According to a fairly intelligent man named Albert Einstein, “Insanity” is defined as doing something over and over again and expecting different results; I’m not certain what inspired Albert Einstein to come up with that definition but maybe he saw the future, for example all the loony actions (and inactions) of the Irvine City Council. Time and again, the Council has reverted to its world-famous “Ostrich’s head in the sand” act when it comes to facing the ever-ballooning cost of public employee pensions.
However, one member, Mayor pro-tem Jeff Lalloway, recently issued a memorandum to the Council and his minions, explaining the reasoning behind his decision not to ratify the latest generous proposed employee contracts while also urging his fellow council members to follow suit. Given all the bickering with his minions, his appeal will probably fall on deaf ears.
Granted, it can be tough to scan through a Jeff Lalloway letter – having survived one, I recommend a strong pot of coffee on the side. There’s a lot of Jeff’s political babble to dig through, including his patronizing “I have the utmost respect and regard for all of those who work for the city.” Sort of like the way movie mobsters pre-empt put-downs with “No disrespect intended, but you’re a real pain in my #/%@!”
Admittedly Lalloway makes some very good points here: the rising burden of paying for generous public pensions is simply too much to ignore any longer and something needs to be done, whether it be cutting the workforce, cutting future pension agreements, or raising taxes, which, let’s be honest, are already ridiculous enough, let’s be honest. He makes mention of past “smoke-and-mirror” tactics used by the Council to give the appearance of doing something about the problem, one being where employees agreed to fund a higher percentage of pensions themselves, only to receive a raise as compensation… which will in turn drive up future pension costs!!! My head hurts.
The only real drawback to Lalloway’s essentially sensible memo was that he didn’t deliver these words in person… maybe one of his diminishing flock of followers needed babysitting. I wonder how many members of the council bothered to even read the document, since it doesn’t seem they’re fond of bothering to do ANYTHING.
Ultimately city employee pensions need to come down to earth – during this current recession, private-sector benefits have virtually become a relic of the past and compensation has struggled to stay level; meanwhile, public-sector pay and benefits have continued to intensify and spiral out of control like a tsunami! Now I’m not a left-of-center progressive bloviating that everyone needs to suffer equally… It would just be nice if the City Council one day shook hands with Mr. Common Sense, or at least sent him a Facebook friend request! Look at it this way… you keep making the same amount of money (tax revenue)… you keep spending more and more money (enough to keep public retirees rolling in liniment and slot-machine pulls until they’re 250)… how is the city not going to go bankrupt?
Of course, you could just keep borrowing and borrowing, delaying that burden further into the future but you know what that makes you? Really detrimental to our kids future! Let’s put it another way… you want to buy a bunch of brand-new BMW’s for all your friends but can’t afford it… so you accept the dealer’s crazy offer to place the charges on your 8-year old son’s future credit card! Sure, Junior will be able to afford it… as long as he gets a public-sector job, since private-sector jobs (jobs where revenue is actually created, believe it or not) will likely have fallen into extinction from exhaustion.
Ms Irvine
Could you please provide some facts of how “generous” the Irvine’s city employees contract is? I am having a conversation with Irvine resident, Mr Chmielewski on another issue, and I noticed his article on the subject you are covering here. He makes a compelling argument that the contract is a sensible one.
http://www.theliberaloc.com/2013/08/15/councilman-lalloway-disrespects-irvine-city-employees-council-ignores-him-and-approves-contracts/
Ricardo, for the complete Information / Link please visit:
http://californiapublicpolicycenter.org/irvine-california-city-employee-compensation-analysis/formation
The California Public Policy Center (CPPC) “Irvine, California – City Employee Compensation Analysis, April 8, 2013”, provides a complete breakdown of Irvine employees, their compensation and benefits including the dreaded PENSIONS!
My dear friend Dan and I do not see eye to eye on this particular subject. I do however respect his reasoning and his argument on the subject matter.
Take care, Katherine
Do you have another source that is not a biased propaganda mouthpiece run by Mark Bucher( Righeimers Brother in law)?
Ironically, Lalloway, who is the Valkyrie’s great rival in Irvine, is a charter member of the Righeimer-Bucher clique. But the Valkyrie does share that clique’s (I feel) exaggerated anti-public-pension views.
Thanks. I will read it later today.
“Jeff Lalloway, recently issued a memorandum to the Council and his minions, explaining the reasoning behind his decision not to ratify the latest generous proposed employee contracts while also urging his fellow council members to follow suit.”
If that was before the vote it’s a Brown Act violation.
What’s your rationale for that conclusion?
It’s a attempt to reach a decision through communication with a majority of the council.
Had he simply indicated his own decision that might be different. The urging thing is problematic (and it very easily could have, perhaps did lead to prohibited serial meetings).
I’d need to see case law suggesting that the distinction between “indicating one’s own decision” — for which I would presume some rational is allowed — and “urging” is the line one cannot cross. Doesn’t seem right to me.
I hold no brief for Jeff Lalloway (except that he does seem like the kind of guy I’d have a beer with, which is more than I could say for many of his stripe), but the scope of the Brown Act does lend itself to exaggeration. This is one of those cases where I’d likely be more willing to offer a legal conclusion if I weren’t a lawyer.
The Brown Act prohibits communication the purpose of which is to reach a majority consensus.
The very act of issuing a memo in the first place simply to pronounce one’s position is pretty iffy, especially once he starts citing his reasons. To attempt persuasion of a majority of one’s colleagues is not permitted. You don’t need to be a lawyer to get that.
Of course I have no idea if Lalloway did any of those things.
Maybe it helps to be a lawyer to know when it’s useful to look things up.
I don’t think that you present the intent of the act accurately. Here’s the preamble, per Wikipedia:
This seems to be more about avoiding opacity and secrecy than about keeping a judicial level silence about the fact and basis of one’s own intentions. Like I said, I could be convinced, but I’d have to see case law.
Wikipedia’s entry also says:
This leads me to suspect that the case law is, alas, less favorable than you suggest.
I’ve never heard of anyone even being prosecuted for violating the Brown Act.
BTW, I’ve actually been on numerous commissions covered by the Brown Act.
I never said Lalloway would or even could be prosecuted. I simply said he might have violated it. Big difference.
P.S. My guess is that I’ve looked up as much stuff in the various California Codes as you have.
Sounds like you’ve probably looked up more. My guess is that I’ve looked up more NY Codes, though.
I’m educating myself on this topic. The Act does have a misdemeanor provision; it’s a shame if it never gets used.
I’m not taking this personally, because as a left-of-left-of-center progressive I think that the wealthy need to suffer more. But I am sad to have to inform you that by using any form of the word “bloviate” here you now owe the Weekly a licensing fee.
Greg my dear friend, I simply can’t argue with that.
“I’m not taking this personally, because as a left-of-left-of-center progressive I think that the wealthy need to suffer more.”
Greg, my dearest of friends, you know that Richard and I have admired your wisdom, and you witty writing style for even longer than we have valued you as a face-to-face friend, often finding ourselves rather horrified by the idea that a liberal could speak with such common sense, it truly blew all of our ability to enjoy those stereotypes of liberal idiots running wild, juiced up on party agendas and spin. Indeed there are times that I am forced to admit that you make more sense than the Republicans I generally follow, and you have no idea the mess it makes in my kitchen when my head explodes at that.
But this…..this statement of yours that the rich should suffer more, makes me CRAZY!!!! Are you kidding me? So an entire segment of the population should suffer for the horrific crime of having more than someone else? If you pigeon holed anyone else in this way you would be characterized as “whatever-phobic or -ist” you lumped people into, but somehow it is OK to bash the wealthy, white men, and Christians. Stay at home moms and homeschoolers often fit in there too. WTF Greg?
Define wealthy for me. Is it based on geography vs demographics? Because according to the data on my census tract, Richard and I make twice as much as our neighbors based on median household income (oddly enough our educational level is also significantly higher, which nobody ever seems to want to discuss when dealing with wealth vs poverty) and yet you have seen our hovel-like abode, nobody in their right minds outside of our area would call us rich white folk. So how does one define that? Do you get to pick who “suffers more”?
ARRGHH! You had such promise, Greg, indeed there were days when Richard and I forgot you were even a lefty. I suggest you rethink that statement if you want to see that artichoke dip again in this lifetime, sir.
BTW-yes if Lalloway projected his preference for certain deal points on what should be a closed session decision BEFORE the vote I believe it to be a Brown Act violation, but then I am not a lawyer, and apparently my favorite lawyer has lost his mind to the cult of socialism and the redistribution of wealth. Sigh….
Folks. there is only one thing worse than a power hungry politican. Ok, you may ask, “What is it?” It is a power hungry politican who lies out of both sides of his mouth at the same time. Enter center stage Irvine Council Member Jeff Lalloway and his recent post on Pension Costs. He whines, “over his objections” yet, Lalloway sat in closed sessions with the City Labor Negotiatiors for four moonths and never once opened his mouth to voice any of the concerns he presented in his rambling commentry. On several occasions Lalloway became angry and stormed out of the room like a little kid having a temper tantrum. Things are not what Jeff Lalloway paints them out to be. If the truth be known about Lalloway, he is directly cut from the same cloth as his BFF, Jim Righeimer a Costa Mesa Coucnil Member who has also created chaos in their city. Both are rabid anti-union Republicans and bound and determined to break the backs of the employee groups. Lalloway fails to have Council support to turn Irvine into a battleground, so he resports to fits of temper instead. One of the Contracts Lalloway refused to show up to vote on at the last meeting was with the Police. That contract, over a two year period has the City moving from making the full pension contrbution, to Officers paying their full 9% share. The City Merit Pay System was also scaled down to decrease annual performance increases employees receive. Council Member Shea and Mayor Choi recently proposed and had passed a creative plan to pay off the City unfunded pension liability in ten years. That in itself is a major feat of fiscal responsibility and will save the City millions of dollars in the long term. It was noted that Lalloway provided no input or participation in that proposal as well. Bottom line friends, Jeff Lalloway is out of control, failing to do his job on the Council, then compounding it by lying to the people he works for. The Citizens of Irvine will need to determine if this is the type of representation they want in the future and vote accordingly.
My tongue was slightly in cheek in phrasing that as I did, Cynthia — but I am a redistributionist (not to the point where I think one would fairly call it “socialism”), so let me get to defending the view.
In the comment to which I replied, Katherine was talking about money; “Suffer” in that context means “pay.” I do think that the rich should pay more — that is, contribute a higher proportion in taxation and fees — for public goods and services. And worse: I mean that not only in real dollars, but as a proportion of their income.
Don’t be too scandalized; that’s just another way of saying that I believe in progressive taxation. Not only do I think that it is good for the collective economy and social fabric, but also for the individual soul — a concern that you and I (more fashionably in your circles than in mine) share. But more on that in a bit.
People need a certain amount of wealth — and by all means, for these purposes let’s toss in the social benefits of pensions and health care and roads and safety — for them to survive in an industrialized society. Below a certain level of resources, they will tend to become either slaves or thugs, on the one hand, or thieves and whores on the other.
Nobody likes thievery, except for some, in cases where their pecuniarily or vicariously profit from it — but arguably our society is ordered so to produce an ample number of desperate slaves, prideful thugs, and obliging whores to serve those with wealth. (Lawyers and lobbyists, at their worst, may qualify as thugs and thieves and whores. This needn’t be taken over-literally.) That’s part of why the still-growing maldistribution of wealth in our society is so bad. Most of what you and I fight together is against enslavement (which can include both physical violence and taxation at a sufficiently oppressive level by thugs and thieves.
We fight, in part, against oppression and misery. But we’re OK with a certain amount of dissatisfaction and unpleasantness, if it comes along organically, to help keep people motivated. I believe that success based on merit should be rewarded, which makes me a pretty lousy socialist, but not over-rewarded, especially with funds from the commonweal.
Now let’s say that the wealth that someone needs to live a lawful life that affords the prospect of upward social mobility for their children is $25,000/year for a family of four. (“Lawfully” includes not breaking local ordinances by shoving twelve people into an apartment for four, in which they can sleep in shifts, so that they’re close enough to serve their paymasters while the authorities look the other way.) That money, ideally, should not be taxed at all. Nor, probably, should some portion of money beyond that, to give people who do work an advantage over people who do. Let’s call that level $40,000/year, just because we need a number.
Now let’s add to that the marginal utility of money. How much is an additional $1000 worth to someone? If it’s a starving family with an income (in exchange for work or not) of $10,000 per year, it’s going to be an incredible boon. If it’s a family with an annual income of $40,000, it’s a serious benefit. At $100,000, it’s not negligible. At $250,000, it nice to have, but as much for reasons of sport as need.
At $1,000,000, it’s negligible. That doesn’t mean that one doesn’t want it or can’t figure out a way to spend it — gold-foil wrapped truffles don’t come cheap, after all — but it’s just not worth as much to you. That, in essence, is the moral argument for progressive taxation: tax people so that the marginal utility of the money they pay in taxes is at least roughly comparable. A billionaire may rail against taxes on principle, but there’s just no way that the amount of taxes paid by a family making $50,000/year is disrupting his or her life, as part of his or her tax load, as it is for the family of that income itself. So, with increased wealth should come a progressively higher tax rate.
Now, if we’re going to exempt the first $40,000/year of income from taxation, and then phase in taxation at a higher rate (which will not nearly equalize the marginal value of the $1000 increments paid in taxed by the rich versus the working class), then who’s going to “suffer” more? The rich will suffer more! And they should — because they’re not really “suffering” at all. Their cry crocodile tears, not tears of deeply felt pain at being unable to provide for a family.
Now — since it’s you I’m talking to — let’s bring in religion (and civil society.)
One of the huge problems we have in our society is that it has become so easy for the “haves” to take money at the expense of the “have nots.” (I don’t think that I need to provide you with examples.) Lawyers, lobbyists, and lawmakers have greased those skids. The result is that we have a fetishization of earning, a concept well-aired by Thorstein Veblen a century ago, in his writings about conspicuous consumption and the leisure class.
I’m not a Christian, but I’m a big admirer of the ethical philosophy of my ethnic homeboy (if you’ll pardon the familial endearment) Yeshua ben Yosef; although it’s way too radical for me to put into practice entirely, I try to do my best. And from that perspective, the cancerous growth of the power of Mammon in our society is a spiritual disaster. How do we keep people on track? Well, one thing that we want are social norms as to what is acceptable and what isn’t. We need taboos.
That’s supposed to be the cry of religious conservatives, right? But we’ve allowed religious figures themselves to be at the forefront of mainstreaming true perversity — not equal rights for gays and woman and minorities, but the abject disdain for the spiritual and physical health of our fellow beings — into our culture. And such selfishness leads to more selfishness, disdain leads to more disdain, until the ability to acquire more and more wealth to the detriment of others itself becomes a sacrament.
That’s not just sick — it’s SOUL-sick. We see it in too many of the children of our wealthy and wannabes. I don’t offer a jeremiad against materialism per se — it is pretty clear from the example of the Soviet Union that that doesn’t work — but I do feel justified in screaming for some BALANCE and RESTRAINT and SENSE OF PERSPECTIVE. And yeah — that means that when you’re earning a high enough income, a larger portion of it should go to ease the lives — abate the misery and expand the opportunity — of those around you.
In economic terms, “the rich should suffer more.” And they, and we all, will be the better for it.
(Still hoping to be your good friend! Seriously, we should take this debate on the road.)
P.S. No, you ain’t rich, you’re just reasonably comfortable — but you know people who are unreasonably wealthy. Are they materially or spiritually better off for it? If not, don’t cry for them; they’ll cry enough for themselves — until they wise up.