FOSTER’S FIRST-TERM ACTIONS CREATED MILLIONS OF LB’S CURRENT DEFICIT
By LBReport.com
LONG BEACH (via LBReport.com)—Millions of dollars of Long Beach City Hall’s $40 million three-year projected deficit is attributable to actions advocated in his first term by Long Beach Mayor Bob Foster.
At a May 5, 2008, news conference, Foster supported proposed five-year contracts with the Long Beach Firefighters Association (LBFFA) and the International Association of Machinists (non-public safety employees) that he now describes as unsustainable and for which he now seeks Council approval to cut police, fire and library funding—while simultaneously seeking concessions/changes to the contracts from the unions. (Video available at LBReport.com).
The City Council ultimately approved the two agreements 8-1 (LBFFA, Gabelich dissenting) and 7-2 (IAM, Gabelich and DeLong dissenting).
In 2009. Mayor Foster supported and the Council approved a five-year agreement with the Long Beach Police Officers Association (LBPOA). That agreement followed a 2007 “re-opener” of the LBPOA’s then-current contract in which City Hall voluntarily agreed to increase officers’ wages and benefits, part of an effort to reach “median” levels that were publicly justified as a way to prevent the loss of experienced officers.
If the 2008 and 2009 contracts had been three year agreements instead of five year agreements, they would be expiring in 2011 or 2012. Rather than having to seek union concessions to existing contracts, City Hall would now be in the position of negotiating new agreements.
If those negotiations reached an impasse when the contracts expired, City Hall would have the option of imposing cost-saving terms on the city employee unions, something it did last year to a smaller city employee union. Because the five year contracts aren’t expiring, City Hall doesn’t have that option with the Big 3 union contracts.
25 Comments
Agreed…city labor contracts should be negotiated on a shorter term basis. Either that, or contract language should be included that certain economic criteria would serve as triggers to mandate new negotiations mid-contract.
Don’t forget about Foster’s budget approving all of those Police and Fire academies only to reduce police and fire staffing the following years.
Don’t forget about Foster’s 2007 budget approving $2.1 million for police department retention bonuses only to reduce police staffing the following year.
Don’t forget about Mayor Foster’s approval of the Lehman Brothers debacle that cost us taxpayers $21 million when Lehman Brother’s went under.
Don’t forget about Mayor Foster’s pressure to push through the $7 million deal to trade to deceased developer buddy Tom Dean the valuable city Port property for swampland.
Don’t forget about Mayor Foster’s role in approving the crooked Home Depot EIR for deceased developer buddy Tom Dean that was later thrown in the garbage by the Norwalk Superior Court Judge, and with it many $millions of uncompensated city staff time supporting the project as the lead agency.
Don’t forget about Mayor Foster’s failed $1.3 billion Measure I infrastructure tax to help fund his developer buddies that was rejected by voters.
http://articles.latimes.com/2008/oct/27/local/me-lbmeasure27
Don’t forget about Mayor Foster’s decison to court movie companies (long gone) for the Douglas properties to increase tax revenue at the exclusion of other potential businesses.
Don’t forget about Mayor Foster’s support of the Port trucking deal with ATA that was overturned by the courts.
Don’t forget about Mayor Foster’s 2009 budget that did not fund replacement of underground fuel storage tanks and cost us taxpayers a fine of $6.2 million.
http://articles.latimes.com/2010/jan/27/local/la-me-waste27-2010jan27
Love the litany — this deserves maximum light.
US: Agreed. All elected officials should be held fully accountable to their own records of service.
People seem to forget that Mayor Foster was forced to resign his Presidency from Southern California Edison (SCE) after nearly driving SCE into bankruptcy and also getting busted for modifying consumer opinion surveys to boost his multi-million dollar bonus.
Foster is not the business savey businessman he claims to be. He’s just a PR lobbyist guy that rose through the ranks at SCE and eventually kissed enough butt to be made President.
Thank you for the refresher Mr. Ruehle. Come next election, be sure to loudly remind the voters. Or at least the few who give a damn…
Take notice in the above article how Councilman DeLong also voted to approve the Fire Department compensation increases in 2008. One should wonder how Delong reconciles his 2008 vote to increase the Fire Fighters pay and pension, yet NOW DeLong claims that same compensation he approved is unsustainable and portrays himself as the leader of public employee compensation reform. If it was unsustainable, why did DeLong vote to approve it?
It’s not that DeLong didn’t understand the impact. In fact he understood the situation better than any of the other councilmembers because DeLong has been Chairman of the City’s Budget Oversight Committee since 2006.
The only reason DeLong reversed his position since approving pay increases in 2008 is because DeLong needed a new platform to use for his future Congressional election run to escape Long Beach. Right now, public employee compensation reform is sexy and in the news and DeLong is using that as his platform.
Just keep in mind come election day to remember DeLong’s former actions and not his frequently untruthful words.
Ouch ouch ouch ouch ouch ouch…UNCLE!
“Foster is not the business savey businessman he claims to be. He’s just a PR lobbyist guy that rose through the ranks at SCE and eventually kissed enough butt to be made President,” said Mike R.
He indicated that he would take better care of the city assets, if elected.
He ran on the promise, “They won’t like me down there.” Exact words. .
The fact turned out to be, the love him,”Downthere.” He has given our hard earned money away with abandon, as has the rest of the Council.
He is a very good manulipator, but business expertise has not been shown with the give aways. He knows the power of the political machine and is glad to be a part of it. Much like many others who promise, promise, and then ignore the wishes of the voters.
@Pauld: Assuming what you have said about both the Mayor and the rest of our Council is true. Since each of those persons has been elected and, in some cases, re-elected. And since none of them has been recalled, nor any attempt made to recall them (with the possible exception of grumblings of a recall effort that may or may not be underway against Councilman Johnson).
Would you say that the true challenge lies more with those elected officials, or with the electorate in Long Beach?
Greet, are you paying attention to “Western” financial markets and the status quo? I know, you say the problem is caused by overspending. But, you will agree that we need to get economic growth going, and you will say that we can do this by lower taxes and cutting regulations. Well John, this has been the manipulated status quo talk for the last decades. Got anything usefull or are you just a bloviating windbag?
@ rino2: Yes I am paying attention. When I say the problem is caused primarily by overspending, do you believe I am inaccurate? I agree that we need to get economic growth going, and I do believe that we can do this primarily by lowering taxes and cutting some regulations. Regardless of whether this has been the manipulated status quo talk for the last decades, I am far more interested in whether we have, in fact, accomplished these things.
We have not.
Despite the predominantly left-wing rhetoric that we need more revenues…revenues have *increased* and continue to do so. Spending has increased as well, and at a faster rate than revenues have risen. Thus the *true* nature of the problem is not “revenue” but “spending.” Unless we curb our voaracious spending habits, no amount of revenue will ever suffice, because we will persist in spending more than we earn.
History has *proven* that whenever we lower tax rates we increase revenue far faster and in a more sustainable manner than we do by raising taxes. We proved this under Kennedy and again under Reagan.
Similarly, when we ease regulations we stop stifling growth. No ressonable person is saying that we do not need reasonable regulations to help protect people and their personal freedoms and individual liberties. But, rino, the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) is tens of thousands of pages long. The sections of the CFR that deal specifically with Commerce, Foreign Trade and Commercial Practices are 3762 pages, published in five seperate volumes. How can anyone clearly understand this fact and *not* think that commerce in the U.S. is over-regulated?
I go with bloviating windbag.
John, are you like a Dick Vernon in the Breakfast Club that put in his time, although hating it, while planing for retirement?
Mike, at the local level you are #1.
John, you say:
“When I say the problem is caused primarily by overspending, do you believe I am inaccurate?”
Yes. The problem is our economic foundation has been globalized and we don’t have the economic strength backing our money we once had, plus we have a whole lot of obligations – I just heard someone say 50 trillion + in the next 25 years. The manipulated thinking that you’re part of talks about less/more taxes or less/more spending in a non specific way, but this is a sea for the sharks to swim in. Finance has been deregulated starting Aug 15, 1971, to allow the money changers to be king over more useful production/manufacturing, so the real backing to the money has shrunk and you have a whole lot of money chasing money and endless debt today.
But, talk is cheap as you know.
rino2: Thanks for the response.