Thanks for the lifetime health care benefit
Sometimes cutting corners to save money results in poor news reporting.
In today’s Register coverage of the June 21st Mission Viejo health care benefits vote they reported that “the lifetime benefits would cost the city $38,000 for Kelley and $40,000 for Ury. Those amounts, along with estimated interest earnings of 7.75 percent per year, would ‘generate sufficient funds to cover the total estimated payouts to the individual council members/employees over their retired lifetimes,’ according to a city report.”
I am disappointed that the OC Register representative failed to request a clarification on those figures from the city in that no one ever challenged the $250,000 estimate for this identical benefit when recalling mayor MacLean earlier this year. Reporters need to be bold when accepting, without questioning, the city’s “spin” reports.
The problem is that the average yield of our city investments is just below 4 percent.
Are we anticipating a return to the double digit hyperinflation days of president Carter?
If you set aside $40,000 as reported today, and were able to achieve that projected ROI for the next 20 years, it would result in $160,000 to $180,000 in cost to the taxpayers of our city. What happens to our outlay if we are unable to see that ROI?
The statement by Trish that she is “covered under her husband’s medical insurance policy” sends out a big red flag.
By rejecting the Motion to remove herself from the plan, Trish, who is 59 years of age, will continue to take the $825 per month, or $9,900 per year, compensation for this benefit which is placed into her tax deferred retirement fund. So at the end of ten years, in addition to all of her other stipends, she would pocket roughly $100,000 of taxpayer funds. While we do not know the cost of adding Trish to her husband’s insurance policy, it surely is not $825 per month.
However, the voters in Mission Viejo have the power to correct this self-serving vote by removing Trish Kelley in November.
Perhaps this benefit should be placed on a future ballot and let the voters decide if it is warranted.
As always reader comments are welcome.
PS: Mr. Willis. Copies of this post are being emailed to all named parties.
Note: I believe that Frank Ury is 46 years old.
Ms. Kelley has succeeded in turning a part-time council position into the equivalent of full-time employment with benefits. Get rid of her! She says in public that she has nothing else to do. Then voters should tell her in November that it is time for to go home and do nothing. The benefit to taxpayers is that they won’t have to continue paying her $825 a month, and she will stop voting to waste tax dollars on worthless crap like her idiotic words of the month.
You raise three important yet distinct issues: 1) the appropriateness this lifetime health benefit, 2) the motives of the current City Council, 3) the amount of the benefit conferred. Unfortunately Mr. Gilbert lumps these three issues together.
First, I completely agree that a lifetime benefit for City Council members is something I am against and I agree with Mr. GIlbert in that regard.
Second, it is my understanding that both Mayor Kelly and Council member Ury have signed waivers of that benefit. Mr. Gilbert is the one representing himself as a reporter, so I leave it to him to fact check this.
Finally, Mr. Gilbert attacks the amount of the benefit. Of note is the fact that Mr. Gilbert now says that the benefit is $160,000-$180,000. In the recall election Mr. GIlbert and the recall campaign claimed that the benefit was $250,000. Were you lying then or now Mr. Gilbert? I have seen no public actuarial analysis from anyone on this issue and if Mr. Gilbert wants to request that the City go through the expensive step of this analysis when no one who has not waived the benefit will be eligible for years to come, I leave that to Mr. Gilbert and his “conservative” conscience.
Geoff. Here you go again. Lying?
Irwin Bornstein provided the $258,000 LIFETIME BENEFIT figure to a council member last year. I had a finance person do a quick calculation in which the $160,000 to $180,000. number was based solely on 20 year window, not a lifetime.
Frank and Trish signed waivers? You need to check the current status of this item. As I did not see you at the June 21st council meeting did you happen to watch it on your computer? They BOTH voted NO to Cathy’s Motion to remove that perk. Simply turn on your computer and go to the city web site where you can see the Agenda as well as watch the entire meeting.
I’ll help you out. It’s item #24 and the 2-3 vote is recorded at 03.13
Read todays Register Commentary on pensions and health benefits. I will have more to say on this issue later.
In FU’s original agenda request he said his item would ‘HAVE OVERALL SAVINGS OF $410,000″. He said the city would realize an immediate benefit of $139,000 in the reduction of liability for unfunded retiree healthcare”. It was he that said it cost the city $10,800/yr.
Surely as an attorney, Mr. Willis understands that the ‘waiver’ he refer to is a dimestore political trick aimed at fooling the voters in November. If they were to get themselves a reallyt good attorney like Dan Joseph did, I am sure he could find a way to negate this document. Heck, the way our city adjudicates contracts (i.e. Mission Hospital sales tax), the could overlook their ‘promise’. The only thing that would stick is if they rescind the benefit like Cathy proposed. The same thing that I voted for in May of 2008! I voted to rescind this benefit for myself and others. It was they that brought it back and voted to keep it during a meeting that I was scheduled to be out of town. I could not argue my point,they and the CA just kept asserting that I ‘made them do it’. Sounds a little like Obama blaming everything on Bush.
I have been gone for 2 years. This dimestore politics has got to stop, and Dave needs to get his facts straight and vote with Cathy
Larry, you ought to read the Register. Ury and Kelly both signed off on the benefits last Friday, June 25th, 2010, as they had intended to do all along.
I have seen the document they signed and it is quite irrevocable.
There goes your story. No one is lining their pockets. But come the next council meeting Ury is making a motion to release communication between Reavis and staff, and tapes of Reavis in closed sessions talking about how she intends to take advantage of the benefits. I am sure you’re just as anxious to hear these tapes as the rest of us.
And tell your little friend Reavis that is the tip of the iceberg as to what is planned to come out. She’ll know what your talking about.
LBM.
You are an amateur when it comes to damage control.
“Ury and Kelly both signed off on the benefits last Friday, June 25th, 2010, as they had intended to do all along. ”
Why did they oppose Cathy’s request to remove the benefit at our last meeting?
They feel the heat and want out of the line of fire.
Furthermore, as our president has stated “just words” which in this case may not be enforceable should they each get elected one more time and reverse this current non enforceable game they are about to play.
The city attorney should look carefully into your statements. Those tapes are 3 years ago! I don’t remember everything that was said in that closed session, and I have been told that those tapes are locked up in Brea and it is dubious at best to think that any councilmember has had a refresher lately.
Again when he refers to ‘iceberg’ I have no idea what he is talking about. However, I do have my files which I do have a white paper written by our law firm that I am (according to the CA) legally bound not to disclose.
Once again LBM is repeating FU bully tactics. For all I know LBM could be Frank. It is his style to send others to do his dirty work.
I quit two years ago, yet Frank is still worried about me. Is he thinking I might run again? He really should worry about the city, the flood of empty store fronts and houses, the growing debt and shrinking reserves.
Like a good carnival magician, he just keeps directing your eyes to something inane so that you won’t notice that the ship is sinking. (your reference to an iceberg)
This is from Ury’s May 19, 2008 report to the council:
“If this Council each reaches the 12 years of service, and in round numbers each lives another 25 years or so, the savings going forward will be $10,800 x 25 years or $270,000. Taken together with the above savings, the overall savings to the City will be roughly $410,000.
This policy change will take effect immediately upon passing, and in addition will apply to any
current or future Council Member serving after the date of passage.”
DID. Thank you for saving me the time to dig this up for Mr. Willis.
For some reason he attacked my math when the bigger story was the abusive self interest of the benefit
By the way quite a few comments violated the Registers terms and conditions. And I bet they know who and someone can find out pretty easily.
LBM/Avery.
Nice try. Your friend Trish (and Frank) have an appreciation of the media and their critics. The Juice, Mission Viejo Dispatch and Missionviejoca.org blog readers have spread the word.
Recognizing that this self directed perk will be a major plank in the removal of Trish in Nov they have just rejected the lifetime health care benefit. Or so they say.
The first meeting in July will be very entertaining.
Folks. Out on a limb is Mission Viejo mayor pro tem Leckness who is caught up in this fight by supporting Trish and Frank while he would not be a recipient of the benefit. What does Dave do now after voting to keep the perk at our last meeting?
They have just thrown Mr. Leckness under the bus for their own protection.
The wisdom of this episode is simple. Be careful who you align yourself with when casting votes that become part of your political legacy.
Never letting the facts get in the way of your political agenda, the OJ Blog once again is spreading factually incorrect infomration in order to forward their dirty little character assassination scheme.
First, Pedroza lies about who was really behind the “odious” (now THAT was correct) Measure D, only to backtrack when he finds out its his own brothers in slime.
Now, Gilbert purposely alters the facts about these benefits. Everyone who read the OC Register over the weekend knows that Mayor Kelley and Frank Ury revoked their benefits: http://www.ocregister.com/news/benefits-255183-council-city.html
The upside of all this is that with every post, fewer and fewer people take this eRag seriously.
OJ Blog Pros at Spreading Misinformation,
And yet, here you are…
Blog pro.
Somehow I missed your accolades endorsing our blog.
1. While I recommended it in Larry’s Picks Larry Gilbert was not behind Measure D.
2. Lifetime health care for a part time job is pulling a bank job without handing the teller a note.
Each month we set aside roughly $1,000 for Trish in a deferred account. If she survives the Nov election and completes her third term in office Trish will end up taking $100,000 every decade from MV taxpayers without batting an eyebrow. It was only due to blog exposure that she and Frank have signed a worthless document, that I have yet to see, as a smoke screen.
As I said elsewhere. Stay tuned. The final chapter has yet to be read.
PS: Mayor Pro Tem Dave Leckness called me about an hour ago at which time I told him they threw him under the bus by their flip after he voted for them to retain this optional perk.
Avery? Not hardly. First you think I’m some guy named Bruckman or something. Now Avery? Ho ho. You guys guess as badly as you think.
Your “may not be enforceable” shows you’re guessing, or rather spreading non-facts. It’s just as easily “may be enforceable.” And in this case, it IS enforceable. I have read the document and will gladly share with all, but not on here. I’ll pick another blog. Perhaps Voice of OC.
Why did they vote against Cathy’s motion? Because it, like everything else that comes from her mouth, was stupid. She was willing to risk getting the city sued. I’d rather my council members didn’t risk getting the city sued. Clearly that doesn’t bother you, but then you are extremely reckless. But having the city sued bothers me and most of the folks in Mission Viejo. Having a council member actually sue the city and walk away with a 32 word “victory” also bothers us. What bothers us the most is that there are two years left in Cathy’s term. Or is there? You folks aren’t the only ones who can circulate petitions. And we won’t even have to lie about the danger Cathy poses to the city.
Slam dunk.
Little big man,
It doesn’t matter who you are, but you certainly share Avery’s surly attitude.
If you want to mount a recall of Cathy, go ahead. It is ironic given how much Avery decried the recall against MacLean. Whether or not you are Avery, it would be very funny to see Avery on street corners touting a new recall when he felt that the last one was so un-American…
If indeed Ury and Kelley are now against lifetime health benefits for Council Members it is because of Larry’s activism against that sordid waste of taxpayer money.
Larry,
For clarification – are you saying that you don’t believe that the revocation will have the full force and effect of law, or that you don’t believe that Trish and Mr. Ury will abide by the documents they signed? Also, according to the Register, the revocation included an agreement not to sue regarding any decision on the benefits, something I don’t believe Madame Mayor has signed to date.
I agree that the July meeting should be interesting and I look forward to your report on the documents that are hopefully revealed, regardless of their contents.
Newbie.
All I will add at this time is that the July 6th meeting will be very interesting. And we are not talking trash although that’s probably on the agenda. Stay tuned!
I couldn’t resist. You are saying that because you read it in the paper, it must be true. When the author’s best work is a restaurant review, and you have no political experience, here’s a lesson. Believe nothing you ‘hear’, believe half of what you ‘read’, and only some of what you see. Analyze, put things together, use that long forgotten trait of ‘common sense’ and then you might be on the right track. I said right track, you will never know all of the answers or the real truth.
Being on the council for 8 years only taught me that if I don’t know very much with all of the digging and questions, then you probably know nothing. Politics is never what it looks like on the surface. Sometimes what we say to the press is ‘paraphrased’ by the writer and then later some word we never said is brought back again and again as ‘truth’ because you saw it printed in the paper.
Maybe that’s part of the reason there are so few papers, there will be even less as the government takes over.
I’m saying that I haven’t seen the actual revocation, and until it’s proven otherwise, yes I believe it has a provision that includes a covenant not to sue. If that turns out to be inaccurate, then that will have an impact on my analysis of the import of the revocation. But there you go again Madame Mayor, refusing to address whether you have signed a similar covenant, which tells me all I need to know (despite the fact that I “know nothing” else.) By my count, you’re now the only one of the four who could have qualified for the benefits who hasn’t signed a revocation. Let’s hope the real truth (or as close to it as we can get according to you) comes out following the July Council meeting. It should be a fun month.
Aren’t LBM and Newbie Frank’s friends? At least one of them plans to run in November I hear. When Newbie talks about Frank’s ‘agenda item’,it begs the question, what is Frank telling people? Since the CA threatened me about divulging anything I learned or heard in closed session, or ‘confidential work’, I would hope that promise applies to all council members, past, present and future. Frank needs to button up.
If Frank gets his way, and they waive my rights, I certainly hope that they release the White Paper written by RWG’s last attorney. I would also like them to release the findings of the ‘ad hoc’ committee and their notes e-mails and minutes and schedule of all meetings, even if they were on the phone. Frank and TK huddled on this for nearly 9 months and never, ever reported what they were talking about. When it was clear that I was not running, the CA refused to talk with me and the City Manager had already stopped answering. The only way these people can get away with this is because they bully others and have their 3 votes.
Sort of like Congress and the Pres. Mr. O keeps blaming Bush for everything even though he has been gone for 2 years. Congress passes unpopular bills because they have the votes, today anyway.
I have been gone for 2 years. Frank needs to move on and do something for this city besides getting the CA lots of extra work $$$. He was supposed to get the YMCA renamed the MISSION VIEJO YMCA. That was part of the deal in my last year in order for them to get so much capital improvement work done on the property. Costs nothing and they had agreed to work with their board on it as soon as we completed our end. The city has been done for a long time, and Lance first campaigned on naming the Y after the city that is their benefactor. Was Frank going to wait to exploit this good will until he runs again?
Move on, there are serious things in this country and city and this is one horse you have beat to death.
I can’t speak for LBM, but I’ve spoken with Frank Ury a grand total of two or three times. I am friend’s with Geoff Willis, so perhaps that’s where the confusion came from. I looked at my single post on this matter and said nothing about “Frank’s ‘agenda item.'” In fact, I have not spoken to Mr. Ury about whatever action he plans on taking at the next Council meeting, and I have no information on the revocation of benefits that Trish and Mr. Ury signed beyond what I read in the OC Register’s story this morning. That story said something to the effect that Ury’s going to try to get the emails and tapes from closed session released re Madame Mayor’s statements related to the lifetime benefits issue. Personally, I’m for more disclosure, so if Madame Mayor has pertinent information she wants released that is related to the benefits issue, the-more-the-merrier. I can also clear up that I have no intention for running for City Council this year.
Newbie.
There are reasons for conducting Closed Session meetings. And while I am a strong advocate for transparency the fact that Mr. Ury wants to “selectively” release partial audio tapes is very cute. I believe that Gail has taken the position that it’s “all or nothing.”
How nice that Frank can count to three and violate her confidentiality as she would not have a say in the council decision to release said tapes. And we all wish to avoid the cost of future litigation in our city.
July 6th is right around the corner. As I have stated before. Stay tuned.
And you have no intention of running for MV city council this year. Based on our meeting I would agree that this is your position.
Are you tipping your hand that you will run against Frank in 2012?
Larry,
I have to admit, I have gotten a bit of the political bug and have had a delusional moment or two where I have considered a run for Council in the future – with several caveats, not the least of which is getting my better half to sign off, no easy feat indeed. To be clear, if I run in the future, I don’t intend to run against any individual, but rather for a seat on the Council to try to continue our City’s fine tradition of safety and family. But I digress since that is mere pie-in-the-sky at the moment. As for Mr. Ury’s action at the next meeting, I agree with Geoff that the City is constrained on what it can release from the Closed Session and it will weigh very heavily the consequences of such a decision. I understand from the Register’s story and Mr. Ury’s comments at the last Council meeting that there are also many emails to and from Mayor Reavis that may be sought as well as the Closed Session tapes. If those were not sent in relation to any Closed Session item, they would be public records available to all. And like I said, I’m for more disclosure so to the extent allowed by law, I hope the Council releases everything it can on this issue so the public can have all of the facts when making up its mind on the benefits issue.
Newbie.
To me its a no brainer. Gail Reavis was not recalled from office or defeated at the ballot box. She decided on her own not to seek a third term on our city council with full knowledge that by that inaction she would not be eligible for any pro rated benefit. This is a black and white policy. Eligibility is based upon 12 consecutive years or nada.
Just a clarifying note to Madame Mayor – the closed session privilege is for the benefit of the City NOT for you or any other council member past or present. It is the City’s to waive or maintain and the law on when things can be released or protected is pretty simple and clear and provides potential criminal and civil penalties if violated. I don’t think this one will be taken lightly or without significant consideration.
Mr. Willis.
This is not the traditional Closed Session requirement that every city includes on their Agenda’s.
When members of our city council violated the Brown Act, in verbally attacking John Paul Ledesma a few years ago in Closed Session, the court found the council majority guilty and imposed a two year mandate for taping all future Closed Session meetings. While that mandate elapsed, the city continued the practice which might make this a unique consideration.
However, there is no need to release any tapes at this point in time. What we all must do is simply enjoy the 4th of July holiday and attend the July 6th council meeting.
Mr. Willis; As I clearly explained, the CA threatened ME with litigation if I should disclose anything that was either confidential or closed session. If He is deciding to lift that threat, so be it. Fair is fair and I have 8 years of goodies. Me thinks they will not go that route, because as always, Frank and the CM will EDIT what I say to suit themselves, And, I doubt they will risk any further disclosure for themselves. Frank should be more grown up than this. He has only been on council for 6 years and he is bursting at the seams to tell everyone things that were confidential. If they were NOT confidential at the time, then the CA and CM broke the law by putting such issues on closed session and keeping the sunshine laws as hostage.
Interesting.
Mr. Willis; you are some sort of attorney! clearly you will not play by the rules if you run. When you enter a room, meeting etc, there are rules sometimes, and everyone who enters plays by those rules. If three bullies can change the rules to be what they want when they want, that should keep you attorneys very busy…
RWG makes lots of money from this dysfunctional council.
Madame Mayor,
The City Attorney advising you that disclosing protected information illegally was just correct legal advice – he would not have sued you, the District Attorney would have rightfully prosecuted or you would have been subject to civil penalties. Closed session is the only place that the City Council can talk to its attorney under the attorney/client privilege and the circumstances under which it can take place are strictly defined. However, a majority of the City Council can always decide to waive that privilege. I am a little confused as to why you would describe a majority of those sitting on the City Council as “three bullies” when you were part of the majority of the council that gave you the title “mayor.” I would be very careful of what you say in your posts because I know the law and its limits and value my professional reputation third only to God and my family. You wander beyond the limits of libel per se in your posts – anyone that has ever worked with or for me will tell you that I am a boy scout that always follows the rule of law personally and professionally.
You will indeed make a good politician. On the one hand, you agree that the CA was doing the right thing by keeping closed session private. Yet, in the next breath you say that a majority of three on the council can waive that right and my rights along with it. You are at least correst in that is how they do business, and unfortunately you are probably correct that they could use another avenue to quiet persons asking questions. It has been used rather successfully before to keep me out of meetings and ignore my e-mails (or letters or phone calls). You see, I learned a long time ago that the CA and CM do not work for the city council. They work for the majority of the council.
Yes I was Mayor and twice at that. I will not print here TK’s shenanigans behind the scenes. But as you will notice, she was always next in line. If you will check our history, you will learn that it was I and many of those who are disparaged now who recruited her to run when Frank ran out on a campaign had already started. I was one of her two endorsements, and wrote letters for her to the Fire Authority to get their endorsement, $3,000 in cash and lots of PAC money support. Frank, was my commissioner twice. I won’t use this column to give you those details. Suffice it to say they appear to be one thing when they want your support, money, vote and quite something else when they are in power.
Ah yes, but that is politics and one of the many reasons I quit. I do want to thank Larry Gilbert for spending so much time getting the truth out, while he has made some of the same mistakes I have in supporting the wrong people, he. Most of all, he keeps solid records, does more research than any reporter that I am aware of, and writes from a perspective of integrity. That is more than any of us can ask for since this is a work of passion and not profit.
Thank you Larry for sticking with this city and its dysfunctional history.
“Since the Guidelines are not mandatory rules of professional conduct, nor
rules of practice, nor standards of care, they are not to be used as an independent basis for disciplinary charges by the State Bar or claims of professional negligence.” – California Attorney Guidelines of Civility and Professionalism
ATTORNEY’S PLEDGE
I commit to these Guidelines of Civility and Professionalism and will be guided by a sense of
integrity, cooperation and fair play.
I will abstain from rude, disruptive, disrespectful, and abusive behavior, and will act with dignity,
decency, courtesy, and candor with opposing counsel, the courts and the public.
As part of my responsibility for the fair administration of justice, I will inform my clients of this
commitment and, in an effort to help promote the responsible practice of law, I will encourage other attorneys to observe these Guidelines.
Mr. Devil in the Details
The Scout Oath
On my honor I will do my best
To do my duty to God and my country
and to obey the Scout Law;
To help other people at all times;
To keep myself physically strong,
mentally awake, and morally straight.
The Scout Law
A Scout is Trustworthy, Loyal, Helpful, Friendly, Courteous, Kind, Obedient, Cheerful, Thrifty, Brave, Clean, and Reverent.
To Devil and Geoff.
Can we stay on the topic of the post? Please don’t have me delete these irrrelevant sidebars that add nothing to the debate. Our regular readers may not enjoy this inside baseball exchanges. Thank you!
Keeping Willis on topic is just not possible. Scattered thoughts reflect a scattered brain. Lot of luck Gilbert !!!
You’re right Laughing, Geoff doesn’t provide the same kind of insight and quality posts that you bring to the discussion. Keep up the good work!!!
OK. Newbie and Laughing at Willis.
If you would like to continue this discussion, that is not related to the post, can you kindly take it off line
My guess is that you both live in Mission Viejo. Perhaps you can get together at City Hall on Tue.