For all the mayor and City Council’s threat to lay off up to 4,000 city workers on top of the 2,400 paid off to retire and the 400 or so who got transferred to non-general fund jobs, the mayor sent a letter to the Council on Monday outlining his strategy for the 2010-11 budget year. About 750 actual workers face layoffs or more likely transfers. Go to OurLA.org to see the list of 3,546 positions affected by his moves. Here’s the mayor’s letter:
Dear Honorable Members of the City Council:
I am transmitting for your information the list of position eliminations that are currently incorporated as part of my proposed budget for Fiscal Year 2010-11. The service impacts and cost savings related to the elimination of these positions will be presented as part of my budget submission tomorrow.
The list totals 3,546 positions; including both Regular and Resolution positions. The funding sources for these positions are both General Fund and Special Funds. These eliminations incorporate positions that have been vacated as a result of regular attrition, the Early Retirement Incentive Program (ERIP), expedited transfers to special fund positions and proprietary departments, and layoffs.
According to preliminary information from departments, approximately 750 positions may be currently filled by individuals that will result in displacements to other departments and layoffs.
Please note this list of position eliminations only portrays a portion of the budget solutions I have relied upon to present a balanced budget for Fiscal Year 2010-11. My office stands ready to discuss these proposed position eliminations as part of the City Council’s budget deliberation process.
Antonio R. Villaraigosa, Mayor
Don’t see any eliminations in the Mayor’s office.
Classic Antonio MO. Smoke and mirrors game. Clueless on how to run the City. The Times finally caught up with him.
ONE from the Mayor’s office?
Apparently the “Shared” in Shared Sacrifice means 3,545 City workers to 1 Mayoral Aide
A trial balloon created by his spinmeisters
Everyone knows layoffs are required for any kind of pension relief. The real peril the taxpayers are facing is the snowballing pension liability. If the city lays off the 4,000 now, they will probably avoid 75% of the vesting, and begin to learn to work with less.
Then change the pension contribution – Pension contributions increased, from 1% of each employees salary as pension contribution, to 6% in 1983. 27 years later and salaries have skyrocketed, but pension contributions have not. Just this year, those employees on the 1% pension contribution were brought into the 6% pension contribution group. It is time to increase pension contributions.
Laid off employees go on a waiting list for rehiring, after the pension contribution amount is fixed, hire these employees back, if they are needed.
Apparently you guys can’t tell when the mayor is using threats as leverage. This is a council-run city. Which means the mayor has very little power other than appointments and has to do all sorts of stupid shit to get attention. Which makes for some pretty good comedy because it usually ends up backfiring on him.
Meanwhile Ron was complaining a month ago about thousands of workers who had already been transferred to the proprietary departments, posting names of workers from two years ago because he couldn’t find any actual evidence (or read the dates on a chart correctly). He must be so confused right now.
Then you have Moore and Jennerjahn, who want to recall the mayor (probably so Moore can become mayor himself). If Moore ever becomes mayor, the guy is so conceited and unlikable that the council would rip apart his budget, reject his appointments, strip him of his power, and he’d probably end up in the same position as our current mayor, trying to make noise by acting wierd.
From the politicians to the blogs, nothing but a bunch of egos coming together in an orgy of stupidity
TO April 19, 2010 4:17 PM:
You are a genius and its so simple. If we went back in time and if the Mayor and City Council didn’t cut the ERIP deal, the City should have initiated a layoff of the appropriate number (it would have been smaller if implemented earlier).
Then if the economy turns better and as retirement back-fills occur, have all new hires under a much different pension plan that is less risky to the taxpayers (e.g. defined contribution verses defined benefit).
I didn’t think much the recall idea, however the post by April 19, 2010 4:29 PM makes me think twice, maybe its a good idea because it would be the nail in the coffin for the mayor’s political future (not that he needed any help, he FAILED pretty much by himself). If he only understood personal responsibility.
lets recall this idiot of a mayore is out to lunch and is not coming back even if is not recall he will be out in the spotlight and he does not like that if not to look good he looks like beny hill and gest who looks like the the tree stuges jose , alacon,reyes,they are so ignorant ,and they like to play the {raza} cards
Once again the taxpayer is being ripped off and lied to. We were promised by the Mayor to have 4,000 laid off and we demand that we get what we were promised!
Mr. Mayor, you owe us! Now get to the cutting.
The city is a social welfare organization where taxpayer money support an unsustainable workforce.
Do you want 4000 employees to have their heads cut off as well? They are pawns in this, Mr. Taxpayer.
They should never have been hired.
What a bunch of cowards you are by making negative comments anonymously. I work for the City and admit it is poorly run and needs administrative revamping, but the proposed layoffs are vindictively slanted and do not target higher-paid administrators. The Chiefs get spared and the Indians bite the dust.