Righeimer Stiffs His Own Lawyer?
HUGE NEWS FROM THE OC WEEKLY!
As I was finally finishing my entry about last night's council meeting and hitting the "publish" button two friends forwarded me the link to R. Scott Moxley's article in the OC Weekly today about our self-appointed fiscal watchdog and pontificater-in-chief, Jim Righeimer, stiffing his own lawyers! You can read it HERE.A LOT TO CHEW ON
Moxley, arguably the best investigative reporter working in Orange County these days, has given us a lot to chew on in his piece. I'll let you read it yourselves instead of trying to paraphrase it inaccurately. Heck, I don't want Righeimer's lawyer buddy, Mark Bucher, to send me another letter, now do I?
SHOCKER, BUT NOT SURPRISING
This is astounding news, but quite honestly, it doesn't surprise me at all. Anyone who has been reading here for the past few years knows I don't hold Righeimer in high regard. As I've said many times, I just don't trust the guy. This story will give every resident of Costa Mesa a reason to take pause when you hear him speak. It should make you question every action he takes.HOW CAN WE TRUST HIM?
How can we, the residents of this city, be expected to trust this man and his judg
ment with this kind of a situation hanging over his head? How can we be expected to follow his lead with the bogus outsourcing scheme he and Gary Monahan cobbled together at Monahan's gin mill? How can we trust this man with the responsibility of creating, single-handedly, the Charter he plans to put before the voters in June that will be the cornerstone of municipal governance henceforth?WHAT'S IN IT FOR HIM?
How can we not ask ourselves, "What's in it for him?", every time he proposes something in our city? When he tells us, as he did a week ago, that we're going to have to solve our "motel" problem by buying them and selling them at a loss (of municipal funds) to developers, how do we not ask that question above? How can we trust this guy?THANKS, GUSTAVO AND MOX...
Thanks to Scott Moxley and the OC Weekly for this enlightening story. I'm sorry, but I just have to post that little video clip from my previous entry again - it's too perfect!
Labels: Jim Righeimer, OC Weekly, Scott Moxley
posted by The Pot Stirrer at 2/08/2012 07:03:00 PM
53 Comments:
Seriously?
Righeimer says that the corporate entity that retained the lawyer is responsible for the attorneys fees, not him personally. A private arbitrator, not a judge, heard this dispute.
This is why people form corporations, LLCs, partnerships, etc - to shield themselves from personal liability. It is Business 101. When you ran your own business, what form of corporate entity did you use?
Grow up.
This is a non-issue, and your rabid hyperventilation is hilarious and sadly par for the course.
Being a corporation does not absolve you from paying debts owed. Maybe you should stop believing Righeimer's spin on this.
If anyone should grow up, you should.
Geoff just reports the news as he receives it and gives an opinion. It is his blog after all. Sorry if the truth hurts your feelings.
LOL, CALM DOWN... so basically you are saying Righeimer skipping out on a bill is okay because he formed an LLC to shield him from said bill that he racked up? A non issue? A NON ISSUE!!!!!!! They don't teach ethics or paying your bills in Business 101????? Oh, wait corporations are people now so pay up Righeimer... crook.
Of course this pot-bellied pig stiffed his own lawyer, he's a typical slim-ball local politician. Good one Riggy, way to show your flock how good a leader you can be.
Shill "Calm Down" wrote:
"A private arbitrator, not a judge, heard this dispute."
Me:
Liar. According to the OC Weekly story the arbiter is a retired judge. Once a judge always a judge.
Shill:
"This is why people form corporations, LLCs, partnerships, etc - to shield themselves from personal liability."
Me:
Liar. They form such entities to shield themselves from outside liabilities, not those they hire to represent them.
But let's say you're right. If so, then did Riggy form the entity to shield himself from the bill from these lawyers? If so, as an elected official he needs to tell us why.
Shill:
"This is a non-issue.."
Me:
Wrong. It's a MAJOR issue. Do we want elected officials who don't pay their own bills, if that is what the arbitration decision says occurred here?
Do we want an elected official judging our employees' jobs and compensation, and voting on our city's contracts when a court judgment (what a binding arbitration award often becomes) might be saying he breaches his own contracts?
Do we want an official who ironically is involved in running up six figure legal bills for our city when he allegedly doesn't pay his own?
You calm down. Better yet: Tell your master to STEP DOWN.
In numerous press opportunities Jerry Kern Councilmember in Oceanside gloated how their recently passed charter had already saved their city money by not using prevailing wage contractors on the project below. With the delays and increased costs one has to wonder about how would one of the other bidders fared. They appear to still be under the staff estimate made years ago but factor in a universal drop in construction costs and who knows it may have been better to not go with the lowest bidder at this point.
Also how late is this project today?
OCEANSIDE: Harbor project left unfinished when contract goes out of business
By RAY HUARD rhuard@nctimes.com | Posted: Saturday, October 15, 2011 7:00 pm | (10) Comments
Construction has halted on a partially completed building at the Oceanside Harbor because the Los Angeles-based contractor has gone out of business. JOHN KOSTER | For the North County Times
Related Stories
OCEANSIDE: Construction resumes on harbor project
Construction of a $2.1 million equipment storage building in Oceanside Harbor has halted because the Los Angeles contractor hired by the city has gone out of business.
"We have a big, half-built project over there," city harbor and beaches director Frank Quan said.
SMC Construction notified the city earlier this month that it was closing its doors and wouldn't be able to finish the 6,000-square-foot building, city project manager Nathan Mertz said.
"What we're seeing is, basically, the contractor is no longer in business; they left the site," Mertz said.
A rear wall of the building has been finished, as has much of the foundation work. But the site was abandoned last week, with plastic sheeting draped over steel beams rising out of the ground to form a skeleton for the rest of the building.
Other construction material was scattered over the site, which is near the harbor boat launch ramps, and a trailer was parked to one side of the site.
Mertz said the contractor posted a $3.5 million bond on the project, which will be used to finish construction.
The city is in negotiations with Fidelity and Deposit Co. of Maryland, which issued the bond, Mertz said.
Fidelity will bring in a new general contractor to oversee the project and it will be up to the general contractor to rehire subcontractors who had been working on the project.
Meanwhile, the partially finished building is a blot on the picturesque harbor, said Jim Jenkins, a member of the city Harbor & Beaches Advisory Committee and commodore of the Oceanside Yacht Club.
"I hope it gets moving. It doesn't look good," said Jenkins, who also is a yacht broker.
Paul Gadbois, who publishes a harbor newsletter, said he's concerned that the exposed rebar and steel beams could be damaged as long as the building remains unfinished.
"The potential for major damage is there," Gadbois said. "Moisture is always around at the beach and it can cause rusty rebar if it's exposed, and you can't put concrete over rusty rebar," Gadbois said.
Rebar is a steel rod used to reinforce concrete.
"No one wants that to happen," Mertz said.
He said work should resume soon.
"(Fidelity and Deposit Co. is) giving us a lot of attention to keep this moving and to deliver a product to the citizens of Oceanside," Mertz said.
He said Fidelity should be able to get construction back on schedule so that the building will be finished early next year.
In addition to the building, the project will include landscaping and a parking lot.
Initially, it also would have included a community center on a second floor, but the project was scaled back to save money, Mertz said.
The initial cost estimate with the community center was $3.5 million, the same amount of the bond SCM took out on the project.
Ironically Oceanside is maybe a better argument why not to rush the charter.
http://www.ci.oceanside.ca.us/civica/filebank/blobdload.asp?blobid=28046
The punks who lick Riggy's boots will now blame Mr. West for what their fearless leader has done to himself.
(Colon?)
Just like they criticized GW when he wrote about a possible Fairview Park agenda involving the vernal pool area.
Or when they attacked him over the recent posts on the fed pot dispensary crackdown. Then we found out the city ASKED the feds to come in.
The more the foot soldiers attack Mr. West, the more we have to believe he's getting closer to the truth.
Last year Righeimer was talking about "pocket parks" in place of the so-called problem motels. Now it's "buy and sell." Would you buy a used motel from Righeimer? Follow the money.
No Tell Motel, You almost had it all. As this financial genius explained, its now "Use City money to buy, and then sell to developers for less"
That's Rigonomics 101 folks. Do the math.
101A: Form LLC, Hire lawyer, run up big fee, increase profit by stiffing lawyer.
101B: Buy high, sell low, use taxpayers money. Reap a benefit with sweetheart deals to buddies.
I love how the shill is so ready to defend his false prophet. Amazing how he gets a pass and gets to duck any responsibility. I always thought the Republican party values included personal responsibility. I guess not. Instead, Riggy and his minions have adopted a " deflect and justify" set of values.
Here's the thing people: guilty people justify. Guilty people minimize. During the elections, the union tried to warn us about this guy. He justified and minimized. All those liens and judgements were written off by him as ancient history and the price of doing business. Well, they tried to warn us because history has tendency to repeat itself. On top of that, we re only seeing the tip of the iceberg with ths guy. You know where there's smoke, there's fire.
Remember Carona? He was a GOP sweetheart..."America's Sheriff". Issue after issue kept popping up around that guy. In fact it was Moxley, the guy who broke this story that kept crawling up Carona's backside. Carona's shills kept defending him and deflecting and justifying. Then he got indicted.
Remember, these guys all ran in the same circles with Carona? Riggy and Mensinger were on the Sheriff's Advisory Council (remember Sheriff Mensinger at the airport?). These tigers DO NOT change their stripes. When will we wake up and see these men for who they really are?
Calm Down,
As a matter of fact, I operated my business as a sole proprietorship for more than 20 years. I never felt the need to hide behind a "corporate shell" to protect me. I never failed to pay a bill nor meet any other obligation... thanks for asking.
We all know Righeimer failed to pay his bills, ran companies into the ground with his buddy Messy, etc etc etc. The PD boys already towed a trailer, started a website, etc etc etc.
Yes, we all know he is a scum bag who doesn't pay his bills. SO WHAT?
We all know he will drive Costa Mesa deeper into the ground. We all know he and all the councilboy scumbags are in it for themselves and dont give a damn about the residents of Costa Mesa.
Wake up people, this is the greatest nation in the world. These dirty scumbags from the OCGOP are here to stay unless we do something about it.
People don't even bother to vote!How do you think these clowns got into council in the first place! Costa Mesans don't vote! We are full of illegals and homeless parolees who can't vote!
What's left? The few Mesa Verde republicans...
So now what? I'll tell you how it's gonna play out if employees and resident don't start fighting back.
The charter city will pass. The police department will be even more of a joke than it is now. It will be a sheriff car with the words, "proudly serving the city of costa mesa" on it.
Monahan's bar will be on a corner lot of the fairgrounds. Oh wait...Beradino has put a stop to that!
Oh this pathetic joke of a city we live in. What's next?
I see the logic. And based on such logic, we the taxpayer should be able to go after individual employees. Not necessary to hide behind the public shield.
Using this logic, Geoff West should champion action against Mandoki and Roeder. We want our late night closed door gift of public funds back.
$50,000 a year extra for Roeder over 20 years is $1,000,000. That outrageous.
Geoff has not adressed this like he would a potential issue of Council. Different standards?
How things change. It used to be Lobdell, Swaim and Moxley exposing the OC bad guys.
Now two of the three have defected.
Nowadays developers like Righeimer aren't making the money they were a few years ago when real estate was going up in value.
Without the aura of profit, we can see his true character. It is not pretty.
Maybe Righeimer should open a marijuana dispensary to help make ends meet. But then he might sample the medicine, get the munchies, get unhealthier and we'll all have to CALM DOWN more when he goes on a food rant.
I've generally respected this blog, but disagreed with its opinions. However, the vindictive and extremist personal attacks by its author against one Councilmember he does not like is just abhorrant.
Cauldron, we get it, you don't like Righeimer. Some like him, some don't. Clearly the voters do that's why he won the past election (beating Wendy Leece). Let it go. We all know where you stand. Report some news.
Your opinions in your story do not match the facts of the blog. It sounds like his company had a business dispute with its lawyer. I've had business disputes with lawyers, I dislike them. Most Americans do. Why is this a scandalous story??
The fine-line between TMZ and CNN on this blog is slowly eroding, as is the credibility of its reporter.
Barry,
It's your choice to disagree with me, as you have done often and at a high volume level. If you feel this has become TMZ and you don't like it, do as you do with your TV - change the channel.
This incident appears to be part of a pattern where your guy runs up a tab then leaves it to others to pay the bill.
He is bad for this city and, as long as he keeps doing this kind of stuff, I'm going to continue to comment on it.
And, oh, yes - you're welcome for the forum on which you can voice your anonymous opinion/rant. If you leave you'll be missed.
We don't see anything in "Barry's" blog about Righeimer's lawyer bill problem.
Sam, Joe, I will not, etc.
Try doing 5 seconds of research on Google before sounding off.
The "corporate veil" is a very well established concept, and one of the prime reasons people form corporate entities - to separate business liability from personal liability.
http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/personal-liability-piercing-corporate-veil-33006.html
It really is a non-issue from an integrity or public service standpoint.
Pot Stirrer, thanks for answering the question regarding your sole proprietorship.
@Calm down
I clearly don't understand "corporate veil" so I'm not even going to try to comment on something I don't know.
I think the point is that Righeimer, which you clearly support and I respect that, has shown a long history of having trouble paying bills.
Whatever the situation is as to why he is lumped into this with this law firm naming him really doesn't matter to me. It's the fact he is named and history repeating itself as far as paying bills.
I will say this. People can blog on here and complain all they want but the bottom line is he was voted in by people of our city. If we don't want him in office anymore, than lets get people who DON'T vote, to start voting.
Grandest Theft, Once again people like you don't know the facts and believe the spin that Righeimer spews at Council Meetings. I actually did the research and posted on the previous blog post about the CalPERS contract change that occurred on May 20, 2008. Here is that entry...
Here is the minutes from May 20, 2008, approving the enhanced retirement for miscellaneous employees. It was unanimously approved. Check out who was on the council at that time.
IX. NEW BUSINESS
1. Resolution of Intent to approve an amendment to the contract with the Board of Administration of the California Public Employees’ Retirement System (CalPERS) to implement the 2.5%@55 retirement formula for eligible Miscellaneous employees.
City Manager Allan Roeder introduced the item and Human Resources Manager Terri Cassidy summarized the report and responded to questions from the Council.
The Mayor expressed support of the employees paying for the benefit.
MOTION: Adopt Resolution No. 08-38, a Resolution of Intent to approve an amendment to a contract with the Board of Administration California Public Employees’ Retirement System; approve and authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to sign; and authorize the City Clerk to execute the Certification of Governing Body’s Action and the Certification of Compliance with Government Code Section 7507. Moved by Mayor Eric R. Bever, seconded by Council Member Wendy Leece.
The motion carried by the following roll call vote: Ayes: Mayor Eric R. Bever, Mayor Pro Tem Allan R. Mansoor, Council Member Linda W. Dixon, Council Member Katrina Foley, Council Member Wendy Leece Noes: None. Absent: None.
The City Manager can only recommend. The City Council has the ultimate authority. Does Righeimer think that Mansoor and Bever were "bullied" or does he think they were too "stupid" to understand the implications at the time.
Maybe Righeimer should ask Bever and Mansoor why they voted they way they did.
Here is a link to the actual staff report of May 20, 2008.
http://www.ci.costa-mesa.ca.us/council/agenda/2008-05-20/052008 - Council Agenda Report - CalPERS Contract
The City Council has the ultimate power to approve or deny any change in pension amounts. All Roeder and Mandoki did was recommend action. The "gift" of public funds was from the City Council. So Mansoor who thinks pensions are evil actually approved this pension increase and then went on to Sacramento courtesy of voters like you, where he will collect a big pension and have absolutely no power. Do you not see the hypocrisy in what you say? Also Monahan approved the contract with Police last October, but yet you give him a pass on his behavior and voting record. He also will collect one of those "evil" pensions.
You and Barry should start a club, since you both are clueless morons.
Pigheimer has a history of lawsuits,liens, collections and other financial mishaps. Why anybody would vote for a low life like him to represent our city is beyond all logic.
Word is spreading, the citizens are on to him, his games, and his crime partners (aka planning commissioners) their days are numbered and soon this dark part of our city history will become just that (history).
I read in the daily plot that he received political donations from the same law firm he gave a big fat taxpayer funded contract to. He's quite the businessman...he gets $549 from the lawyers and the taxpayers pay the lawyers $500,000.
I'll "calm down" when these OCGOP swine leave my city.
Operating as a Sole Prop is a very bad business decision. Horrible.
In many a business it is a Kamakazi mission.
I used to ride my bike without a helmet. My mother let me play all day unsupervised. None of which is a good choice now.
I am glad none of the posters are on Council. Yikes
Maybe, but I operated that way for more than 20 years without difficulty. When you're an honest man, doing business honestly it works out just fine and dandy. I retired and folded that business up without a hitch 20 years ago. Thanks for your concern.
Geoff, thanks for demonstrating your level of business acumen.
I think it demonstrates a lack of perspective on your part.
Today show me a sole proprietor, having a home and other assets, and I will show you a person about to be separated from those assets.
Not a part of todays reality
Interesting that you attempt to measure my business acumen by a choice I made 40 years ago. I knew the options I had when I began my business and chose the one that worked for me. I understand the realities of the day today. Your pals demonstrate the need for a shell to protect their personal assets, apparently by the choices THEY make on a regular basis as they do their business.
That's your newsflash for the day? Not, "Former City Manager Cheats City out of $40,000 in Additional Retirement." Sad where your priorities are Mr. Cauldron. I'd like to hear more about that allegation of theft of public funds.
Grandest Theft,
Do you know what was said at the council meeting where the change from 2%@60 to 2.5%@55 happened?
What did Roeder say?
What did council say?
The staff report says the change is retroactive. If council read that staff report, they knew about it, and it was not a back room deal or theft.
The minutes sure make it look like they knew what they were doing.
To: All Shills
From: Your Charter Riggmarshal
ACHTUNG!!!
Talk Roeder Roeder Roeder Roeder Roeder Roeder!!!
Get attention away from my lawyer bill pronto!!
We don't see anything in "RickandJenn's" blog about Righeimer's lawyer bill problem
Is it good business to stiff your attorney? Can one do so and hide behind the “corporate veil”? Apparently not. The matter went to arbitration with the agreement of both parties. In arbitration the Judge found that Mr. Righeimer was liable. If Mr. Righeimer had a disagreement with his attorney, that was presented to the Arbitrator. There are laws that govern such things; if the parties do not reach a settlement then the letter of the law prevails. If Mr. Righeimer had a legal leg to stand on he would not have been found liable.
Please stop making things up to support your friend. Perhaps you also believe morality is a highly relative concept; even so, your show you are naïve about such business matters.
There is a disturbing pattern emerging. Mr. Righeimer used a fairly sophisticated method of “buying” his home. It is commonly used to avoid liens and judgments. If you look under his name, he is not on the title of the property, and there are no liens against a property in his name. It is held by a third party, title will not transfer to him until the last payment is made. However, a search by parcel number turns up liens against the property.
Such a person and his cronies cannot be trusted with the resources of Costa Mesa.
OK, Geoff, please clarify your Business Acumen for us ..
You want to get back in the game, and open a business today, right now. Not of, you are going to do it.
Do you still make the choice for Sole Prop?
RickandJenn...I have a great idea for you. Ask Eric Bever at the next council meeting why he voted in favor of the increase? After all he was the Mayor at the time. Did you read the minutes from the council meeting in question that I posted for you?
You can join Barry and Grandest Theft in clueless moron club.
I'll bite,
Why should I? You need some financial advice? I'd be happy to help you, for a fee.
Nope, those days are over. More than four decades in the workforce is plenty for me, thank you very much.
Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!
Good job Riggy supporters! Lets deflect the attention away from him and point it elsewhere!
OK, I'll bite also!
More nonsense about Righeimer's legal history - all of which was thoroughly explained during the campaign. He was a real estate developer and the economic downturn caused many deals to unwind. That resulted in lawsuits, liens, judgments, etc.
What all of the haters intentionally ignore is the fact that he settled up or resolved all of them.
Now we have another business dispute, and an arbitrator disagreed with Righeimer. I've got a newsflash for you - that happens every single day and results in many challenges being heard before an actual sitting judge.
This is all a continuation of the character assassination by the same crew that doesn't care about facts, they'll do ANYTHING to protect their piece of the pie.
So let's talk about the concept of personal vs. corporate liability.
One commentor said the following, a theme echoed by others:
"Such a person and his cronies cannot be trusted with the resources of Costa Mesa."
Since 1996 there have been at least 786 lawsuits involving Costa Mesa filed in Orange County Superior Court, for an average of one lawsuit per week. That is a hell of a lot. Using the logic of many of the posters here, as expressed above, we sure can't trust City employees with the resources of the City!
Obviously that is ridiculous. In City affairs, city employees have broad indemnity for their actions. They are protected by a "corporate veil" of sorts. If a City employee neglects to pay a vendor and the City gets sued, or the City has a contractual dispute or any other number of issues which lead to lawsuits against the City caused by the actions of an employee (including management and Council), does that employee get sued and held liable?
No. The City does, and the City pays the legal fees.
That is the way it works in the real world, including the business world.
Calm down, can you tell is how to search litigation?
I would like to see how many times, how much, by who ... Is suing the City of Costa Mesa.
Can anyone tell me how to get this retort of info?
I think it will provide relevant insights.
Shill 'Calm down':
"...What all of the haters intentionally ignore is the fact that he (Righeimer) settled up or resolved all of them.(lawsuits,liens,judgments)..."
Me:
How many were "resolved" through Bankruptcy? If he filed a Bankruptcy, did he receive a Discharge? If so, did he later pay any debts that may have been discharged?
Go to:
https://ocapps.occourts.org/civilwebShopping/Login.do
Click on Accept Terms
Select the Business search by tab
Enter City of Costa Mesa
Enter the security code displayed
Click the "search" button.
WOW!! GO WATCH THE VIDEO from the May 20, 2008 City Council meeting video!
Allan Roeder made the following statement in introducing the item:
"...both the association and the City agreed to amendments to its PERS contract for employee retirement PREDICATED ON THE EMPLOYEES THEMSELVES PAYING FOR THAT ADDITIONAL COST."
HR Manager Cassidy then stated the following:
"...they [members of the association] would be paying the cost of the benefit. That was a clear term that was discussed with you and clearly outlined in our meet and confer."
Cassidy also said that actuarial tables were included as "public disclosure" because it is required that "...the public know how much it is actually costing the employees in this case."
Eric Bever stated that the resoultion was "...mutually beneficial and I especially like the fact that the employees have agreed to fund these benefits out of their own pocket. I think that is responsive to the financial considerations of the City and citizens..."
Facts don't lie - yes, the council has the final vote, but NOTHING WAS SAID about the retroactivity. That retroactive application to employees who retired as soon as ONE MONTH after the new plan went into effect with every prior year of service converted to the new formula, means that those employees were NOT PAYING FOR THE BENEFIT. Costa Mesa's taxpayers are.
Here is the retroactivity statement from the staff report:
"Employees who retire after October 1, 2008 will then be eligible for the 2.5% @ 55 factor in their retirement calculations. All prior years of City of Costa Mesa service will be converted. This will be used in addition to age and years of service in calculating their pension benefit."
Both Allan Roeder and HR Manager Cassidy's statements to the Council were not accurate and misrepresented the action they were asking the council to vote on.
In Roeder's case, he must have known that he was within 5 years of retirement, and would be reaping the benefits of this deal despite having not paid for it for 30 or more years. He must have know that, in his case, his statement to Council was false.
It is clear from Mayor Bever's statement that his understanding was that the employees were paying the costs for this increase.
It looks like the criticism of Roeder may be justified.
This still does not absolve the Council from responsibility for reading and undertsanding the implications of their actions, but they WERE mislead.
Joe,
Your smoke and mirrors tactics are amusing. You do realize that "shill" means "one who acts as a decoy" right?
That would be you, amigo.
Here's an article on Righeimer from Moxley, the same guy wrote wrote the blog entry that you're all so atwitter about. He states the the debts were "old and settled":
http://www.ocweekly.com/2011-03-10/news/moxley-confidential-jim-righeimer-costa-mesa/
Dirty Scumbag,
You said:
The PD is a joke, Berardino saved us from becoming a giant Fairgrounds, the City is full of illegals and homeless parolees who can't vote, and a few Mesa Verde republicans...
Me:
Thank you for concisely stating the poistion of the Council haters - union and association members who are NOT residents and their handful of resident cheerleaders.
It looks like the council's pensions were included in the 2.5%@55 deal as well. Lose-lose for the citizens all the way around if true.
This is why the professional negotiator is so important.
Shill 'Calm down' re Righeimer:
"Here's an article on Righeimer from Moxley, the same guy who wrote the blog entry that you're all so atwitter about. He states the the debts were "old and settled"
Me:
How were they "settled?" Paid in full? Partially paid? Was there a Bankruptcy involved?
Oh, I see. You're only authorized to keep repeating "old and settled."
Appeals from binding arbitration are rare. Will your boss be appealing this great injustice or "settling?"
Facts Really Don't Lie....Can you please tell us why a professional negotiator is so important? Does he or she have some magical power over the employees? Is he or she a purveyor of the Jedi Mind Trick so all the fabricated financial troubles will just go away? So far we have seen how it works. The negotiator deals with the firefighters. The firefighters offer to extend their 5% contribution until the end of the year saving the city $500,000 in the short term while they continue to negotiate longer term savings. The council rejects this costing the taxpayers an extra $500,000. $300 bucks an hour for this guy? Wow, what a bargain. Gee, I can't see why anyone would think a professional negotiator is a bad idea (tongue planted firmly in cheek).
Wyatt Earp,
Professional in that they are well versed in the true implications of a proposal, they do not have a stake in the outcome (Roeder, Mandoki, even Council), and they are not subject to the same pressures and influences.
The residents and taxpayers in Costa Mesa have NEVER, not once, in the history of labor negotiations in Costa Mesa, ever had an advocate for their interests. The employee groups are intended to seek the best deal for their members, and council members often are beholden to special interests. One recent councilmember made that clear when she said from the dais that she would cut every service and program for residents she could in order to prevent the layoff of even one employee.
When the council majority decides on the contract terms they want, and send the negotiator to meet and confer with the associations, the personal loyalties and politics are left out of those sessions.
That is why we need a professional negotiator.
Professional Negotiator a plus...so what has the professional negotiator gotten the city so far? Sounds to me like a loss of $500,000 in taxpayer money. If the negotiator recommended ignoring the firefighters proposal for this short term savings while continuing to negotiate longer term savings, then he isn't worth $3 per hour, let alone $300. Any sane person would have recommended taking this savings while seeking more, professional negotiator or not.
Must read article - Pension wars: Calling bull on both sides
http://taxdollars.ocregister.com/2012/02/11/pension-wars-calling-bull-on-both-sides/147460/
Read this now!,
The article, and the article it quotes, are very much worth the time it will take to read them. Thanks for the link. Bruce Krochman posted the foundational article on Facebook earlier today, too.
I will negotiate this at no cost.
1)we are thinking of privatizing or sharing services with nearby cities
2)here is a list of cities hiring (0)
3)you will be given preference, we would like to retain you IF financially feasible
4)we are also doing RFP's for your work , please note when preparing counter
5)our position:we will keep you on for a 5%reduction in pay and you pay 100% of employee pension amount, new hires get DC plan, not DB plans, retirement age is 65 for all new hires, 5 year contract term
6)what is your counter offer?
7)thank you, will present to council for review and get back to you
8)here is a resource list for those who may lose jobs fyi
rufus.t.firefly....so how is that attitude working out so far? Professional negotiator at $300 an hour, council refuses firefighters' offer to extend 5% PERS contribution costing the taxpayers $500,000. Council previously threatened to move them to OCFA (which the firefighters were in favor of) and still has not done so. Hum. Playbook not exactly working out so good is it?
rufus.t.firefly...further, look at the police department. The city went against the advice of their paid for consultant ($39,000 to be exact, money well spent) and mandated a police force at early 1980's levels. Somewhere around 12 cops were on the chopping block. All 12 were hired at other departments throughout Orange and LA counties (several at departments that pay more). How did this happen you say? Those cities saw golden opportunities to fill their ranks with trained cops. It costs around $100,000 per officer to hire and train a cop. Those cities saved collectively $1.2 million while your city lost out on that investment in that your city will now never be able to reap the benefits from those officers.
I have no doubt other cities would do the same with mechanics, maintenance personnel, etc. Again, a gain for them and a loss for us.
Post a Comment
<< Home