEIU and FireFighters Union. I'm sure they'll be grateful come your next election.
-len raphael, temescal
-----------------------------------
Open letter to Council Member Schaaf from Marleen Sacks:
Dear Libby:
Today I received a letter on "City of Oakland" stationary, in a "City of Oakland" envelope, from you. The letter contained an unabashed campaign mailer urging voters to support Measure J. The letter advised that it was not printed at public expense, but rather was funded from your "Libby Schaaf for Council 2010" account. I am concerned for several reasons. First, I don't support Measure J, and already voted against it. Also, I contributed to your campaign, and object to your spending the funds supporting this measure.
But my greater concern has to do with the use of public resources (namely City letterhead and logo) to openly urge the support of a ballot measure, which I believe violates not only the spirit but also the letter of the law in Government Code section 54964 (prohibiting government resources to be used in campaigns) and Government Code section 34501.5.
The Governor's legal affairs office issued a legal advisory on March 8, 2006 specifically prohibiting public letterhead from being used for campaign purposes. Most cities have ordinances specifically restricting how letterhead can be used, and who can use it. Government Code section 34501.5 specifically prohibits the use of City letterhead for a deceptive purpose. While at least you did not claim that Measure J is "pension reform" (as so deceptively stated in the mailer sent out by the unions), the fact that the letter is on City letterhead is deceptive enough. It implies that this is a position endorsed and recommended by the City. While I don't know how many Councilmembers are actually supporting Measure J, it would be reasonable to assume that there is frequently a split among the council on how they feel about the various measures, and I don't know that they would approve of a mailer going out on City letterhead that was not approved by them.
There is already a tremendous imbalance of power between ordinary citizens and the politicians. While I did not propose any official arguments against Measure J at the time it was introduced for the ballot, I know that an ordinary citizen did. He does not have the power and influence that the City's official logo and seal may carry. I cannot recall ever seeing a mailer on City letterhead so blatantly endorsing a position on a ballot measure. Would Mr. Pratt or, for example, be permitted to use the City's logo to promote a particular ballot position? If not, why not?
If there is a City ordinance that specifically allows Council members to use the letterhead for campaign purposes, I'd like to know. Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter.
Marleen L. Sacks
Pension is really important to us.