ONE QUESTION FOR … LB CITY COUNCIL CANDIDATE AND $181,000-A-YEAR LA CITY PENSION BENEFICIARY, LILLIAN KAWASAKI
By Dave Wielenga
[ The first installment in something like the fourth or fifth attempt to make this a weekly feature of GreaterLongBeach.com. Pray for us. ]
The back story: Lillian Kawasaki is running to represent the 8th district seat on the Long Beach City Council at a time when the city is facing a budget deficit that by one oft-quoted estimate will total $50 million over the three fiscal years that began last Oct. 1. The pensions that have been promised to City employees are frequently targeted—by politicians and the public—as a major cause of the deficit and reductions in budget allotments to everything from public safety, infrastructure and parks. Kawasaki happens to be a longtime employee of the City of Los Angeles, where pensions are also high-profile targets for deficit-fretters. When Kawasaki retires she will receive annual payouts of at least $181,848— … the 15th-highest benefit among 841 City of LA employees whose pension formula qualifies them for at least $100,000 a year. Those statistics come from an August 2009 investigation by the Los Angeles time, and thus are higher now and will go higher still.
The question: Lillian Kawasaki, if you are elected to the Long Beach City Council, how will the Lillian Kawasaki who is responsible for protecting the city’s financial health deal with cases like those of the Lillian Kawasaki whose pension as a city employee will annually be worth more $181,000 ?
Lillian Kawasaki’s answer: The pension I receive is the pension I paid into for more than 30 years. There were no special rules for me. That is the pension I earned. On the other hand, I share a concern about the stability of those pensions. Are they really going to be there? I’m hoping to live a long time. So as you look at the pension and the pension numbers—although I earned it—I have a concern, very much so, in a personal way, that my pension will be there. So the aspect of pension stability is one we have to look at very carefully as we look at an overall percentage of the budget, of where we’re going to be, not just today, but where we’re going to be in the future. We may not even be here, but those decisions we make today are going to have major impacts. I think we [in Long Beach] have two good examples already with police and fire. They came to the table, their contract was not up. I assume they had the same sort of concerns that I have about my own pension. Is it going to be there? How does it affect the future of the city? So they were willing and came to the table, saving $100 million. We do have another employees association and we’ll have to make a similar decision. And that would be something, as a councilperson, that I would have to look at in an honest way. Having a pension myself, but also looking at the stability of finances and the health of the city.
21 Comments
Well asked and, I think, well answered. Thanks, Dave!
A City employee earning $180,000/year retirement!!! That’s outrageous!!! I am so sick and tired of these fat cat government bureaucrats getting rich on the taxpayer dime. This is exactly what’s wrong with local government managers. No real world, private sector experience. She has no credibility on the issue of pension reform. I’m voting “NO” on this Orange County Import!
On the 23rd I will begin receiving my retirement for 42 years and 8 months in the US Coast Guard. I will receive approximately $1,500 per month or 18,000 per year. We all picked our careers. Just some deserved better pay than others. He said with tongue in his cheek.
Val (as usual) makes a very valid point. In this case, that folks in the U.S. have the ability to make free and voluntary choices about their own employment and, so, the pay and benefits they will receive from it.
I think it goes even deeper than that as well. People likewise have more freedom here than anywhere else in the world to make choices throughout their lives that, in turn, have direct and indirect impacts upon the options they will have to choose from later on.
We routinely tell our kids that many of the choices they make in their young lives now, will directly impact other options they will have in life later on. Make bad choices now, have fewer or poorer options later. Make better choices now, and their future opportunities will expand and enrich accordingly.
Considering her state of financial health, perhaps Lillian will offer to let the city keep the $30,000-plus salary paid annually to councilmembers.
In fact, perhaps we could amend the city’s charter to reduce (dollar for dollar) the salaries paid to ALL elected officials based on their outside income. That could include income from other employment, businesses they own, and additional investments… as well as pensions.
Val might have mislead the readers if one assumed his time was spent on active duty. I believe Val spent only 12 yrs on active duty several decades ago, then spent some time in the Reserves.
Val had to wait until age 60 to receive the retirement benefits as do all Coast Guard Reserve Members
Her retirement is outrageous. $181,000? That’s 10 times what the average person gets in retirement. This is sick. What makes her 10 times as valuable as the average person? Her explanation that she contributed to her retirement is weak. I bet she only put in about $100,000. Now she stands to reap 3 or 4 million dollars of public money. Someone who has abused the system this much should not be elected to public office She is the problem not the solution. Instead of electing her she should be stoned to set an example. Cuts are being made to the poor and education and health care so that leeches like her can live like a queen for the rest of her life.
Lillian is a very bright woman who has significant experience inside government. My concern is she has not had much of the local hands-on work within our district. Attending events and offering financial support does not qualify as community involvement.
I am supporting Al Austin because I know the importance of having an independent thinker as our representative. A person that will speak on behalf of the community residents…..not one who may find it more comfortable to go along to get along.
We have too many serious issues that confront the 8th district and the city overall…..our representatives must be willing to think and act outside the box! He/she must be willing to stand firm even when it is not the popular position to take.
The 8th district is a microcosm of our diverse city. From the affluent to the 99% and the issues, concerns and needs that all are faced with every day. As the representative you have to be comfortable walking in everyone’s shoes. Who is most capable of fulfilling that role? I believe that person is Al Austin. Do your homework before making your decision!
One thing is for certain, wrong beach doesn’t need any more NIMBY’s sitting on the council. We wind up getting an inferior airport terminal and almost get a traffic choking ridiculous monstrosity, thanks to one (NIMBY)councilwoman.
greet choice had nothing to do with your pension being in six figures. You pinch yourself every day; if you don’t you should.
wrong: I do consider myself to be truly blessed in many ways. God has granted me many opportunuties in my life and I am sincerely thankful for all of them. I based my choice of profession and career on many factors, compensation certainly among them. Was compensation never a factor in employment decisions in your own life?
While I appreciate your interest in the amount of my pension, I can tell you with certainty that it is six figures.
poster boy for excessive public pensions.
Sorry, I missed a term in that last sentence: While I appreciate your interest in the amount of my pension, I can tell you with certainty that it is *not* six figures. Thanks again for your interest. You seem to have a need to pass judgment upon people based upon the pensions they receive which are, in turn, based upon legal employment contracts or other such agreements they have engaged in. I think that is unfortunate.
Is it your position that people should *not* have a right to earn as much as they legally can for the labor they provide? For that is all that our police officers in Long Beach have done: Collectively bargained for the best wages and working conditions (including pensions) that they can receive from their employer. Do you think our police officers should be deprived of this most basic of employment rights that is available to all other public and private sector employees?
If so, can you explain why?
Rae Gabelich
“….. A person that will speak on behalf of the community residents…..not one who may find it more comfortable to go along to get along….”
The eight district and the rest of the community could sure use a representative in the eighth like that, for a change.
Lurch move your tongue and tell us about all the money and benefits you will receive from your time on the city council?
I think that Ms. Kawasaki may be missing a point here. The question, which she addresses, is not whether or not her six figure pension will survive, but should she, as a public employee, even be getting a six figure pension.
Too many people seem to have gotten away from the notion that public service, to serve the public, is a privilege rather than a route to very comfortable, retirement supported by taxpayers, most of whom will never have anywhere near the opportunities Ms. Kawasaki will be able to afford.
John B. Greet
February 18, 2012
I appreciate your interest in the amount of my pension. You seem to have a need to pass judgment upon people based upon the pensions they receive which are, in turn, based upon legal employment contracts or other such agreements they have engaged in. I think that is unfortunate.
greet I don’t begrudge you your pension. To me, it seems a small price to pay to keep you off the streets.
The greet seems to have gotten away from the notion that public service, to serve the public, is a privilege rather than a route to very comfortable, retirement supported by taxpayers, most of whom will never have anywhere near the opportunities the greet will be able to afford.
Small price indeed.
Poor Ruehle and wrong…always long on opinion but short on pertinent facts. Ever anxious to insult and denigrate others yet reluctant to meet others in the arena of ideas in any sort of civil and intellectually honest manner. Sad.
The pension issue involves the $1.3 billion in unfunded pension liabilities at Long Beach. That amounts to an extra $65 million in expenses per year after our boomer city employees retire. It is $1.3B because the assumption in negotiating employee contracts was that 61% of funding will come from investment gains. Unfortunately, NASDAQ is at 2000 level this week and DOW is at 5/08 level, so no funds were added for years from the major source to paying for pensions. Under Mayor O’Neill, Council agreed to postpone salary increases for unions in return for reducing their pension payments, so we really caused this problem. Rae, how can the City ever cut expenses or raise revenue to pay for an additional $65M per year? The State is dealing with this partly by abolishing RDAs and proposing an increase in sales tax as it has $500B in unfunded pension obligations. While Kawasaki’s pension is much too high, Austin is a union leader that won’t compromise on any limitations to employee pensions. LB will solve this issue by either declaring bankruptcy (like Stockton & Valero) or firing employees, closing libraries, and stop paving streets; the net impact will be declining real estate values. Be prepared for electing council members that are more interested in union support for their future Sacramento jobs or are union inplants.