Cannot Pay Dick Price's Retirement Ultimate Cost Around Town, posted by TAX Payer, a resident of the Danville neighborhood, on Dec 29, 2012 at 7:56 pm
Sorry Dick, but the revelation as to what you will ultimately cost us has given me the sad feeling that the firefighters are in a path we cannot sustain. Do you not recognize this? Just curious how you and others in leadership feel about the unstainable path you have left us? We want to hear from you on this subject...and no nonsensene about PULSEPOINT...this is about the resposibility you had from a fiduciary standpoint on keeping us safe. One Hundred Bucks says he will not respond on this topic...Dick Price...Fire Board...what are you going to do? We are now aware of what your Board collusion has created...and don't be smug about obout our recourse!
Posted by re-engineer the service, a resident of the San Ramon neighborhood, on Jan 4, 2013 at 12:25 am
It isn't just the Chiefs compensation that is at issue. Literally 50% of the department is earning over 200k per year. This has all the makings of yet another "special district" fire department run AMOK while not thinking twice about gouging current & future tax paying residents.
Posted by Nepotism Supporter, a member of the Diablo Vista Middle School community, on Jan 5, 2013 at 8:22 pm
Jennifer Price is a sweet girl and I cannot believe she is a part of the fleecing of us...the firefighters are not really ripping us off...are they??? Board Members please respond...I hope our previous virtous view of the firefighters is not tarnished. Every time we see them at Lunardi's buying food at 2:00 P.M. will now piss me off. We are now aware of your rigging the system. Shame on you all...!!
Posted by Policy of Truth, a resident of another community, on Jan 15, 2013 at 4:39 pm
It sounds to me like a few posters here have been misled by the rumor mill and/or the CCTimes. Time to start paying attention to the facts.
Dan Borenstein’s Crusade Against Public Pensions Gets the Best of Him and Misleads Readers
January 12, 2013
Dan Borenstein is one of the few columnists that understands many of the complexities of public pensions but his personal bias and crusade against public employee pensions once again got the best of him, thus misleading your readers, in his January 11 column (“CalPERS planning to gut a key cost-control provision of new pension law”).
He attacks CalPERS preliminary interpretation of the new pension law that went into effect January 1 and the types of compensation that can be used toward calculating pensions. Contrary to Borenstein’s snide comment that CalPERS operates “in a parallel universe,” our interpretation of this provision is the agreed upon intent of those who wrote, passed and signed the bill into law. What he neglects to tell readers – a fact which CalPERS explicitly shared with him during multiple attempts to try to help him get the facts straight, which he nevertheless failed to do – is that during the legislative process, CalPERS worked with the legislative committee consultants to answer their questions and enable them to write the bill according to their intent. They agree that the intent was to eliminate some special compensation but not all of it. Further, as we prepared our preliminary interpretation in recent weeks, we based it on conversations with officials in the legislature and the administration. In spite of Borenstein’s most fervent personal desires, the legislature’s intent was never to limit pension calculations to base pay only. Additionally, CalPERS will seek broad public input on the issue of compensation before any interpretations or regulations are finalized.
Borenstein’s view that our interpretation of the law will lead to pension spiking is both shortsighted and wrong. The abuse of pension spiking, by significantly increasing an employee’s base pay in the final year of their career, has been addressed in changes CalPERS instituted years ago for public agencies and school employees. In fact many of the items specifically called out in the new legislation have not been reportable to CalPERS. Pension spiking is also addressed in the new law through a cap on compensation that can be used to calculate a new member’s pension as well as requirements to use the average of an employee’s highest salary over three years of their career for public agencies and schools.
Lastly, Borenstein is again wrong when he condescendingly claims that CalPERS “absurd interpretation of the new law will … erode untold billions of dollars of savings that … CalPERS previously claimed the new law would produce.” The only absurd interpretation here is Borenstein’s complete ignorance or disregard of what CalPERS actually said in our cost analysis of the bill. CalPERS never claimed that the restrictions on what is included in pensionable compensation would result in significant savings, let alone “untold billions.” Instead, CalPERS wrote in our cost analysis: “We have not reviewed or been able to assess the potential impact of any such changes. To the extent that savings are realized as a result of additional restrictions on pensionable compensation, the savings will be greater than quoted in this analysis.”
CalPERS is committed to implement and administer the laws as they were enacted. Borenstein has done nothing more than rush to judgment and yell fire. If his readers believe his rhetoric, they will likely only get burned by the misinformation.
Posted by CalPERS Crooks, a resident of the San Ramon neighborhood, on Jan 15, 2013 at 7:33 pm
Dan Borenstien gets it right and CalPERS, as well as the county pension fund managers, get it wrong. CalPERS is one of the most crooked and corrupt organizations in the state. It should come as little surprise that those benefiting the most from this organizations fleecing of taxpayers are the public employee unions. It should also come as little surprise that the CalPERS Board of Directors is dominated by former public employee union leaders.
CalPERS need to be overhauled and neutered before they help destroy the state, and drive even more cities & counties into bankruptcy. This organization has transformed itself from a public employee union pension fund manager into a corrupt organization which provides political cover and financial muscle to the unions. And they are very engaged in the process of screwing the taxpayers, as Dan Borensteinn points out.
Posted by Policy of Truth, a resident of another community, on Jan 16, 2013 at 10:09 am
@ CalPERS "crooks",
Sorry Charlie but the facts and all experts state otherwise. Not only did Borenstein get it wrong, but CalPers exceeded returns projections DESPITE of Dan Borenstein and Kris Hunt's doom and gloom projections. Claiming that a return of 7.5 percent was unrealistic. Since you appear to be fond of relying on newspapers as your source of information you might want to read and weep;
"According to the Sacramento Bee, the big pension fund said Monday it earned a 13.3 percent profit on its portfolio in calendar 2012.
That’s significantly higher than the California Public Employees’ Retirement System’s official investment forecast of 7.5 percent."
Personally I would rather trust financial experts and those that administer multi BILLION dollar funds, than a journalist with a chip on his shoulder who suffers from a severe case of pension envy. But that's just me.
Maybe you should be looking into Mr. Borensteins qualifications when it comes to comprehending finance and economics. Just a thought....
Posted by San Ramon Observer, a resident of the San Ramon neighborhood, on Jan 19, 2013 at 12:42 pm San Ramon Observer is a member (registered user) of Danville Express
Read my interview of Richard Price to find some answers to your questions. Web Link
Price's pension is prorated based on years of service in different districts. Since most of his service, 27 years, was in San Mateo County, they will shoulder most of the pension costs. San Ramon Valley Fire Protection District is responsible for about $45K a year of Price's pension.