.
.
.
Rightly or wrongly, the Orange County Register is heavily invested in stories and editorials critical of government in general as well as government employees. Perhaps this is no where more visible then the almost continuous barrage of articles, columnists and editorials addressig public sector pay and benefits – especially retirement benefits. Some, like this writer, often find such publications slanted and sometimes downright wrong. Most of the time it is futile to try and get correcting or counter views printed in the newspaper, and easy to adopt a “what’s the use – after all, they own the ink” philosophy.
The Register has recently reported and editiorialized on the lawsuit filed against the county regarding cost shifts and cuts applied to existing retirees. An Editorial published November 30 prompted a strong response from the Retired Employees Association of Orange County (REAOC), the organization that has filed one of the pending lawsuits against the Supervisors for their retirement policy and cost changes that have been applied to exisiting, not just future, retirees (Another case of the Supervisors trying to apply rules retroactively). The organization’s response was posted on the web site of the REAOC organization today, as follows:
*
The following is the REAOC Board of Directors’ response to an editorial appearing in the Orange County Register newspaper on November 30th. To date, our response has not been printed; however, we wanted to inform you of our opposition to the media’s interpretation of the California Supreme Court’s November 21st ruling regarding our retiree medical lawsuit. A link to the original editorial precedes this response.
Retiree Health Benefits: Matters of Fact
The late Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan famously said that everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts. Your editorial “Court sides with retirees, against taxpayers” (November 30, 2011) is replete with assertions that bear no relation to the truth of the matter in dispute in the litigation between Orange County and its retired employees.
First, the California Supreme Court’s recent ruling in Retired Employees Association of Orange County v. County of Orange was anything but “bizarre.” Indeed, this unanimous decision, reached by a Court made up of six Republican-appointed justices and just one Democratic appointee, merely confirmed a long-established principle of contract law: that contracts, whether in the public or private sector, may include “implied” terms, in addition to their express written terms.
Second, the Court did not limit government’s ability to alter “nonvested” benefits of its employees or retirees. Rather, it held, unremarkably, that the question whether a benefit is vested or nonvested is answered by looking to traditional, settled principles of contract interpretation.
Third, you assert that the benefit at issue in this case-retirees’ right to participate in the same premium “pool” as active employees-imposed “enormous liabilities” on the County. But the fact is that the County’s cost of providing that benefit was infinitesimal -approximately .03% (that’s three one-hundredths of one percent) of its annual budget. In fact, the County admitted, in sworn testimony, that its decision to segregate retirees into a separate pool was not motivated by financial concerns.
Finally, you say it is “absurd” to suggest that County retirees are suffering any hardship as a result of the County’s creation of the retiree-only premium pool in 2008. But the fact is this: premium inflation for Orange County retirees has tripled since the County made that drastic change in 2008. In 2007, a retiree with one dependent enrolled in the County’s indemnity health plan paid an annual premium of $14,000; for 2011 that premium has skyrocketed to $25,000. To deny that these increases impose hardship, when they come out of the pockets of a retiree population with an average annual pension income of just $30,000 is, to use your word, absurd.
The Editorial Board of the Register is certainly entitled to its opinion regarding this dispute. But the Register’s readers deserve better than an editorial that shows so little understanding of, or concern for, the facts of this important case.
Retired Employees Association of Orange County
Linda Robinson and Doug Storm, Co-presidents
Waiting for the comments from the folks who think that all wages should be as low as possible, without any pension plans, as that’s the new American business model. Call it the Walmartization of the U.S.
Rap, I join you in anticipating comments from folks with that kind of philosophy They are the same folks that believe a 401K plan will assure retirement security and for most folks there is no way in hell that will happen. As for the retort to the Register editorial, the retiree response sure seems to dismantle the editorial, though I could do without the reference to Moynihan.
The Register is chickenshit to refuse to print this thorough and withering response. Chickenshit Register!
“I could do without the reference to Moynihan” – ?
If that’s because that quote has become an overused cliche I agree with you, or did you just dislike Daniel Patrick?
If the retiree’s scathing response is accurate, the Register is guilty of shallow and flawed analysis at best, or a flagrant attempt to mislead at the worst. Either one is testimony to journalism that is untrustworthy. A sad situation.
Vern – my comment about Moynihan was strategic – should the Register at some point address this withering response to their editorial, I would expect them to pounce on the quote from Moynihan by noting that these public trough feeders (county retirees) quote a liberal Democrat, one of the founders of the “failed New Society movement” etc. Just that I thought it handed them an opportunity to try and divert the discussion and launch a slightly different attack and associate the retirees with a liberal philosophy, someting I would expect from that newspaper when painted into a corner like the letter appears to have done.
That would have been ultra-lame of them, as it’s just a generic quote about facts vs. opinions. And I mostly associate Moynihan with Nixon.
Still you’re probably right about those Register hacks.
This is not the first time the Register has recently editorialized with wrong-headed or fabricated “facts” in order to advance its philosophy. County Supervisor Bill Campbell, in his electronic newsletter of December 9 commented on another misleading and inaccurate editorial. To my knowledge – and I could have missed it – the newspaper refused to print that response as well.
So we print it here at the Orange Juice, off of Supervisor Campbell’s site
http://bos.ocgov.com/legacy3/newsletters/pdf/Campbell_Letter_to_Editor-OCMA_Contract.pdf
“The recent editorial in the Orange County Register (“Board Sets Bad Precedent on Bonuses) completely misses the mark and is simply inaccurate. The Register misleadingly states that the Board of Supervisors privately approved retroactive raises for members of the Orange County Managers Association (OCMA) prior to voting down in public a new contract which included increases.
“The fact is that these payments are being made in compliance with a previously negotiated contract. The County began negotiations with OCMA in November 2010 as their employment contract was due to expire on January 14, 2011 and as part of the negotiations, the County included in the discussions significant changes to the Pay for Performance award program contained in the existing contract.
“OCMA agreed to defer the 2010 performance award that was due to be paid to eligible managers on or around January 5, 2011, until a new contract was hammered-out. After considerable effort, OCMA and the County failed to reach agreement on a new contract.
“After determining that the County is legally bound to fund and award performance increases as outlined in the existing contract with the Administrative Managers employed by the County of Orange, the Board made the prudent decision to honor that legal obligation and thereby save the County the costs associated with unnecessary litigation. The Board has directed staff to continue to work with OCMA to reach an agreement which is fair to the County’s managers and is good for the taxpayers.
“As the saying goes, ‘there are two sides to every story’. I would hope that in the future, the Register will put in the effort to gather all of the facts prior to printing their editorials.
Bill Campbell
Chairman, Orange County Board of Supervisors”
The Bill Campbell letter identifying incorrect and/or misleading content in another editorial seems to reflect a pattern of questionable journalistic integrity at The Register with regard to the accuracy of information presented in editorials. Perhaps the doom and gloom of this site about the decline of the newspaper industry is not far off the mark: http://newspaperdeathwatch.com/
The Register has sponsors….right? And you guys are upset? Give it up! Welcome to Capitalism 101…..America as we know it. Nothing wrong with what someone does for a living mind you……but we really don’t have to believe it…………just because it is in newsprint…now do we?