Ask a Hipster — Advice you didn't know you needed
Big Screen — Movie commentary
Blurt — Music's inside track
Booze News — San Diego spirits
Classical Music — Immortal beauty
Classifieds — Free and easy
Close to Home — What it’s like on the street where you live
Cover Stories — Front-page features
Drinks All Around — Bartenders' drink recipes
Excerpts — Literary and spiritual excerpts
Feast! — Food & drink reviews
Feature Stories — Local news & stories
Fishing Report — What’s getting hooked from ship and shore
From the Archives — Spotlight on the past
Golden Dreams — Talk of the town
The Gonzo Report — Making the musical scene, or at least reporting from it
Letters — Our inbox
Movies@Home — Local movie buffs share favorites
Movie Reviews — Our critics' picks and pans
Musician Interviews — Up close with local artists
Neighborhood News from Stringers — Hyperlocal news
News Ticker — News & politics
Obermeyer — San Diego politics illustrated
Outdoors — Weekly changes in flora and fauna
Overheard in San Diego — Eavesdropping illustrated
Poetry — The old and the new
Reader Travel — Travel section built by travelers
Reading — The hunt for intellectuals
Roam-O-Rama — SoCal's best hiking/biking trails
San Diego Beer — Inside San Diego suds
SD on the QT — Almost factual news
Sheep and Goats — Places of worship
Special Issues — The best of
Street Style — San Diego streets have style
Surf Diego — Real stories from those braving the waves
Theater — On stage in San Diego this week
Tin Fork — Silver spoon alternative
Under the Radar — Matt Potter's undercover work
Unforgettable — Long-ago San Diego
Unreal Estate — San Diego's priciest pads
Your Week — Daily event picks
City Pension Fund Is Only 58 Percent Funded, Council Will Learn Tomorrow. Will It and Mayor Listen?
Johnny, When I can do those things without interruption and without carrying a pager and radio, then maybe you can consider them "not work". In the meantime, I can't begin to count the number of times those activities have been interrupted by emergency activities. Again, it's a moot point... no matter how much you don't like it, I'm still going to be paid to do those things. I suppose if you don't want us to do those things at work, you can push for a 40 hour work schedule for all of us, but that's going to require hiring another full shift of people. I guess you'd really show us, forcing that upon us. Yep... pay 400 more people just so we have more time off and don't have to eat at work.— November 16, 2008 6:29 a.m.
City Pension Fund Is Only 58 Percent Funded, Council Will Learn Tomorrow. Will It and Mayor Listen?
OK, so where's your argument? Even you agree that I should be compensated for... as you put it, "duties". You might not like it, but most of what you dislike is assigned and required by the city. Meanwhile, I still do around 8-10 hours of volunteer work for the city per week, in violation of FLSA. I'm not complaining, just making a point. It all works out in the end. Again, you're welcome to move somewhere that is protected by only a volunteer department. Then you won't need to worry about how much the pension is costing you or what we do while at work. You can shift your worries to whether or not anyone will actually show up.— November 15, 2008 9 a.m.
City Pension Fund Is Only 58 Percent Funded, Council Will Learn Tomorrow. Will It and Mayor Listen?
Johnny, Perhaps, as an (supposed) attorney, you could provide a different definition, according to FLSA, of a situation in which I am required to be at a certain location and subject to the rules of employment. In other words, it doesn't matter what *you* want to call it. I'm required to be away from home and available to respond. By law, I'm required to be compensated for that, although I'm not always. If you don't want that level of service, move somewhere covered by volunteers.— November 14, 2008 10:06 p.m.
The Future Looks Blight!
Historymatters, Perhaps if you gave us the link to your blog, we could look at it and comment.— November 14, 2008 5:45 p.m.
City Pension Fund Is Only 58 Percent Funded, Council Will Learn Tomorrow. Will It and Mayor Listen?
Just Wondering, I may have been mistaken when I said that it was Joe Esuchanko who said that. I looked for the source document this afternoon, but couldn't find it. Nonetheless, it was either Esuchanko, the IBA, Cheiron or someone like that. I also found it odd, but there it was in black and white showing PSC caused losses for all employee categories EXCEPT firefighters. There was a increase in cost for all safety employees. Safety employees are police officers, firefighters and lifeguards. Two of those three categories works a 40 hour week. The other third works a 56 hour week. Do you suppose that applying the same formula across the board may have overestimated it for those working more hours? The reality is that there is very little chance that there will be a zero in that column. As you say, someone will end up on the short end. In this case PSC made money from firefighter's contributions.— November 14, 2008 5:43 p.m.
City Pension Fund Is Only 58 Percent Funded, Council Will Learn Tomorrow. Will It and Mayor Listen?
Just for the record, here's what Johnny wrote about Joe Esuchanko back in September, "But if Joey did say that then Joey needs to put the crack pipe down. That dope is clouding his thinking." (Go search the Reader archives) Now all of a sudden, Johnny is praising Esuchanko's every word. Interesting.— November 14, 2008 2:47 p.m.
City Pension Fund Is Only 58 Percent Funded, Council Will Learn Tomorrow. Will It and Mayor Listen?
Just Wondering, You state that ALL PSC contracts should be canceled. Yet, Joe Esuchanko has stated that the city MADE money on PSC contracts with firefighters. Since the contracts are required to be cost neutral, should the city refund money to firefighters? Or grant more time? I never have agreed with PSC under cost, but when the city is making money at it(for firefighters only), it seems to make sense.— November 14, 2008 9:42 a.m.
City Pension Fund Is Only 58 Percent Funded, Council Will Learn Tomorrow. Will It and Mayor Listen?
BTW-I have a C-Note that says San Diego files BK within 12 months-who wants some of that action??????? ================================================= Given your track record of non-payment of other bets, no, I'm not interested in betting with you.— November 14, 2008 9:39 a.m.
John Kaheny defends rising pensions in San Diego
The pension deficit changes minimally with retroactive raises in retirement benefits. Let's look at the situation now. Everyone who retires right now contributed at the new rate for MP1 benefit for 1/3 to 1/2 of their career. And that's only 12 years into MP1. That percentage will go up as the years go by. By the time I retire, I will have contributed at the updated rates for most of my career. What is important is the assumed rate. You're using a few months of bad returns to try to eliminate the whole system. But that's not how it works. Once again, those losses are spread over many, many years. The 10 year average of SDCERS is around 10%, though that may be lower now. Nonetheless, the system isn't going broke. Incidentally, the board lowered the assumed rate recently to better reflect current reality. Justice, retiree healthcare is funded -- the bills are being paid. However, there is a better way. The mayor set aside a chunk of money in this year's budget ($25 million) to start building a fund which will eventually pay for retiree healthcare. It will be a slow process, but eventually it will be funded. I'm not adverse to kicking in some ourselves, but I don't think you'll see the union agree to that. I imagine those numbers are much higher as well, at least the retirement system underfunding. But these are volatile times. I also imagine that at some point it will turn around and we'll see huge gains.— October 30, 2008 6:02 p.m.
John Kaheny defends rising pensions in San Diego
You did say Aguirre is a "Certified Fraud Examiner", didn't you? Then he should know that the CAFR that was certified was the 2007 CAFR -- for the FY ending June 30, 2007. He's jumping up and down screaming fraud -- that's all the board did was certify that the CAFR was correct as of that date. Of course the fund has dropped since then. As Aguirre said of his own budget, "Who knows, it's a moving target". Funny how he can't keep track of his own budget, but fancies himself the expert on the pension system. The unfunded liability was $1.1 Billion on that date, not 2.7 Billion. What you don't seem to realize, is that the system is in it for the long term. Yes, it's dropped now, but it will come back up in the long run. Heck, I couldn't pay my mortgage off cash tomorrow, but I will pay it off when it's due.— October 30, 2008 2:17 p.m.