RECIPE FOR SUCCESS:

The City Council of Newport Beach is now proposing residents vote on increases in city employee benefit packages.

Isn’t this the same City Council that was so against Greenlight and having voters vote on where city hall should be?

Councilman Keith Curry is spearheading this change to our city charter. He’s also the same person who complained about the cost of an election for voters to vote on city hall.

Another example of the confused leadership we have consistently witnessed by some members of this City Council.

The city has already approved retirement and compensation packages for fire and police.

Now, the balance of the city employees are in negotiations. Residents were not consulted for those contracts.

So why now talk about voting on compensation when everything is pretty much done?

Underfunded compensation packages have been top news stories lately.

Supervisor John Moorlach is raising questions regarding the county’s total unfunded liability for public pensions to the tune of $2.4 billion.

How did we get there and were monies from county investments earmarked for retirement funding spent on other projects over the years contributing to this shortfall?

So what is happening in Newport Beach?

If you look at the documents that were handed out at the finance committee meeting, they propose to pattern this charter amendment after a similar one in San Diego.

What’s being proposed is that the city negotiates with the entities involved, and once they come to an agreement, that agreement is then put to the voters.

But if you look at the fine print, what would we actually be voting on?

In the San Diego document it says, “increases in retirement system benefits” and here’s what’s not considered an increase in the retirement system:

“Salary increases, special salary increases, special salary adjustments, salary step increases, pay for performance increases or gain-sharing payouts. The city’s pickup of employee contributions to the retirement system, the establishment of a defined contribution plan for retiree medical expenses for employees hired after 2005 as previously agreed to between the city” and a host of unions it goes on to list.

What is covered is a change in the following retirement formulas:

“Percentage credits per year of service, health benefits, death benefits, a new retirement system, retirement due to disability.”

Confused yet? We elect a city council to negotiate for us. If we need to vote on every major issue because they can’t do their job effectively, then what’s happening with our city should concern us all.

What’s even more interesting is the name on the top of the handouts at the finance committee was Delta Partners, Dave Ellis’ company.

Is this proposed amendment just pre-election political cover for Ellis’ future council candidates like Keith Curry?

Will this charter amendment have any teeth or real future?

Tongues are wagging that Curry put the word out to police and fire not to object or come to the council meeting regarding this issue, insinuating it probably wouldn’t get out of committee so they shouldn’t be concerned. So who’s really behind this whole idea?

One thing’s for sure: There’s more here than meets the eye, and that should make us all question this recipe for success.

BARBARA VENEZIA is the chairwoman of the Santa Ana Hts. Redevelopment Project Advisor Committee and was the co-creator of the cooking show “At Home on the Range” with John Crean.