The FF Amendment to the Bylaws has flown under the radar, and perhaps that is by design.
At a time when Los Angeles cannot afford to replace broken street lightsarrange dangerously damaged sidewalks or operate safe and humane animal sheltersMayor Karen Bass and the City Council are asking voters to spend $23 million in the city budget so park rangers and some police officers can turn their good pensions into great pensions.
Charter Amendment FF raises important questions about the priorities of city leaders. Voters should reject it and send the mayor and City Council back to the negotiating table. Los Angeles faces another budget crisis and city leaders must reconsider the costs and trade-offs of their promises to public employee unions.
FF would allow about 460 police officers and park rangers from the Police, Airport, Harbor and Recreation and Parks departments to transfer their pensions from the city's generous general worker system to the even more generous Los Angeles fire and police pension system, which could allow them to raise tens of thousands of dollars more each year during retirement.
For example, an employee of the general pension system would receive approximately 63% of his salary if he retired after 30 years on the job. Those in the police system receive 75% of their salary after 30 years and 90% after 33 years, The Times reported.
The price tag for FF would be a one-time payment of $109 million, plus about $6.3 million a year in ongoing costs. The city's general fund would have to pay $23 million up front and an additional $1 million annually, money that would otherwise be used for basic city services such as street sweeping, tree trimming, police and fire response. The Airport and Port of Los Angeles would share the remaining one-time cost of $86 million, plus $5.3 million a year, paid for by their department's revenue.
Advocates, including the Los Angeles Airport Peace Officers Association, argue that FF is a matter of justice. They say that because all law enforcement officers employed by the city go through the Police Academy, they should receive the same benefits whether they work for the Los Angeles Police Department, the Airport, the Port or the Parks.
But that misses the point of the LAPD's more generous pensions. They are used to attract employees to a more dangerous line of work, and Los Angeles is already having a hard enough time recruiting LAPD officers. Law enforcement officers working at the port, airport, and parks certainly face risks on the job, but they are less than those faced by LAPD officers patrolling the streets. And they knew that came with a less generous pension when they signed up for the job. (Park rangers also do not carry weapons, although there have been cases proposals to assemble them.)
To further complicate matters, a portion of law enforcement officers are already enrolled in the police pension system. Voters previously approved moving new port hires into the more generous pension plan.
Officers already employed by the departments were allowed to transfer to the police pension plan, but were required to pay the full expense because, voters were toldThe measure would be cost neutral. The initial cost was so high that only a few officers were transferred. The FF Charter Amendment would now move those officers onto the police pension at no cost to them and reimburse officers who previously paid transfer costs.
The union that represents law enforcement officers understandably advocates for the best benefits for its members. But Bass and the City Council have a responsibility to be good fiscal stewards, including ensuring the city can afford to provide reliable services and maintain public infrastructure.
That's not happening, and voters should say no to irresponsible promises like the FF Charter Amendment, which will only make the situation worse.
