Complaint Review: Chief of Police Deborah Linden - San Luis Obispo California

I am the author of this report and I would like to erase it if I could but RR does not allow authors the right to change or delete their post.

I know I was upset about the SLO police chief retirement pension at the time but she is not the only one in California getting so much money. No one is perfect and I want to put the story behind us to say I am sorry even though it's true.

So please accept my apology for writing this report about the retired police chief. If I could remove it I would, I am sorry.

Author

Chief of Police Dehorah Linden has no idea how the City of San Luis Obispo is going to afford her massive retirement. She has no concern pver the Cities budget and wishes to exit after only 9 years of working for the City and walking away with $160,000.00 a year pension. Not only with she get this pension but she is also entiured to make as much as $300,000.00 a year in the years to come. Where in the hell is this money going to come from?

She doesn't even live in San Luis Obispo and she is basically stealing from taxpayers on a recession economy. What a shame that the average social society checks in San Luis Obispo are $14,000.00 a year and she is walking away rich.

Talk about getting scammed here. Taxpayers are being screwed by this Police and Fire Unions yet the cities are outsourcing on hiring companies that hire illegal immigrants to make the difference in the spending. I mean just last week the Rhode Island City in Rhode Island just filed for bankruptcy because of Police & fire salaries and their pensions have bankrupt the town, they even asked non former police and fire (city retired employees) to give up 50% of their pensions to pay off the city to pay the police and fire.

Our country is going bankrupt.

The facts
Skyrocketing pension costs are damaging our quality of life.
To pay for lavish pension packages, the city is having to reduce services dramatically, making San Luis Obispo less safe, less clean and ... just less.
Were for more police and fire, were for better road maintenance, and were for improved parks and recreational facilities. But everywhere the city turns, it is facing massive pension costs that are simply unsustainable and they threaten the quality of life that we all enjoy.
Here are the startling facts about the required pension guarantees for city employees:
Since 2002, pension costs have more than quadrupled. In 2002-03, the citys pension costs were $1.8 million. This year they will exceed $8 million, and future increases in pension costs are virtually certain.
Today, a police officer or firefighter can retire as early as age 50 and receive up to 90% of base pay as pension. Other city employees can retire as early as age 55 with no cap in their pensions -- and increases are guaranteed for inflation. 
In real dollars, this means that a police officer with 30 years of experience can retire with a $93,236 pension and a firefighter with 30 years can retire with a $69,980 pension. 
Nowhere in the private sector is such a pension benefit attainable. Few businesses can afford to guarantee their loyal employees any percentage, let alone percentages as high as 90% of base pay. Yet taxpayers like you are forced to underwrite such benefits for city employees.
Return control of the city budget to the City Council. State law prevents the City Council from reducing pensions for current employees.  At the very least, we need to give our City Council the authority to reduce pensions for future employees.

Why is everyone so concerned about City pensions?
City pension costs are skyrocketing.  Theyve been rising for a decade. In 2002-2003 (the year before the pension formula were enriched) the city was paying $1.8 million from its General Fund on pensions.  Last year, the City was spending $7.9 million.  In five more years, barring any changes, the City will be spending at least $10.5 million.  For point of reference, the total General Fund budget is currently $52 million.


Why are City pension costs so high?
Because employee pension formulas are so generous.  San Luis Obispo police officers and firefighters can retire as early as age 50 with up to a 90% pension.  All other City employees can retire as early as age 55 with no cap on what their pensions can be.


90% pension?  No cap?  Explain to me how City pension formulas work.
In San Luis Obispo, police officers and firefighters have a 3% at 50 pension formula.  This is the typical formula received by police and fire across the state.  The 50 portion of the formula means that police and fire can retire as early as age 50.  The 3% portion is what the retiring public safety employee receives for every year of service.  Take the number of years of service and multiply by 3%, up to a max of 30.  For 30 years of service, that equals 90%.  A retiring 30-year police officer or firefighter would receive a pension equal to 90% of his or her highest year of earnings, not counting overtime.  That pension will increase over time with inflation up to 2% per year.

A 30-year SLO police officer retiring today would receive a starting pension of at least $93,000.  A 30-year SLO firefighter retiring today would receive a starting pension of at least $70,000.  In both cases, that pension could be higher if the police officer or firefighter had received any of the following pay incentives holiday pay, bilingual pay, educational pay, paramedic pay, hazardous materials pay, etc.

In San Luis Obispo, all other City employees have a 2.7% at 55 pension formula.  Statewide, there is no one typical formula for all other employees.  The 55 portion of the formula means that the all other employee can retire as early as age 55.  The 2.7% portion is what the retiring employee receives for every year of service.  Take the number of years of service and multiply by 2.7%.  In this case, there is no max.  For 30 years of service, that equals 81%.  For 35 years of service, 94.5%.  And so on.  Whatever the percentage, its calculated against the employees highest year of earnings, not counting overtime.  The pension will increase over time with inflation up to 2% per year.


I heard the real issue was the 2008 stock market crash.  Wouldnt City pensions be affordable if the market hadnt crashed?
Unfortunately, this isnt the case.  Higher pension costs to account for the 2008 stock market crash dont take effect until July 1st.  The increase in pension costs up to this point have been due to the following factors earlier retirement ages, increasing retiree life spans, above average salary increases, market declines in 2001 and 2002, and, most importantly, higher pension formulas?


Higher pension formulas?  What do you mean?
Between 2003 and 2005, wanting to stay competitive with other cities, the City increased police officer and firefighter pension formulas by 50% and all other employee formulas by 35%.  The old public safety formula was 2% at 50.  The new public safety formula was 3% at 50.  The old all other formula was 2% at 60.  The new all other formula was 2.7% at 55.

Similar to other cities, this was done retroactively.  Literally, an employee could have worked all but one day of his or her career at the old formula, just one day at the new formula, and the new formula would apply for all that employees years of service.  CalPERS, the statewide pension agency the City uses, said this could be done without any incremental cost to the city for years to come.  That proved absolutely wrong.


Ive also heard that if the City hadnt gone on a pension holiday around the year 2000, there wouldnt be a problem with pension costs?
CalPERS allowed all cities, counties, and even the state itself to go on a pension holiday just before and after 2000.  CalPERS did this because it had excess assets at that time.  If CalPERS hadnt allowed everyone to take a pension holiday, its doubtful anyone would have raised their employees pension benefits.


Someone told me City employees dont pay anything for their pensions.  That cant be true, can it?
Actually, for most City employees, it is true.  The City pays the portion of the pension costs the employee would normally pay 9% of pay for firefighters, 8% of pay for all other employees.  SLO police officers do pay their 9% portion of the pension cost.  Theyve been doing so since 2000, but when the switch was made, the City increased their salaries by 9% to keep them whole.
 
For point of reference, in the private sector, it is illegal for the employer to pay the employees portion of Social Security.  The employee cost of Social Security is normally 6.2% of pay, but has been reduced to 4.2% of pay during the current recession.


So whats the employer portion of City pension costs?
The employer portion for police and fire is currently 35.5% of pay.  That will increase to 38.9% on July 1st.  The employer portion for all other employees is currently 17.6% of pay.  That will increase to 22.0% on July 1st.

For point of reference, the employer portion of Social Security in the private sector is 6.2%.


As I understand it, City Council wants to amend the charter language having to do with City pensions.  What is Council trying to accomplish?
The amendment would give Council full authority to negotiate pension changes with its unions.  Currently, Council can increase pension benefits on its own authority, but cannot decrease benefits without a vote of the people.  The new language will allow Council to do that, but only subject to state law.  That means Council cannot take away the pensions already earned by current employees.  Council would be able to negotiate lower pensions for new employees and higher pension contributions by all employees.

Here's a link that tells it a little differently.

It's NOT a crime free metropolis.



http://sanluisobispo.areaconnect.com/crime1.htm

Chief police and the police demanded more money when there was already negotiations on a pay raises they were not even happy with a 10% even a 20% raise. The police unions demanded more pay but also one of the arbitrators was a police officer for the very department he works for. A total conflict of interests, that's like giving yourself a pay raise. Now that particular officer left the demand now is the San Luis Obispo Sheriff making $27,000.00 a month which is $324,000.00 a year. Amazing they can make this kind of money without a college degree.

Second because this is arbitration does not mean the voters approve of this. These meetings are closed behind doors and money discussed is not the best interests of the voters but the fire fighters and police officers only. The town is outraged for police officers making $103,000.00 a year.

Here is a video discribing Chief Deborah Linden here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ka7jvOdyrY4

If mean with the outrage of citizens of San Luis Obispo, the police & fire department were in 2009 in the middle of a recession consider raising their pay raises after the 30% increase. Talk about getting ripped off here.

It is a rumor that Chief Dehorah Linden is retiring because she can land another job with money money and collect her pension, called triple dipping and I'm sure she will. 49 is too young to retire.

San Luis Obispo taxpayers are being rippef off by the San Luis Obispo Police & Fire department and binding arbitration & pensions needed to be repealed. They are basically screwing the City over its own finances for easy work. There is hardy any crime here, its not Oakland or Detroit, its small town San Luis Obispo the lowest crime rate towns in America.

×

1 / 1

2 / 1

❮ ❯

If an arbitrator set the amount, then both sides had to agree in advance to the terms.

That's not how binding arbitration works Ken.  If both sides did agree, then arbitration would NOT be needed.

The problem with binding arbitration is that the arbitor often sides with labor, regardless of the municipality's/state's ability to PAY.

You are correct in that the government is to blame for approving such a "binding arbitration" agreement in the contract.  The author of this report should blame his/her elected government representatives-not the police chief.  ANY person who was the police chief would have been entitled to this lucrative pension and benefits.

or did the idiot town council agree to such a salary and retirement?

If an arbitrator set the amount, then both sides had to agree in advance to the terms.



You should blame the proper party(s) for this.  If it's a benefit that is set by others, she's entitled to it, like it or not.  Many states and municipalities are finding they were too generous with their salaries and benefits.