Moorlach Wants To Put Future County Pension Increases To Voters
Posted by: Jubal | 07/15/2008 1:27 PM
Peggy Lowe reports over at Total Buzz that Sup. John Moorlach wants to place on the ballot an charter amendment requiring future county pension increases to be approved by the voters. Peggy's post contains the text of the proposed amendment.
Cassie DeYoung proposed this during her super-expensive 5th District supervisor campaign in 2006. Although I opposed DeYoung, I supported the idea.
Now I'm not so sure.
I think it would be effective in keeping a lid on pension and benefit increases for county employees. It's more difficult for unions to influence an electorate of 1.5 million than an electorate of 5 (although it should be noted that the present Board of Supes is unlikely to be a push-over for dramatic increases), voters will tend to be less generous with the public treasury.
But as I've been a strong opponent of ballot-box zoning, it's difficult to embrace ballot-box budgeting. We elect supervisors to deal with these issues, not to have them kicked back to us. It encourages a trend toward taking truly important matters out of the hands of elected officials, which begs the question of why we have them in the first place.
I support the goal of this charter amendment -- putting a brake on pension increases -- but I'm not sold on the means. I'll be interested in digesting the arguments on this one.
Cassie DeYoung proposed this during her super-expensive 5th District supervisor campaign in 2006. Although I opposed DeYoung, I supported the idea.
Now I'm not so sure.
I think it would be effective in keeping a lid on pension and benefit increases for county employees. It's more difficult for unions to influence an electorate of 1.5 million than an electorate of 5 (although it should be noted that the present Board of Supes is unlikely to be a push-over for dramatic increases), voters will tend to be less generous with the public treasury.
But as I've been a strong opponent of ballot-box zoning, it's difficult to embrace ballot-box budgeting. We elect supervisors to deal with these issues, not to have them kicked back to us. It encourages a trend toward taking truly important matters out of the hands of elected officials, which begs the question of why we have them in the first place.
I support the goal of this charter amendment -- putting a brake on pension increases -- but I'm not sold on the means. I'll be interested in digesting the arguments on this one.
CATEGORY:
At The Trough, The 5th Floor
Jubal, that is one of the best analyses I have read describing Sheriff Hutchens flawed CCW policy. She...
Tell me why the Supervisors have a job? Aren't they supposed to do SOMETHING?
And how do you think it will stop anything? all the unions have to do is get out enough voters and BINGO! of course then the supes can say "We had nothing to do with it" leave us alone - you did it!
Paul: The game is called "Pass the Buck." You play it using a game piece with which you know you will never win. Sheriff Hutchens tried her hand at it recently at a Police Chiefs meeting by announcing that the sheriff's department would refer applications for CCW's to the applicant's respective city's police chief. The chiefs, however, ruined the game for her by not accepting the 'buck'. They have always had a policy where any CCW applications are automatically referred to OCSD. Perhaps she should have consulted with a few of them before trying to launch her richocheting game piece....
Orange County is broken, in part for the same reason California is broken, in part for the same reason the country is broken: Earmarks and Parasites:
Bureaucrats want to do enough to take a comfortable early retirement, whereas management’s focus is the next political race or the next promotion.
In addition to outsourcing a good number of manufacturing jobs, the US has outsourced a good number of technology jobs, and now more damning is the outsourcing of energy.
Even certain security functions are outsourced to companies such as Blackwater.
So, we say forget about the 3%-50 debate and outsource as much of public safety as possible to a company such as Blackwater.
This is a Board that is constantly looking at their own political futures instead of accepting the responsibility that the citizens of OC have charged them with. It is easier to punt than take responsibility. The Board is in total control of the benefits it approves; if Board members vote against the benefit it cannot be implemented. Moorlach and his ilk haven't seen their names or pictures in the paper enough lately, so another half-baked idea is floated. The taxpayers will pay for free publicity for some politicans over a completely unecessary issue which they already have absolute and ultimate power to decide.
Are we gonna be stuck with the costs for the special calls to vote on these things? Well those times coinside with other issues? And if not who is going to go vote on them? Besides the employees and their families? This whole issue stinks
So for a primary vote with a turnout of 25% and a county wide issue 98 -- it failed --- So what happens on a non primary vote, over something that no one will understand, and most wil not care about. Will we even get 10% out to the polls? And how many of those will be the ones directly effected by the vote?
Pass the buck is not what this is, it is deep @#$!
=============================================================
Orange County
Statewide Direct Primary Election
June 3, 2008
Total Registered Voters 1,566,951
Precinct Registration 1,566,951
Precinct Ballots Cast 109,980 7.0%
Early Ballots Cast 1502 0.1%
Vote-by-Mail Ballots Cast 224,632 14.3%
Total Ballots Cast 336,114 21.5%
-------------
Democratic
Total Registered Voters 488,703
Precinct Registration 488,703
Precinct Ballots Cast 36,523 7.5%
Early Ballots Cast 512 0.1%
Vote-by-Mail Ballots Cast 65,851 13.5%
Total Ballots Cast 102,886 21.1%
----------------------
Republican
Total Registered Voters 718,949
Precinct Registration 718,949
Precinct Ballots Cast 60,913 8.5%
Early Ballots Cast 752 0.1%
Vote-by-Mail Ballots Cast 128,399 17.9%
Total Ballots Cast 190,064 26.4%
----------------------------------
Total 1,566,951 Dems/Reps votes cast 292,950 19%
98 - EMINENT DOMAIN. LIMITS ON GOVERNMENT AUTHORITY. - Non-Partisan
Completed Precincts: 2078 of 2078
Vote Count Percentage
Yes 160155 49.2%
No 165348 50.8%
---------------------------------------------------------
So what happens if/when AOCDS pays some political consultant to run a "yes on public safety pension benefits" campaign that gets a majority vote? Will the BOS be obligated to vote for the increase? If not aren't they bucking the will of the voters?
California is rife with initiatives that line the pockets of special interests. Whose to say it can't happen here?