BY KIMBERLY PIERCEALL
STAFF WRITER
kpierceall@pe.com
Published: 08 October 2011 04:14 PM
Scot Spencer, the man entrusted with developing most of San Bernardino International Airport, still owed about $673,820 in back rent as of Wednesday to the public agency overseeing the airport, according to information from the airport’s finance department.
He had recently paid $106,887 he owed in filming and fuel fees for the year.
Spencer and his companies are at the center of an FBI-led investigation looking for evidence of conspiracy, bribery, fraud and money laundering, among other wrongdoing, according to copies of federal search warrants.
In 2007, the San Bernardino International Airport Authority awarded Spencer two lease agreements to develop a passenger terminal for commercial airlines and a fixed-base operation for private pilots. The passenger terminal is mostly finished and no commercial airline has agreed to provide scheduled service. The fixed-base operation, a Million Air franchise, opened last year.
Mike Burrows, the authority’s assistant director, did not return a call seeking comment. The airport’s longtime executive director, Donald L. Rogers, resigned on Sept. 28. Spencer did not immediately return calls seeking comment.
Besides rent, Spencer’s companies still owe $537,359 in county property taxes related to the airport. His SBD Aircraft Services company owed the state board of equalization $102,170.78 in taxes as of July, according to records from the county assessor office. The same company owed employment taxes worth $17,071.28 to the state as of August.
At least eight search warrants have been served on locations related to the federal investigation into the airport including Spencer’s offices, his home, a location in Boca Raton, Florida, as well as the offices of the airport authority and its parent agency the Inland Valley Development Agency.
When Norton Air Force Base closed in 1994 causing about 10,000 jobs to disappear from the region, the public agency aimed to replace those lost jobs by redeveloping the base with private enterprises and a commercial airport. Elected officials from San Bernardino County, the city of San Bernardino, Colton, Highland and Loma Linda sit on the boards of the two agencies.
Spencer has been paid more than $2 million in taxpayer funds in developer and construction fees since then, based on a percentage of each construction contract. In four years, the cost to construct both, plus a three-story U.S. Customs facility, grew from $45 million to more than $142.5 million as the scope of the project grew. He has also been reimbursed more than $4 million for equipment he’s purchased and services he provided the airport.
In the mid-1990s, Spencer was sentenced to 51 months in federal prison for bankruptcy fraud related to the third and final collapse of Braniff Airlines. The Department of Transportation later banned him from the aviation industry for operating an unlicensed charter airline out of San Bernardino airport. Airport staff, primarily Rogers, had defended awarding two no-bid contracts to Spencer because the transportation ban didn’t apply to airport operations, just airline operations.
In addition to developing the airport, Spencer is the landlord of one of the largest hangars at the base and operates the Million Air franchise which earns revenue from selling fuel to pilots that land at the airport. Another of his companies has a contract with the public agency to manage the airport.
Spencer has racked up hefty debts at the airport, before.
Days after The Press-Enterprise noted in late June that Spencer owed three months worth of rent, he delivered checks worth $329,060.09 for the space he rents for his Million Air franchise, the land where his fueling station sits and most of Hangar 763 at the airport.
As part of his lease agreements with the airport authority, Spencer leases the airport’s main passenger terminal at no cost until construction is entirely finished and the building is transferred back to the airport authority’s ownership.
Until that time though, if a Hollywood location scout thinks the airport is the ideal backdrop for a car commercial, for example, the revenue goes to Spencer except for a 20 percent cut for the authority. This year, his company earned $81,000 in filming fees after seven production studios rented the airport space for shoots. He owed the airport authority its cut of $16,200 but didn’t pay until Sept. 6., after The Press-Enterprise requested information on how much Spencer had paid the public agency in filming and fueling fees.
Actor Kiefer Sutherland was there in late June filming a pilot called “Touch” for 20th Century Fox.
Sutherland took to Twitter to tell followers: “Filming out at San Bernardino International Airport … I didn’t even know San Bernardino HAD an airport.”
There’s no record of Spencer paying any filming fees in 2010 despite there being 11 productions – all commercials or still photography for companies such as Lexus , Kia, Mitsubishi and Hot Wheels – that were held at the airport for a total of 31 days, according to the Inland Empire Film Commission.
On Sept. 6, Spencer also paid the airport $90,687, the amount of fees he owed in full for fuel he sold between January and June.
AN I-O-U
Scot Spencer, the developer of San Bernardino International Airport, has several agreements with the airport authority. As of Wednesday, he owed a total of $673,820 in rent.
Million Air building: about $278,016
Missed payments: Feb., March, July, Aug., Sept. and Oct. (based on monthly payments of $46,345.12)
Hangar 763: $262,746
Missed payments: March, July, August, September and October
A bay inside Hangar 763 that was sublet to Boeing: $74,828
Missed payments: April thru October
Fuel farm formerly known as Don Blue’s Aviation: $58,230
Missed payments: about five months
Monday, October 10, 2011
(Sutter County) Administrator raps Stark for poor communication
October 08, 2011 11:50:08 PM
By Ben van der Meer/Appeal-Democrat
A grand jury response by the Sutter County administrator's office and Board of Supervisors heavily criticizes county Auditor-Controller Robert Stark for poor communication practices and a lack of accountability, while a response filed by Stark largely agreed with the jury's findings.
"For the Auditor-Controller to state that their office was essentially 'too busy' to correct a $2.1 million error is simply inexcusable," County Administrator Stephanie Larsen writes in her response, which will be part of the board's agenda on Tuesday.
The grand jury investigation stemmed from a complaint against Stark's office over sales-tax revenues put into the wrong account and then not corrected for nearly two years.
When Stark's office discovered the mistake, according to Larsen, he didn't tell supervisors or her office for weeks, then was evasive and noncommittal on how the error would be fixed. Larsen noted the problem significantly affected the county's budgeting.
The grand jury's report found the error was unintentional, but the amount of time for county officials to be informed of the mistake was excessive.
Among the jury's findings were that Stark's policies for control over the general revenue budget unit were found unnecessary by Larsen's office because her office monitors and manages the unit.
In the board's response, it states it respectfully disagrees with the finding because Stark never adopted polices and procedures for deposits to the general revenue fund.
While Larsen's office goes beyond what is required to account for such deposits, the supervisors' response states, they wouldn't be necessary if Stark's office had such policies in place.
Stark's office's response, which is also included in the board's agenda, pointed out the jury also felt the county administrator's office had superseded individual departments' policies.
The response didn't dispute the lag in informing Larsen or the board of the error.
"However, this was a complex issue which needed to be researched and there were other extenuating business and personal circumstances at the time which caused the delay," the response stated.
As well, the response noted the board had 30 days to prepare a response to Stark's office's response.
CONTACT reporter Ben van der Meer at 749-4786.
Read more: http://www.appeal-democrat.com/articles/office-110524-response-stark.html#ixzz1aP0u8Fsb
By Ben van der Meer/Appeal-Democrat
A grand jury response by the Sutter County administrator's office and Board of Supervisors heavily criticizes county Auditor-Controller Robert Stark for poor communication practices and a lack of accountability, while a response filed by Stark largely agreed with the jury's findings.
"For the Auditor-Controller to state that their office was essentially 'too busy' to correct a $2.1 million error is simply inexcusable," County Administrator Stephanie Larsen writes in her response, which will be part of the board's agenda on Tuesday.
The grand jury investigation stemmed from a complaint against Stark's office over sales-tax revenues put into the wrong account and then not corrected for nearly two years.
When Stark's office discovered the mistake, according to Larsen, he didn't tell supervisors or her office for weeks, then was evasive and noncommittal on how the error would be fixed. Larsen noted the problem significantly affected the county's budgeting.
The grand jury's report found the error was unintentional, but the amount of time for county officials to be informed of the mistake was excessive.
Among the jury's findings were that Stark's policies for control over the general revenue budget unit were found unnecessary by Larsen's office because her office monitors and manages the unit.
In the board's response, it states it respectfully disagrees with the finding because Stark never adopted polices and procedures for deposits to the general revenue fund.
While Larsen's office goes beyond what is required to account for such deposits, the supervisors' response states, they wouldn't be necessary if Stark's office had such policies in place.
Stark's office's response, which is also included in the board's agenda, pointed out the jury also felt the county administrator's office had superseded individual departments' policies.
The response didn't dispute the lag in informing Larsen or the board of the error.
"However, this was a complex issue which needed to be researched and there were other extenuating business and personal circumstances at the time which caused the delay," the response stated.
As well, the response noted the board had 30 days to prepare a response to Stark's office's response.
CONTACT reporter Ben van der Meer at 749-4786.
Read more: http://www.appeal-democrat.com/articles/office-110524-response-stark.html#ixzz1aP0u8Fsb
(Santa Barbara) Grand Jury Report On Audio/Video Cameras In Squad Cars
Story Created: Oct 7, 2011 PDT
Story Updated: Oct 8, 2011 at 6:24 PM PDT
Santa Barbara County - The Santa Barbara County Grand Jury has issued a report endorsing the use of audio/video camera equipment in patrol vehicles of local police agencies.
Currently, only Santa Barbara and Guadalupe Police Departments do not have the equipment in their patrol vehicles.
The grand jury cited positive results among agencies that are using the technology. The purpose of the system is to provide an unbiased record that can be used with the officer's arrest or incident report.
The grand jury feels the Santa Barbara and Guadalupe Police Departments should install the equipment in their patrol vehicles. The report also says that the equipment costs could decrease the cost of litigation.
To view the report visit www.sbcgj.org.
http://www.keyt.com/news/local/Grand-Jury-Report-On-AudioVideo-Cameras-In-Squad-Cars--131355748.html
Story Updated: Oct 8, 2011 at 6:24 PM PDT
Santa Barbara County - The Santa Barbara County Grand Jury has issued a report endorsing the use of audio/video camera equipment in patrol vehicles of local police agencies.
Currently, only Santa Barbara and Guadalupe Police Departments do not have the equipment in their patrol vehicles.
The grand jury cited positive results among agencies that are using the technology. The purpose of the system is to provide an unbiased record that can be used with the officer's arrest or incident report.
The grand jury feels the Santa Barbara and Guadalupe Police Departments should install the equipment in their patrol vehicles. The report also says that the equipment costs could decrease the cost of litigation.
To view the report visit www.sbcgj.org.
http://www.keyt.com/news/local/Grand-Jury-Report-On-AudioVideo-Cameras-In-Squad-Cars--131355748.html
(Santa Barbara) Grand Jury Endorses Patrol Cameras
updated: Oct 07, 2011, 11:31 AM
Source: SBC Grand Jury
The Santa Barbara County Grand Jury has issued a report endorsing the use of audio/video camera equipment in the patrol vehicles of local law enforcement agencies. Currently only Santa Barbara and Guadalupe police departments do not have the technology installed in their patrol vehicles.
In its report, the Grand Jury cites positive results among those agencies that have adopted this technology. "In all cases, agencies that work in law enforcement and have installed audio/ video equipment say they are supportive of the use of this technology," said Ted Sten, Grand Jury Foreman. The purpose of the system is to provide an unbiased record that can be used to supplement a law enforcement officer's arrest or incident report.
The Grand Jury concluded the police departments of the cities of Santa Barbara and Guadalupe should obtain and install audio/video equipment in their patrol vehicles. The report also suggests that the costs for the equipment could be offset through the decreased cost of litigation.
The entire report can be found on the Grand Jury's website at www.sbcgj.org.
The Santa Barbara County Grand Jury is a basic part of the government within the judicial branch. The Grand Jury acts independently, but it is under the general control of the Superior Court Presiding Judge to assure that it acts in accordance with the Penal Code of the State of California.
http://www.edhat.com/site/tidbit.cfm?nid=70964
Source: SBC Grand Jury
The Santa Barbara County Grand Jury has issued a report endorsing the use of audio/video camera equipment in the patrol vehicles of local law enforcement agencies. Currently only Santa Barbara and Guadalupe police departments do not have the technology installed in their patrol vehicles.
In its report, the Grand Jury cites positive results among those agencies that have adopted this technology. "In all cases, agencies that work in law enforcement and have installed audio/ video equipment say they are supportive of the use of this technology," said Ted Sten, Grand Jury Foreman. The purpose of the system is to provide an unbiased record that can be used to supplement a law enforcement officer's arrest or incident report.
The Grand Jury concluded the police departments of the cities of Santa Barbara and Guadalupe should obtain and install audio/video equipment in their patrol vehicles. The report also suggests that the costs for the equipment could be offset through the decreased cost of litigation.
The entire report can be found on the Grand Jury's website at www.sbcgj.org.
The Santa Barbara County Grand Jury is a basic part of the government within the judicial branch. The Grand Jury acts independently, but it is under the general control of the Superior Court Presiding Judge to assure that it acts in accordance with the Penal Code of the State of California.
http://www.edhat.com/site/tidbit.cfm?nid=70964
(Santa Barbara) County Responds to Grand Jury Report
County Supes Will Act on Two of 11 Grand Jury Recommendations
Friday, October 7, 2011
By Isabelle T. Walker
The Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors responded to the 2011 Grand Jury report “Homeless Mentally Ill Recidivism: This Recycling is Not Good for the County” on Tuesday and advocates are bound to be underwhelmed. The five supervisors approved a response letter in which they decline to enact 90 percent of the Grand Jury,s recommendations for fixing the problem of mentally ill homeless people cycling in and out of the County Jail with no improvement in either their health or circumstances.
The Board didn't walk away from problem however. Dennis Bozanich, assistant to County Executive Officer (CEO) Chandra Waller, has been tasked with preparing a comparison of the costs of maintaining the status quo with the costs of providing the homeless mentally ill indigent with enough services to keep them off the arrest, re-arrest merry-go-round. To read more, see homelessinsb.org.
http://www.independent.com/news/2011/oct/07/county-responds-grand-jury-report/
Friday, October 7, 2011
By Isabelle T. Walker
The Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors responded to the 2011 Grand Jury report “Homeless Mentally Ill Recidivism: This Recycling is Not Good for the County” on Tuesday and advocates are bound to be underwhelmed. The five supervisors approved a response letter in which they decline to enact 90 percent of the Grand Jury,s recommendations for fixing the problem of mentally ill homeless people cycling in and out of the County Jail with no improvement in either their health or circumstances.
The Board didn't walk away from problem however. Dennis Bozanich, assistant to County Executive Officer (CEO) Chandra Waller, has been tasked with preparing a comparison of the costs of maintaining the status quo with the costs of providing the homeless mentally ill indigent with enough services to keep them off the arrest, re-arrest merry-go-round. To read more, see homelessinsb.org.
http://www.independent.com/news/2011/oct/07/county-responds-grand-jury-report/
Governor Signs into Law Bill Affecting Grand Juries
Just ahead of the deadline for signing or vetoing over 800 bills passed by the legislature, Governor Brown signed Assembly Bill 622 that allows an interviewee under oath to have an attorney present. This bill was watered down considerably during the legislative process but still opposed by CGJA and many others.
CGJA will be providing more information, including suggested actions that could be taken by grand juries, in the weeks ahead. The bill takes effect January 1, 2012 and thus impacts current juries.
Thursday, October 6, 2011
(San Diego) County bonuses boost pensions by millions
By KEVIN CROWE and KELLY THORNTON Investigative Newsource | Posted: Wednesday, October 5, 2011 5:30 am
Read more: http://www.nctimes.com/news/local/sdcounty/article_226e5c21-cc29-584c-94ff-3d628f66b00b.html#ixzz1a2FF1pdN
The county of San Diego paid employees more than $100 million during the past few years for special benefits such as car and uniform allowances ---- and most of these add-ons can count toward their retirement pay.
It's a practice that goes on across California and is increasingly controversial as taxpayers face gargantuan bills in underfunded public employee retirement costs.
In San Diego County, more than half the "premium pay" from 2007 through 2010 was for performance bonuses, according to an analysis by the local nonprofit journalism center, Investigative Newsource. Although the bonus program was suspended in 2009, its effects could long be felt when recipients begin collecting their pensions.
The county pays more than 80 categories of special pay. After the bonus program, which cost about $30 million a year, bilingual pay was the most expensive, costing $3.3 million a year.
Forty-four employees, including the county supervisors and top administrators, are eligible to receive car allowances ranging from $7,200 and $12,000 a year. They cost the county about $360,000 annually from 2007 through 2010.
For an employee with 20 years of service making $143,021 a year (a supervisor's salary in 2010), an additional $12,000 a year auto allowance would bump their pension payout by about 8.5 percent. If they draw it for 20 years, the extra pay would yield an additional $144,000.
Using premium pay, bonuses, unused sick and vacation time payouts and other devices to increase pensions is so common among public employees that some government watchdog groups, a civilian grand jury and most recently the California Legislature, have sought to ban or at least curb the practice with little success so far.
Advocates consider supplemental pay to be income that is rightfully counted toward pensionable pay; critics see it as another way to gouge taxpayers.
"The abusive practices engaged in by a few individuals have put retirement benefits at risk for the vast majority of honest, hardworking public servants," said Sen. Juan Vargas, D-San Diego, and a member of the Senate Public Employees, Retirement and Social Security Committee. The committee recently championed anti-spiking legislation that failed Sept. 9 after Gov. Jerry Brown indicated he would not sign pension-related legislation unless it was part of comprehensive reform.
Many costs hidden
It's virtually impossible to estimate how much pension add-ons cost taxpayers. There are dozens of separate public retirements systems in California and many variables to factor, such as how many people retire in a year, how many years of services they've had, what their pensionable earnings are, how much special pay will enhance their pensions.
County officials said they have never studied the impact of special pay on long-term pension costs because it's a relatively small amount in relation to the county's payroll, which is just under $1 billion.
Potentially large payments for overtime and accrued sick and vacation time do not count toward retirement.
Special pay items that boost salaries range from "helicopter duty" and "weekend shifts" to "prisoner transportation" and "sewing room supervisor." There's a pay bump for being bilingual or having certifications or advanced degrees. Risky duties, such as handling hazardous materials, increase pay.
During 2007 and 2008, performance bonuses constituted the largest portion of special pay.
Officials defend bonuses
Officials said the bonus program was a win-win for the county and employees. The county avoided some across-the-board permanent pay increases, while employees received up to 4 percent in bonus pay if they helped their departments come in 6 percent under budget. Still, the program was shelved in 2009 because of budget constraints, the officials said.
Outside of the bonus program, the county paid an average of $13.4 million a year in special pay from 2007 to 2010.
More than 70 of the 80-plus categories of special pay are included in pension calculations. Newsource found that payouts ranged from an average of $2,675 in 2007 to $1,193 in 2010. More than 100 people in 2007 and 2008 made more than $10,000 in special pay, five people earned more than $25,000 and one person earned more than $50,000.
For most county employees, retirement calculations are based on years and type of service and rate of pay in the highest 26 consecutive pay checks, which are issued every two weeks. For others, it's based on an average of their highest three consecutive years of compensation.
Special pay can make a difference.
Lifetime boost
For an employee with 25 years of service and a high base salary of $65,000 at retirement, for example, $2,500 in special pay would boost the annual pension pay by about 4 percent, or $1,872 per year. That's $37,440 over 20 years.
Assembly Bill 340 ---- the legislation supported by Vargas ---- would have prevented county workers from spiking pensions with unused vacation and sick leave, bonuses and other special pay items at the end of their careers in the 20 California counties that run their own pension plans. A separate bill, Senate Bill 27, which still is pending in the Assembly, would impose similar rules on the state's public employees and teacher pension funds, including many local employees who are covered by the California Public Employees' Retirement System.
Both pieces of legislation were proposed after public outrage was sparked by news reports in Contra Costa County about two fire chiefs whose pensions were inflated with premium pay. The Contra Costa Times report also showed that more than two-thirds of employees departing a sanitation district in the past five years spiked their pensions by 25 to 41 percent.
News organizations around the state have reported similar stories since the courts recently ordered counties to release pension information. The San Diego County Employees Retirement Association had fought to keep pension information secret, but in light of seven separate Superior Court decisions since 2009 and rulings by three different appeals courts, the association recently released data on the most highly compensated pensioners.
Some raising base pay
Reacting to public perception, some counties are moving away from add-ons and adjusting base salaries upward to avoid the spiking controversy. That can be a complicated process that requires contract negotiations with unions.
County Supervisor Dianne Jacob said county officials are obligated to put special pay into pension calculations because of a 1997 California Supreme Court ruling known as the Ventura decision. The court concluded a number of special payments had been improperly excluded from pension calculations, resulting in retroactive increases for the plaintiffs, Ventura County sheriff's deputies.
"I question many of the premiums and they should be reevaluated," she said. "The problem is, many were negotiated with our labor unions before my time on the board and it's extremely difficult to unring the bell."
Jacob noted that the county needs to offer some types of special pay to attract workers.
"I know how hard it is for the county to recruit quality people willing to put on a Haz-Mat suit, or work as jailhouse nurses or work a graveyard shift in a tough area. I know how hard it is to find crackerjack executives who are creative and committed to public service. We can't compete with the corporate world for that caliber of talent" without premiums, she said.
Willing to work nights
Jacob made a distinction between special pay and the much-derided practice called pension spiking.
"Spiking happens when a public employee is given a significant increase in compensation immediately before retirement in a deliberate attempt to increase their pension," she said. "Paying a premium to a jailhouse nurse willing to work the night shift is not 'spiking.'"
Supervisor Pam Slater-Price said she has no problem with special pay.
"Higher pay for special skill sets, such as helicopter pilots, is part of doing business. Premiums are negotiated with labor. For the most part, they were likely negotiated in lieu of other benefits."
Lani Lutar, president of the San Diego County Taxpayers Association, said eliminating special pay in the city of San Diego, which has a $2.1 billion pension deficit, is one of the cornerstones of a ballot initiative to end guaranteed pensions for most new city hires and give them 401(k)s instead. The ad-ons should be eliminated at the county as well, she contended.
"We don't think any specialty pay should be part of a pension calculation," Lutar said. "This has a significant long-term impact on taxpayers. If you look at the salaries that are paid out, they already allow for extremely generous pensions."
When special isn't
Lutar cited this example in the city: Emergency medical technicians get special pay for obtaining a certification that is required for them to do their job. That special pay then counts toward their pension.
"The type of pension spiking maneuvers we have seen is really on a scale of obnoxious to insane," she said. "The labor unions have been very clever over the years at identifying benefits that are going to be hidden from public view because the liability won't be experienced for years if not decades."
Eraina Ortega, a legislative representative with the California State Association of Counties, a group that lobbies for county government interests, said her organization has advocated for the overturning of the Ventura decision because the association favors placing the decision-making power with counties.
Still, there are steps a county can take to minimize the financial impact of premium pay within the confines of the Ventura decision.
For instance, while the county is required to include certain types of pay in a pension calculation, officials said they could negotiate with employees on how much they might be paid for, say, a uniform allowance.
Don Turko, the county's human resources director, said the county continues to analyze what special pay should be on the table during the next set of contract talks with employee unions. "To the extent we can minimize costs subject to Ventura we'll pursue those," he said.
Ortega of CSAC said transparency is essential in the discussion of pension benefits.
"As long as the public can see what benefits are being provided," she said, "the public has a right to look into it and say, 'Is this the appropriate compensation for our public officials?'"
Investigative Newsource is a nonprofit specializing in data-driven reporting. It is based at San Diego State University's School of Journalism & Media Studies. For more on this topic, tune in to KPBS radio Midday Edition at noon today. For a full list of county employees, their salaries and special pay, go to www.inewsource.org.
Read more: http://www.nctimes.com/news/local/sdcounty/article_226e5c21-cc29-584c-94ff-3d628f66b00b.html#ixzz1a2F4tKyw
Read more: http://www.nctimes.com/news/local/sdcounty/article_226e5c21-cc29-584c-94ff-3d628f66b00b.html#ixzz1a2FF1pdN
The county of San Diego paid employees more than $100 million during the past few years for special benefits such as car and uniform allowances ---- and most of these add-ons can count toward their retirement pay.
It's a practice that goes on across California and is increasingly controversial as taxpayers face gargantuan bills in underfunded public employee retirement costs.
In San Diego County, more than half the "premium pay" from 2007 through 2010 was for performance bonuses, according to an analysis by the local nonprofit journalism center, Investigative Newsource. Although the bonus program was suspended in 2009, its effects could long be felt when recipients begin collecting their pensions.
The county pays more than 80 categories of special pay. After the bonus program, which cost about $30 million a year, bilingual pay was the most expensive, costing $3.3 million a year.
Forty-four employees, including the county supervisors and top administrators, are eligible to receive car allowances ranging from $7,200 and $12,000 a year. They cost the county about $360,000 annually from 2007 through 2010.
For an employee with 20 years of service making $143,021 a year (a supervisor's salary in 2010), an additional $12,000 a year auto allowance would bump their pension payout by about 8.5 percent. If they draw it for 20 years, the extra pay would yield an additional $144,000.
Using premium pay, bonuses, unused sick and vacation time payouts and other devices to increase pensions is so common among public employees that some government watchdog groups, a civilian grand jury and most recently the California Legislature, have sought to ban or at least curb the practice with little success so far.
Advocates consider supplemental pay to be income that is rightfully counted toward pensionable pay; critics see it as another way to gouge taxpayers.
"The abusive practices engaged in by a few individuals have put retirement benefits at risk for the vast majority of honest, hardworking public servants," said Sen. Juan Vargas, D-San Diego, and a member of the Senate Public Employees, Retirement and Social Security Committee. The committee recently championed anti-spiking legislation that failed Sept. 9 after Gov. Jerry Brown indicated he would not sign pension-related legislation unless it was part of comprehensive reform.
Many costs hidden
It's virtually impossible to estimate how much pension add-ons cost taxpayers. There are dozens of separate public retirements systems in California and many variables to factor, such as how many people retire in a year, how many years of services they've had, what their pensionable earnings are, how much special pay will enhance their pensions.
County officials said they have never studied the impact of special pay on long-term pension costs because it's a relatively small amount in relation to the county's payroll, which is just under $1 billion.
Potentially large payments for overtime and accrued sick and vacation time do not count toward retirement.
Special pay items that boost salaries range from "helicopter duty" and "weekend shifts" to "prisoner transportation" and "sewing room supervisor." There's a pay bump for being bilingual or having certifications or advanced degrees. Risky duties, such as handling hazardous materials, increase pay.
During 2007 and 2008, performance bonuses constituted the largest portion of special pay.
Officials defend bonuses
Officials said the bonus program was a win-win for the county and employees. The county avoided some across-the-board permanent pay increases, while employees received up to 4 percent in bonus pay if they helped their departments come in 6 percent under budget. Still, the program was shelved in 2009 because of budget constraints, the officials said.
Outside of the bonus program, the county paid an average of $13.4 million a year in special pay from 2007 to 2010.
More than 70 of the 80-plus categories of special pay are included in pension calculations. Newsource found that payouts ranged from an average of $2,675 in 2007 to $1,193 in 2010. More than 100 people in 2007 and 2008 made more than $10,000 in special pay, five people earned more than $25,000 and one person earned more than $50,000.
For most county employees, retirement calculations are based on years and type of service and rate of pay in the highest 26 consecutive pay checks, which are issued every two weeks. For others, it's based on an average of their highest three consecutive years of compensation.
Special pay can make a difference.
Lifetime boost
For an employee with 25 years of service and a high base salary of $65,000 at retirement, for example, $2,500 in special pay would boost the annual pension pay by about 4 percent, or $1,872 per year. That's $37,440 over 20 years.
Assembly Bill 340 ---- the legislation supported by Vargas ---- would have prevented county workers from spiking pensions with unused vacation and sick leave, bonuses and other special pay items at the end of their careers in the 20 California counties that run their own pension plans. A separate bill, Senate Bill 27, which still is pending in the Assembly, would impose similar rules on the state's public employees and teacher pension funds, including many local employees who are covered by the California Public Employees' Retirement System.
Both pieces of legislation were proposed after public outrage was sparked by news reports in Contra Costa County about two fire chiefs whose pensions were inflated with premium pay. The Contra Costa Times report also showed that more than two-thirds of employees departing a sanitation district in the past five years spiked their pensions by 25 to 41 percent.
News organizations around the state have reported similar stories since the courts recently ordered counties to release pension information. The San Diego County Employees Retirement Association had fought to keep pension information secret, but in light of seven separate Superior Court decisions since 2009 and rulings by three different appeals courts, the association recently released data on the most highly compensated pensioners.
Some raising base pay
Reacting to public perception, some counties are moving away from add-ons and adjusting base salaries upward to avoid the spiking controversy. That can be a complicated process that requires contract negotiations with unions.
County Supervisor Dianne Jacob said county officials are obligated to put special pay into pension calculations because of a 1997 California Supreme Court ruling known as the Ventura decision. The court concluded a number of special payments had been improperly excluded from pension calculations, resulting in retroactive increases for the plaintiffs, Ventura County sheriff's deputies.
"I question many of the premiums and they should be reevaluated," she said. "The problem is, many were negotiated with our labor unions before my time on the board and it's extremely difficult to unring the bell."
Jacob noted that the county needs to offer some types of special pay to attract workers.
"I know how hard it is for the county to recruit quality people willing to put on a Haz-Mat suit, or work as jailhouse nurses or work a graveyard shift in a tough area. I know how hard it is to find crackerjack executives who are creative and committed to public service. We can't compete with the corporate world for that caliber of talent" without premiums, she said.
Willing to work nights
Jacob made a distinction between special pay and the much-derided practice called pension spiking.
"Spiking happens when a public employee is given a significant increase in compensation immediately before retirement in a deliberate attempt to increase their pension," she said. "Paying a premium to a jailhouse nurse willing to work the night shift is not 'spiking.'"
Supervisor Pam Slater-Price said she has no problem with special pay.
"Higher pay for special skill sets, such as helicopter pilots, is part of doing business. Premiums are negotiated with labor. For the most part, they were likely negotiated in lieu of other benefits."
Lani Lutar, president of the San Diego County Taxpayers Association, said eliminating special pay in the city of San Diego, which has a $2.1 billion pension deficit, is one of the cornerstones of a ballot initiative to end guaranteed pensions for most new city hires and give them 401(k)s instead. The ad-ons should be eliminated at the county as well, she contended.
"We don't think any specialty pay should be part of a pension calculation," Lutar said. "This has a significant long-term impact on taxpayers. If you look at the salaries that are paid out, they already allow for extremely generous pensions."
When special isn't
Lutar cited this example in the city: Emergency medical technicians get special pay for obtaining a certification that is required for them to do their job. That special pay then counts toward their pension.
"The type of pension spiking maneuvers we have seen is really on a scale of obnoxious to insane," she said. "The labor unions have been very clever over the years at identifying benefits that are going to be hidden from public view because the liability won't be experienced for years if not decades."
Eraina Ortega, a legislative representative with the California State Association of Counties, a group that lobbies for county government interests, said her organization has advocated for the overturning of the Ventura decision because the association favors placing the decision-making power with counties.
Still, there are steps a county can take to minimize the financial impact of premium pay within the confines of the Ventura decision.
For instance, while the county is required to include certain types of pay in a pension calculation, officials said they could negotiate with employees on how much they might be paid for, say, a uniform allowance.
Don Turko, the county's human resources director, said the county continues to analyze what special pay should be on the table during the next set of contract talks with employee unions. "To the extent we can minimize costs subject to Ventura we'll pursue those," he said.
Ortega of CSAC said transparency is essential in the discussion of pension benefits.
"As long as the public can see what benefits are being provided," she said, "the public has a right to look into it and say, 'Is this the appropriate compensation for our public officials?'"
Investigative Newsource is a nonprofit specializing in data-driven reporting. It is based at San Diego State University's School of Journalism & Media Studies. For more on this topic, tune in to KPBS radio Midday Edition at noon today. For a full list of county employees, their salaries and special pay, go to www.inewsource.org.
Read more: http://www.nctimes.com/news/local/sdcounty/article_226e5c21-cc29-584c-94ff-3d628f66b00b.html#ixzz1a2F4tKyw
Wednesday, October 5, 2011
San Diego City Council Responds to County Grand Jury Assertion That New City Hall Is Unnecessary
By David Batterson | Published Tuesday, Oct. 4, 2011
The San Diego City Council voted 6-1 on October 4 to adopt a resolution, responding to the San Diego County Grand Jury report that a new city hall is not needed.
The resolution authorized the “council's response to the Presiding Judge of the San Diego Superior Court no later than November 1, 2011.” The Centre City Development Corporation and the Independent Budget Analyst previously prepared the council's response.
Councilmember Carl DeMaio voted no; councilmember Tony Young was absent. Councilmember Todd Gloria, who made the motion to approve, said, “We have a substandard city hall; the building needs replacement.” Councilmember Marti Emerald commented, “We need to revisit lease rates.”
The grand jury concluded that the city cannot justify a new, 19-story, 576,000-square-foot facility with an approximate $500-per-square-foot cost (estimated at $293,500,000). The grand jury determined the city could purchase “existing buildings of sufficient size to accommodate the City’s needs” for approximately $200 per square foot.
According to attachment 1 of the resolution, “the Grand Jury drew a number of inaccurate conclusions.” The council agreed with some findings, including one that the “existing city hall is in disrepair.”
The City of San Diego currently owns four buildings constructed in 1963 and 1965 between First and Third avenues: the city administration building, city operations building, concourse, and the Evan V. Jones Parkade (parking garage). The administration facility includes offices for the mayor and councilmembers, council chambers and committee rooms, the office of the city clerk, and other offices.
The administration, operations, and concourse buildings contain asbestos that will require abatement if they are renovated or demolished. The city leases about 93 percent of the Civic Center Plaza building.
http://www.sandiegoreader.com/news/2011/oct/04/stringers-san-diego-city-council-responds-/
The San Diego City Council voted 6-1 on October 4 to adopt a resolution, responding to the San Diego County Grand Jury report that a new city hall is not needed.
The resolution authorized the “council's response to the Presiding Judge of the San Diego Superior Court no later than November 1, 2011.” The Centre City Development Corporation and the Independent Budget Analyst previously prepared the council's response.
Councilmember Carl DeMaio voted no; councilmember Tony Young was absent. Councilmember Todd Gloria, who made the motion to approve, said, “We have a substandard city hall; the building needs replacement.” Councilmember Marti Emerald commented, “We need to revisit lease rates.”
The grand jury concluded that the city cannot justify a new, 19-story, 576,000-square-foot facility with an approximate $500-per-square-foot cost (estimated at $293,500,000). The grand jury determined the city could purchase “existing buildings of sufficient size to accommodate the City’s needs” for approximately $200 per square foot.
According to attachment 1 of the resolution, “the Grand Jury drew a number of inaccurate conclusions.” The council agreed with some findings, including one that the “existing city hall is in disrepair.”
The City of San Diego currently owns four buildings constructed in 1963 and 1965 between First and Third avenues: the city administration building, city operations building, concourse, and the Evan V. Jones Parkade (parking garage). The administration facility includes offices for the mayor and councilmembers, council chambers and committee rooms, the office of the city clerk, and other offices.
The administration, operations, and concourse buildings contain asbestos that will require abatement if they are renovated or demolished. The city leases about 93 percent of the Civic Center Plaza building.
http://www.sandiegoreader.com/news/2011/oct/04/stringers-san-diego-city-council-responds-/
Getting Ready With CERTitude (Marin County)
Getting Ready With CERTitude
As locals continue efforts to seize momentum on emergency preparedness campaign, CERT classes are set for Oct. 8 and 15. Get Ready class set for Oct. 13
The City of Mill Valley’s fifth annual evacuation drill, this time in Scott Valley in May, garnered historically high participation from residents. A month later, the Marin County Civil Grand Jury gave Mill Valley a pat on the back for its emergency preparedness efforts that serve as a "blueprint which could be emulated countywide."
For Maggie Lang, a longtime local resident and the countywide coordinator for Community Emergency Response Training (CERT) classes, the events served as a catalyst to be seized upon.
“One of the Grand Jury report’s central tenets was that we’re going to be on our own in the event of a disaster because we don’t have enough public safety people living here in Marin,” Lang said. “Families really need to be able to take care of themselves, and we need to keep getting the word out about the resources available for people to know how to do that.”
“After that, it’s about neighbors helping neighbors,” she added.
Using the pneumonic that “the first 72 (hours) are on you,” CERT is at the heart of that drive. According to Marc Radest, a 42-year-old Sycamore Park resident, EMT and Marin Medical Reserve Corp member who took the CERT class in April, an ideal disaster plan would be to ensure that every neighborhood had a few people who have taken a CERT class and could serve as the point of contact for first responders in the event of a disaster.
“CERT makes the emergency services and fire department response more effective,” Radest said. “There are so many unknowns – who is elderly in the area, are there people who need prescription medication, things like that – that if the first responders had people to give them the details of that neighborhood when they arrive, it significantly changes their ability to respond clearly and quickly.”
The classes teach light search and rescue, basic disaster first aid and triage, small fire suppression and some disaster psychology. The program is funded through a $21,300 State Homeland Security grant awarded to the City of San Rafael’s Office of Emergency Services via the County of Marin to develop a countywide CERT training program called Marin County CERT.
The program kicked off in January and the shift to a countywide system instead of one operated by individual agencies allows any Marin resident to take any CERT class in the county.
Lang hopes that change reaches more people with busier schedules. Along with the neighborhood-specific push, Lang said she’s also hoping to get younger people into CERT classes, as the lion’s share of participants to date have been older people with the free time to accommodate the classes.
“We love their passion and involvement but we can’t have a response team that’s completely staffed with 70 and 80 year olds,” she said.
Lang said the unending challenge in Mill Valley is that despite the well-deserved accolades for developing a citywide emergency preparedness plan, “We’re still butting up against a wall of apathy and denial – that feeling of, ‘it’s never going to happen to me.’ But you get a good feeling from these classes – a sense of well being and a sense that you know how to take care of your family and neighbors if something happens.”
http://millvalley.patch.com/articles/getting-ready-with-certitude
Sunday, October 2, 2011
The (Calaveras County) Grand Jury: Under Appreciated
From the Calaveras Enterprise
By Kevin Wychopen
The grand jury. Now that is a name that sounds, well, grand. I happened to notice a cool little picture of a twisted oak in the lower right corner of the online Calaveras Enterprise. It was labeled "Grand Jury Report" and I decided to look into what was contained within that document.
I found the website for the Calaveras County grand jury, and began my investigation.
People should be aware of the power and reach of the grand jury and recognize it as a valuable community resource. Every county has one and they all seem to file reports that are available to the public and tend to be written in ordinary and understandable language. I wouldn't recommend the reports for light reading, but certainly they provide interesting fodder for the mind.
The grand jury reports for Calaveras, Tuolumne, and Amador counties all provide an opportunity to find out about issues that are facing each of these local counties and the communities within their borders.
What makes the grand jury special, to my way of thinking, is the fact that this group of dedicated citizens actually has the ability to investigate allegations of wrongdoing, inefficient or inappropriate use of public monies. It is also mandated to investigate the conditions in prisons and other detention facilities. In addition, it is an especially valuable entity because citizens can lodge complaints and requests for investigation. If the request is deemed within the purview of the jury, it can choose to devote the time and energy necessary to look into the matter.
The 2010-2011 report for Amador County had some rather startling statistics in it. The Mule Creek State Prison was the subject of a required review by members of the jury. I found out that it had an operating budget of $136,699,467, and out of that budget, $3,570,769 is for education and $52,485,060 is for health care. Now we know one part of the state's budget difficulties.
By Kevin Wychopen
The grand jury. Now that is a name that sounds, well, grand. I happened to notice a cool little picture of a twisted oak in the lower right corner of the online Calaveras Enterprise. It was labeled "Grand Jury Report" and I decided to look into what was contained within that document.
I found the website for the Calaveras County grand jury, and began my investigation.
People should be aware of the power and reach of the grand jury and recognize it as a valuable community resource. Every county has one and they all seem to file reports that are available to the public and tend to be written in ordinary and understandable language. I wouldn't recommend the reports for light reading, but certainly they provide interesting fodder for the mind.
The grand jury reports for Calaveras, Tuolumne, and Amador counties all provide an opportunity to find out about issues that are facing each of these local counties and the communities within their borders.
What makes the grand jury special, to my way of thinking, is the fact that this group of dedicated citizens actually has the ability to investigate allegations of wrongdoing, inefficient or inappropriate use of public monies. It is also mandated to investigate the conditions in prisons and other detention facilities. In addition, it is an especially valuable entity because citizens can lodge complaints and requests for investigation. If the request is deemed within the purview of the jury, it can choose to devote the time and energy necessary to look into the matter.
The 2010-2011 report for Amador County had some rather startling statistics in it. The Mule Creek State Prison was the subject of a required review by members of the jury. I found out that it had an operating budget of $136,699,467, and out of that budget, $3,570,769 is for education and $52,485,060 is for health care. Now we know one part of the state's budget difficulties.
The prison was designed to hold 1,700 inmates, but in fact holds more than 3,700. According to the report, three gymnasiums have been converted into dormitories where inmates sleep in bunk units that are stacked three high. The spaces between these bunks are apparently less than commodious. So our local prison is subject to severe overcrowding, just like so many others in the state.
I was really pleased to learn that inmates are not just housed, but have opportunities for education, counseling, and academic assistance. They also have access to vocational training in areas such as landscape gardening, milling and cabinetry, electronics, welding, and assorted other useful skills. I was beginning to think, from some of the things that appear in the popular press, that rehabilitation was no longer a major part of California prisons.
In Calaveras County, reports from past years have covered a wide range of concerns. In 1999-2000, the jury investigated a number of citizen complaints regarding law enforcement, child protective services, schools, and local governmental departments. Many complaints ended up being declared unfounded or representing minor mistakes in procedures or actions.
The 2007-2008 jury looked into a number of issues including, the Community Development Agency, E. coli contamination in the Mokelumne River and the Vallecito Conservation Camp. Included in that year's report were a large number of responses to previous years' recommendations.
It seems to me that the grand jury system, with which I had little familiarity before writing this column, is an outstanding asset that provides excellent citizen oversight for the operations of many different aspects of our local communities. If you want to become enlightened about how things work in your community, the grand jury reports are a great place to start.
Perhaps more importantly, if you see something that you know is wrong, or makes no sense or seems detrimental to the health and safety of your city or town, fill in a citizen’s complaint form and your concerns may be addressed.
Kevin Wychopen is a semi-retired school counselor and weekly columnist for the Enterprise. Contact him at itsabigworld@live.com .
http://www.calaverasenterprise.com/opinion/columns/article_3141f0d6-eb89-11e0-82f4-001cc4c002e0.html
I was really pleased to learn that inmates are not just housed, but have opportunities for education, counseling, and academic assistance. They also have access to vocational training in areas such as landscape gardening, milling and cabinetry, electronics, welding, and assorted other useful skills. I was beginning to think, from some of the things that appear in the popular press, that rehabilitation was no longer a major part of California prisons.
In Calaveras County, reports from past years have covered a wide range of concerns. In 1999-2000, the jury investigated a number of citizen complaints regarding law enforcement, child protective services, schools, and local governmental departments. Many complaints ended up being declared unfounded or representing minor mistakes in procedures or actions.
The 2007-2008 jury looked into a number of issues including, the Community Development Agency, E. coli contamination in the Mokelumne River and the Vallecito Conservation Camp. Included in that year's report were a large number of responses to previous years' recommendations.
It seems to me that the grand jury system, with which I had little familiarity before writing this column, is an outstanding asset that provides excellent citizen oversight for the operations of many different aspects of our local communities. If you want to become enlightened about how things work in your community, the grand jury reports are a great place to start.
Perhaps more importantly, if you see something that you know is wrong, or makes no sense or seems detrimental to the health and safety of your city or town, fill in a citizen’s complaint form and your concerns may be addressed.
Kevin Wychopen is a semi-retired school counselor and weekly columnist for the Enterprise. Contact him at itsabigworld@live.com .
http://www.calaverasenterprise.com/opinion/columns/article_3141f0d6-eb89-11e0-82f4-001cc4c002e0.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)