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
2005 Audit Shows Internal Accounting Weaknesses; Despite Some Headway, Many More Improvements Must Be Made, Says Accounting Firm
Then there's the settlement, "If you are employed by THE CITY at any time on or after July 1,2000, and are classified as a Lifeguard or a Safety Member of SDCERS, you will be allowed, as a vested benefit, to make an election at the time of your retirement between the following two choices for the calculation of your retirement benefit (with the exception of the Supplemental COLA adjustment and the Annual Supplemental Benefit (the "13th check")): 1. Your Retirement Calculation Factor will be increased from 2.5% (2.2% for Lifeguards) at age 50 to 3.0% at age 50 and all subsequent years; or 2. Your retirement benefit will be calculated on the basis of the Retirement Calculation Factors in effect on June 30,2000, and your retirement benefit (with the exclusion of the Supplemental COLA adjustment and the annual Supplemental Benefit (the " 13' l8 check")) so computed will be increased by ten per cent (10%)." Johnny, that's where and when the 3% at 50 comes from. Note it says "vested benefit". Now I guess we could roll that back and include OT in our retirements if you'd like.... Oh, and that pretty much verifies my dates and figures doesn't it.— January 31, 2008 8:50 a.m.
2005 Audit Shows Internal Accounting Weaknesses; Despite Some Headway, Many More Improvements Must Be Made, Says Accounting Firm
Sure Johnny, my numbers are "baloney". So prove it. Should be easy, no? Go ahead, prove my retirement factors are wrong. Let's see, I'm referring to Corbett vs City Employee's Retirement System. Here's a few quotes from that judgement: "Generally, plaintiffs alleged that retirement benefits paid by SDCERS as a result of employment by THE CITY had not been properly calculated in light of the California Supreme Court's August 1997 decision in Ventura County Sheriffs Association v. Board of Retirement of Ventura County." "In Ventura the California Supreme Court ruled that the Retirement Board in that case was required to classify certain payments made by the County of Ventura to its employees over and above their basic salaries as "compensation earnable" and to include those payments in "final compensation" used to calculate the amount of monthly pension benefits payable to the retired employees under the County Employees' Retirement Law of 1937 ("CERL"), Government Code Section 31450, er seq." That means overtime, Johnny.— January 31, 2008 8:47 a.m.
2005 Audit Shows Internal Accounting Weaknesses; Despite Some Headway, Many More Improvements Must Be Made, Says Accounting Firm
Sorry Johnny, but my numbers are spot on. Please define what you mean by "bogus" and show us how they're bogus -- with documentation. While you're at it, why don't you discuss the ramifications of the Ventura case and how that would affect the City of San Diego. NO excuse for government workers getting a multi million dollar pension, eh? Well... there's people walking and breathing today because of my actions. Maybe you should ask them.— January 30, 2008 9:08 p.m.
2005 Audit Shows Internal Accounting Weaknesses; Despite Some Headway, Many More Improvements Must Be Made, Says Accounting Firm
sdblogger, Consider that the pension increases are the least of the city's problems as I wrote above. While I don't agree with everything Saathoff has done, so far the state's (and thus the feds) case doesn't seem to be moving all that well. The bigger problem is the chronic underfunding of the FD and PD because of various deals by various mayors. There are less firefighters downtown now than there were in 1970, yet there are many more residents and more highrises. The FD had 36 stations to protect 750K people in 1976 and now has 46 to protect 1.5 million. The other day I heard a truck company dispatched first due to Harbor Island for a reported high rise fire.... from North Park. Pretty darn good response time there, no?— January 30, 2008 5:15 p.m.
2005 Audit Shows Internal Accounting Weaknesses; Despite Some Headway, Many More Improvements Must Be Made, Says Accounting Firm
First off, it's stuff like the audits and corporate welfare that's ruining this city. That and the low tax base. Here's the problem with applying the OC lawsuit here. Even if they prevail the percentages here aren't the same. The increase in the safety retirement in SD has been minimal compared to that in OC. Twenty years ago, the pension system here paid 2.5% at 50 and 2.77% at 55. In 1996, the formula was changed to 2.9999% at 55. Then in 2000 it was changed to 3% at 50. With the number of retirements since then, most everyone currently in the FD has been paying the actuarially required rates for at least 12 years now, and close to it for 20. The average safety employee retires at 57, so basically the increase has been .23% in all that time. Less than 10%. Keep this in mind -- the 3% at 50 was the city's settlement to a lawsuit. Basically, the city was going to lose a case that said that our OT should be counted in our top one year. To avoid that, the city gave us 3% at 50. If you take that away, you'll need to renegotiate that ruling and will likely need to pay retirements based on salary PLUS OT. Good luck planning for that. Oh, and there was no cap before, so folks retired at 110% or more. Now we're capped at 90%. So sorry, the increase in retirement percentage hasn't been the cause of the deficit. Once again, we always pay our part... it's the city who doesn't pay theirs, hence part of the problems with the audits.— January 30, 2008 12:18 p.m.
"Independent" Analyst Swayed National Expert To Soften Position on Appointed Auditor
Don, you wrote back on the 15th that Sanders has "mollycoddled" the unions. I guess that depends on whether or not you're the one who has had a -3% pay raise in the past three years and a several thousand dollar cut in your health care. I guess that depends on whether you're the one who was denied a pay raise by a city who claimed to have no money the week before the city miraculously "found" a $42 million surplus. Oh, and you claim Sanders has done nothing to help the pension crisis. However, DROP has been eliminated for new hires and may be eliminated for all. POSC has been raised to match the proper rate. That's at least something. At least by the standards of folks who don't like the DROP.— January 17, 2008 10:08 a.m.
Francis Says Lobbyists Control City Hall, Blasts Special Interests
Johnny Vegas wrote: "If there were more Randall Duke Cunningham types who were made examples of, then things may get better (that is a BIG may)." I disagree. Folks with an ego that large never think they're at fault.— January 16, 2008 4:10 p.m.
Group Protests Governor's Plan To Cut San Diego Lifeguards
Johnny, Johnny, Johnny... as I've said in many other forums, I'll gladly give up any pay raise I might get next year if the Mayor funds just half of the fire equipment that the studies say we need. For a time this morning about a third of the FD was tied up on two different fires. Why is it that when firefighting professionals make recommendations for increased fire protection, you immediately jump up and down and scream that we're being self serving? How am I being self serving by fighting to get a better FD for the citizens? Extrapolating out from current budget levels, the FD would need about $90 million extra to reach the size that is needed. That's more than the entire Park and Rec budget. You're simply not going to gain that by making pay cuts. New revenue sources are needed.— January 14, 2008 4:46 p.m.
Why the Strong Mayor Idea Won't Work with a Dishonest Mayor
Don wrote, "The 2007 failures were tied in with the unwillingness of the state to act quickly because of bureaucratic rules." Well, partly. I assume you're referring to the lack of usage of the military. There is absolutely room for improvement there. But the military is not the panacea -- not the final answer. There are a lot of other necessary items. The people of SD County forcing a charter change to require the county to provide fire protection is the biggest. Building code changes and zoning changes are huge. Changing brush management codes to not allow Italian cypress, palms, junipers, etc. anywhere near houses. Eliminating cedar plank fences. All of those changes need to be retroactive. If you actually made folks remove the above items you'd save a ton of homes with no cost to gov't. And yes, increasing the size of the current fire departments. You're more on track with your final statement that it takes politicians willing to make the changes. Politicians willing to spend $25 million on fire protection rather than on renovating the Balboa Theater. After the 2003 fires, it was the people of Scripps Ranch who fought building code changes. Ironic, no?— January 12, 2008 4:30 p.m.
El Cajon Headquarters of Hells Angels Now Shuttered
Don wrote, "It seems to me they drive Harley-Davidson cycles. That has long been a hot stock." True, but the Angels would have to be buying those bikes to make the stock go up.— January 12, 2008 4:17 p.m.