Could this have been a consideration? Oops! I forgot you really could care less about the riffed employees and their families. L.A. City Council approves early retirement plan despite opposition
The proposal also calls for postponing raises for thousands of workers to balance the budget without layoffs or closing City Hall twice a month. But one union threatens a court challenge.
By David Zahniser and Maeve Reston
5:42 PM PDT, June 26, 2009
The Los Angeles City Council voted Friday to move ahead with a plan to give early retirement to 2,400 employees while postponing raises for thousands of others, hoping to balance the budget without laying off workers or closing City Hall two days a month.

The council unanimously forwarded the proposal to the Coalition of L.A. City Unions for a ratification vote by its 22,000 members, saying that it would free up much-needed money over the next two years.

“We can’t afford not to do it,” Councilwoman Janice Hahn said after a closed-door meeting that lasted nearly four hours.

Before the council even cast its vote, a representative of another union said his members probably would file a court challenge to the early retirement proposal, a copy of which has not been released by city officials.

“The [plan] that they’re proposing is not legal,” said Bob Aquino, executive director of the Engineers and Architects Assn., which represents roughly 7,800 city workers and is not part of the coalition.

He accused the council of excluding some unions from its early retirement talks. And he warned that the council has not been provided with a legally required actuarial study that would spell out the long-term cost of the plan to the city’s pension system, which is projected to consume an increasingly large share of the city budget over the next five years.

The proposed labor pact sent to the council Friday applies to civilian workers, including those who provide such services as trash pickup, park maintenance and library operations. Negotiations are still under way for police officers, firefighters and other unions.

Aquino’s warning echoed comments made two days ago by Gary Toebben, president and chief executive of the Los Angeles Area Chamber of Commerce. Toebben called on the mayor and the council to release the information showing the five-year impact of the early retirement plan.”It is important that this information now be shared with the citizens of Los Angeles,” he said.

Coalition representatives did not immediately respond to requests for comment. But Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa said in a statement after the vote that the union pact would save more than $500 million over the next two years by delaying raises and reducing the size of the workforce.

Villaraigosa insisted that workers would cover the “net cost” of the early retirements, sparing the pension system from a new burden.

Under the plan, workers hired before 1983 would see their pension contribution hiked to 6% from a range of 2% to 4%. Other city employees would see their contributions increase from 6% of their pay to 6.75% in July 2011.

Council members said they would receive an updated actuarial study within two weeks, in time for a final, public vote on the labor pact.

Councilman Bernard C. Parks, who voted for the early retirement concept, said he was reserving final judgment until he sees the long-term cost of the union agreement.

“The council has a vote later to decide whether [to] accept it or not,” he said.

Early retirement also will require a vote from members of the city’s primary pension fund, the Los Angeles City Employees’ Retirement System.

Councilman Richard Alarcon said the plan would be less painful for the public than a furlough plan, which would force workers to take 26 unpaid days off in the coming year.

“We’re doing our best to save city services,” he said.

The proposed agreement with the Coalition of L.A. City Unions is designed to dramatically reduce the possibility of layoffs and avoid furloughs, which would force the city to shut some city offices every other Friday.

Under the proposal, the coalition’s 22,000 members would not receive raises for two years. Once that period is over, however, those workers would receive six raises between July 2011 and January 2014 — the equivalent of an 18.8% raise — plus two extra cash payouts.

To reduce the city’s payroll costs, the city would offer early retirement to workers who are as many as five years away from being eligible for retirement. To entice them to leave, the city would offer some workers cash payouts and enough years of service to qualify for retirement ahead of schedule.

City officials have been increasingly anxious about the rising costs of retirement benefits at its two pension systems — one covering public safety workers, the other for civilian employees.

A May report from the city’s top financial advisor warned that the city’s required pension contribution — money that would otherwise be used to pay for basic services — could jump from approximately $660 million next year to more than $1.6 billion by 2013-14.

That increase “far exceeds any projected revenue growth” and is not sustainable, acting City Administrative Officer Ray Ciranna wrote.

Of course we do so without federal or state assistance.

What damming findings are you speaking of? I didn’t find that but I didn’t read the entire audit.

As far as Sgt. Kreher goes I have now met him and seen the overwhelming support he has received from his fellow officers and the public. He was being asked to Speak on behalf of a decimated police force and disabled officers who have been neglected by the administration.

I hope the public considers that we have asked these officers to risk their lives to protect us and we show them that IF they are to get injured in the line of Duty they will be forgotten and every medical need will be fought for months before being approved just before heading to trial.

Very few people in this City have a job like that. Let’s not punish the person, any further, that did the right thing and apologized for letting his emotions get the best of him on a sensitive issue in a Public Forum. How many people get fired for their first speaking gaffe in 17 years on the job? Nobody who posts here is held to that standard.

His comments, and the fact that the Mayor wasn’t present, do not constitute a legal threat. Poorly chosen words yes but not worth loosing a 17 year veteran of Atlanta’s shrinking Police Force.

I wonder sadly if hush money is the way the AJC and CL are staying afloat in these awful times for print.

It makes me wish Bill Campbell was back in office. Look for more “dirty water” regarding “watershed management”. The video tapes of City council regarding “WM” was a waste of time. Several people came forward with suggestions on how to save MILLIONS of Dollars. City Council leader…humm was she listening???…Well I won’t get started on this subject.

Ohhhh! before I forget. Wasn’t someone paid MILLIONS of dollars by Mayor Franklin’s office to pay for that HORRID Song “A.T.L.” ?? This song was to increase Tourist revenue for Atlanta. Your tax dollars in action.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4651126

How do we know if this was just a figure of speech? Veiled threats like these may have an chilling effect of terrorizing entire neighborhoods in our city.

Thank you to the cops who put their lives on the line.

Franklin is just using this to avoid her responsbility. Maybe she should be brought up on criminal charges?

How many of us have said comments that if taken litterly would have gotten us in trouble.

Franklin refused to comment about these hurt officers.. but she did find time to publish a statement about the Sgt.

She refused to call any of the hurt officers back.. but.. she can contact federal officers about filing a suit about the Sgt.

Franklin should just resign and the Sgt should be reinstated.