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
San Diego City Employees pension fund ailing
Under the previous system, it's my understanding there was no cap...i.e. employees could retire at 100, 110...120 percent of their salary. When the 3 at 50 rule was implemented, retirements were capped at 90%. I'm sure JF can correct me if I have omitted something. It wasn't that hard to find this Johnny. This also lead to the DROP program where the City decided it needed to retain what was becoming a scarcity, skilled professional police officers and firefighters.— January 26, 2009 8:14 p.m.
San Diego City Employees pension fund ailing
I believe your proof is here in the Muni Code...by going to page seven of this PDF document. http://docs.sandiego.gov/municode/MuniCodeChapter… Please notice the 2.9999% at age 55 for safety employees.— January 26, 2009 8:07 p.m.
San Diego City Employees pension fund ailing
More interesting news from Vallejo... wonder if this a divide and conquer tactic? Vallejo and its police employees have reached a tentative contract agreement that could save the city $6 million over two years and keep officer staffing to a minimum. Read more here: http://www.timesheraldonline.com/news/ci_11544503— January 26, 2009 6:51 p.m.
San Diego City Employees pension fund ailing
You bet it is. Here is how I can tell. 1. You don't have a commute in heavy metropolitan traffic twice daily. 2. You're not paying to park at 350, or a meter when you go downtown. 3. You're probably sitting at your PC in your PJs when you write and haven't had a shave today. 4. You don't have to attend editorial meetings where you're force to listen to inane ideas of your boss and how he or she knows more than you. 5. You get a defined benefit check once a month from your pension account. Even on the months when you blow off The Reader gig. 5a. A actually get a direct deposit social security check each month. 6. You like what you do, as opposed to being force to do it to make a living. 7. Mrs. Don Bauder hints you need things to do. 8. Finally, at a time of your own choosing, you can say that's enough, for today, this week, this month or the rest of your life. If four out of the nine are close to being correct, you're retired. But now you finally get a chance to just enjoy the "work" cause it's in your soul and you wouldn't want it any other way. But back to the ideas issues... I suppose my question is; why does it seems that there are no other answers than the ones we continue to fight over, i.e. cut pay and benefits or raise taxes and fees. Is there nothing else government can do to fix this?— January 26, 2009 11:52 a.m.
San Diego City Employees pension fund ailing
#551 Don said: "Response to post #546: You are trying to make us feel sorry for people who were overcompensated as a result of two crooked deals. Best, Don Bauder" ======================================== No that wasn't my point at all. My point which you clearly understood but felt compelled to sarcasm was lower paid employees made life plans/choices based upon promises they wholeheartedly believed reliable. These folks had no voice at the bargaining table, they have no real control over these issues but you and Johnny V believe the ONLY solution is to extract your pound of flesh out of them. JF has pointed out reductions in pay for his group. The City and State want employees to take 24-36 days off without pay. (That's a pay cut). The gutless politicians state categorically no new taxes even though San Diego is taxed lower than most other large cities in California. The citizens demand the same or higher levels of services while revenue streams are drying up and are unwilling to raise taxes even on visitors who use those services. So no, DON, no one wants you to feel sorry while you enjoy your retirement years in Colorado. Because you got yours. And now you're are entitled to pontificate from high above. Guess it was to much to see if you or Mr. Vegas had some constructive ideas other than the same old endless diatribe we (according to Johnny's narcissistic cut and pastes, see I told you so a year ago. That was helpful.) hear.— January 26, 2009 7:53 a.m.
San Diego City Employees pension fund ailing
Even if the courts expedite a decision, what is solution? The way I see it, a decision is MORE THAN HALF of the issue. Crafting a "FAIR" solution is the difficult part. I say this is especially true for the rank-and-file workers near the bottom of the totem pole. They planned their lives on promises repeated made about their pensions. No one told them in 1996 or 2000 their benefits would or could be unwound 10 years later. Just how would you make up 10 years of retirement planning?— January 25, 2009 8:02 p.m.
San Diego City Employees pension fund ailing
Here is another issue discussed at the SDCERS Board meeting...the PSE or pension service credits. First to be clear I believe they should only be allowed for people who have "broken" service with the city for military service ONLY as was the original intent of the ordinance. And they should never be used to reach the vesting requirements (i.e. work 5 years and purchase 5 years). I believe the board adopted new rules regarding their purchase. Now complex calculations must be made based upon salary, years of service already served and years until retirement eligibility. This will be done to make sure the purchase is cost neutral. Another positive sign was the new rules were adopted immediately so any new request to purchase credits after 1/23/09 must follow the new rules, there is no grace period. And, don't forget, new hires don't have the ability to purchase them period. So over time, this issue disappears through attrition anyway. Now back to pensions ... if SDCERS can make these complex calculations for purchase of service credits (PSEs), why can't it do the same for pensions? Johnny V, Mike Aguirre and that fellow in Orange County have alleged retroactive pension benefits from negotiated labor agreements are a gift of public funds and illegal. Others believe and have state here they are a negotiated benefit in lieu of actual pay raises, initiated by the City. Parts of this issue was resolved by court cases while other parts will probably take further court analysis to resolve the issues, but for the sake of this discussion let's say the courts agree they were improper. Isn't part of the solution to calculate pensions on by the years of service AND the plans in place for those years? Or, in other words, if an employee spent 10 years gathering pension credits under one set of rules and 20 more years under the current rules, then a hybrid pension would be calculated using the rules for the periods worked. Thus no gift of public funds, just the constitutionally guaranteed benefit earned? JF, DON, whatcha think?— January 25, 2009 8:12 a.m.
San Diego City Employees pension fund ailing
Don, I hope you have a chance to watch the SDCERS board discuss the DROP program and annuity payments along with the corresponding interest crediting rates. Here is the link to the video file on the board meeting: http://granicus.sandiego.gov/ViewPublisher.php?vi… just select video link to theJan 23rd meeting. The SDCERS actuary makes it very clear DROP in its current configuration is not cost neutral. And SDCERS is saddled with the risk, which means the plan sponsor and ultimately the taxpayers. However, what was more disturbing, was the Actuary's statement that the Board cannot make the program cost neutral, only the city has the power to do this. My take, the Board will decouple and lower the interest crediting rate for "active DROP" accounts to probably 4 to 4.75 percent from the current 7.75% or assumed rate of return. What's more interesting is the "decoupling" or in other words a new rate for the long term (20-30 year) annuity payments. If an employee chooses that option. If these chances are adopted at its February meeting, it sound as if they will be implemented on July 1, 2009, or the day after the System's "official" valuation. What will be interesting to watch, with about 1000 employees currently active drop participants, how many will leave for the new rates go into effect. Remember to keep in mind the City doesn't not pay into the retirement system for them. So if a third of them leave, AND the city hires replacements, it must also begin paying those benefits again. I thinks this relates to JF's complaints about the totality of cost neutrality and why his union wants an independent actuarial study. What are your thoughts?— January 24, 2009 2:22 p.m.
San Diego City Employees pension fund ailing
Why should economically struggling San Diegans raise their taxes merely to pay for public employee pensions that far exceed anything available in the private sector? ============================================== Because that's what they've secretly wanted for years. They all knew about Johnny V's insecurity complex, those deep seeded feeling of inadequacy, and his jealousies. They also knew he needed a venue, a his virtual soapbox, but it took time for Johnny to invent the Internet with Al Gore so he'd have a platform where someone, anyone, would listen to endless diatribe on the virtues of higher education versus those un or undereducated bumpkin who run our country to his utter frustration. Where is Fumbar with his wonderfully descriptive insights when we need them? I'm just wondering what he'd have to say about Bob Kittle's latest foray into San Diego politics, especially now that Kittle's favorite villain, Mike Aguirre, has left the house.— January 23, 2009 9:40 p.m.
San Diego City Employees pension fund ailing
WHO? I thought he was on first?— January 20, 2009 11:01 p.m.