Sins of Commission: 12-12-23 (Part 1)

What's a few million dollars between friends?

A modest proposal

Before we get to last Tuesday’s commission meeting, I would like to share a quick thought regarding town halls, specifically those organized by the city, such as the “Open Spaces Incentives” sunshine meeting that took place a few weeks ago. You know, this barnburner:

I hear Venny Torre called shotgun on the ride home.

First, let me just say that I applaud the…hold on, let me get my abacus…seven or so residents who bothered to show up, as, on balance, they made earnest and thoughtful contributions to the discussion. Furthermore, I assume, at least I certainly hope, they all had better ways to spend their evening, so kudos to each of them.

Nevertheless, you have to wonder about the utility of such a meeting—a meeting whose entire audience could have fit inside a Dodge Caravan. Putting wasted time and resources aside, the problem with these events is that they tend to exacerbate a peculiar problem in the Gables—our leaders’ growing inability to put various forms of resident input into proper context and their resulting tendency to characterize the whims of .0001% of the population as the zeitgeist of Coral Gables.

You know the story, six residents voice an opinion at a town hall today only to magically transform into The Residents™ tomorrow or whenever expediency requires. “The Residents don’t want X or The Residents demand Y”—yeah, you mean the half a dozen people who carpooled to your event at the Adult Activities Center last week?

It is why I have come to think the city should institute a registration threshold for these events. In other words, if a minimum number of residents do not register to attend by a certain date, then the meeting is cancelled. Just as surveys require a sufficient response rate to be deemed valid, community sunshine meetings should be required to produce a sufficient number of pre-registered attendees to move forward. Just food for thought, my people.

Monopoly money

Although not as spicy as recent installments, last week’s commission meeting was nothing if not interesting. I, for one, am a sucker for the little things, like how just about every time Dr. Castro would lose her bearings in the barren desert of extemporaneous thought and begin to ramble in that unidentified neolithic protolanguage of hers, her Apple Watch would suddenly light up with a big block of messaged text that is no doubt synced to the tablet in front of her; a tablet that has some kind of supernatural ability to produce uncharacteristically coherent comments for her to read aloud in the midst of unscripted discussions. I always knew there was a Cyrano De Bergerac arrangement in place for Dr. Castro, but last Tuesday was the first time I saw any suggestion of it functioning in real time.

But it is the meat and potatoes of policy that truly matter, and in this regard I would say that I-1, the proposed cost-of-living adjustment (COLA) for a subset of retired police employees was likely the most important item of the day. Pension issues are inherently complex, this one especially as it involves a class-action lawsuit, which is why to keep things manageable I am going to have to bypass a mountain of minutiae and examine this one from a very high altitude. *I have included at the end of the post a set of slides from the city’s recent Retirement System Workshop presentation, in case anyone is interested.

To put it as succinctly as possible, this item tasked the commission with either approving or rejecting (via a 4/5 vote) an 8% COLA for a class of retired employees that would increase the city’s unfunded pension liability by roughly $27 million. Keep in mind that since 2015 the city has been making additional contributions toward the unfunded liability— to the tune of $46 million as of this year—in order to reduce it by approximately $60 million. Hence, it takes only three functioning neurons to appreciate how fiscally harmful an 8% COLA would be, which is precisely why only Dr. Castro, who does not seem to grasp what an unfunded liability is, voted to approve it. Funny how when it comes to the closest thing she has to organized political support (employee unions), Dr. Castro is inclined to dole out public dollars like Monopoly money.

By the way, just to put things in the proper perspective, it is important to understand the retirement benefits that some of these class members received; especially the members who happen to be crying poor-mouth the loudest. Upon retiring, Mike Chickillo and Tom Zelenak, (the latter of whom turned to heckling the commission from the gallery like a hooligan) received a cash payment of $1.2 million and $1.4 million respectively. This represents a combination of their Chapter 175 and DROP monies. Additionally, they each receive annually 75% of their former salary averaged out over their three highest-earning years. They get that money every year until the day they die, after which their spouses get a reduced, but still significant, amount. Not bad for 25 years on any job, much less one that permits outside employment.

Look, I do not blame these guys for going all out. They have their role to play in the ecosystem. But let us call a spade a spade here, the men we witnessed lambaste the commission for being a bunch of heartless Scrooges were actually union representatives who retired at a relatively young age as literal millionaires.

If this is hell, why is it snowing?

Once the 8% COLA was quashed, the commission took up the task of calculating a reasonable alternative. This is where I nearly fell out of my chair, because for once, finally, mercifully, and almost miraculously, Ariel did something that was not entirely terrible. Rather than go along with Kirk’s initial concession, a haphazardly proposed 2.5% COLA that would have added almost $7 million to the unfunded liability, he ultimately agreed with Anderson and Lago’s more sensible suggestion of a one-time lump-sum payment. Granted, he pushed for a higher amount than either was comfortable with ($2,500 per class member vs their proposed $1,300), but because it was a lump-sum payment, the roughly $1.9 million unfunded liability Ariel’s proposal would have created was absorbable, unlike the perpetual obligation that Kirk lazily plucked from his imagination. Ariel easily could have pandered to the retirees by agreeing to Kirk’s proposed COLA, knowing that because it had no chance of passing the fiscal chickens would never come home to roost. But instead he made what one could argue was a principled stand for responsible policy—for once.

Unfortunately, principled Ariel is something of an ephemeron, he vanishes almost as soon as he appears. Once Anderson asked whether the commission would be willing to sacrifice a portion of its recent salary increase to help increase the lump-sum payment, regular Ariel (aka Dark Ariel) instantly reemerged, “I can’t believe you continue to use other people for political gains of your own!” he snapped back after spending a good eight seconds struggling to remove the wooden stake that had just been driven through his heart.

I will say this for Ariel, he clearly has read his Bullshitter’s Handbook from cover to cover—when in doubt, admit nothing, deny everything, and always counter-accuse. Of course, no one bothered to explain why the commission’s raises should be kept off the table, except for Dr. Castro who eloquently dismissed the question as being “apple [sic] to oranges.” Well said, doc.

Still, Anderson hit a pressure point, and so it was all downhill from there. Any hopes of compromise were dashed as every motion made failed to earn the four votes needed to carry. No COLA. No lump sum. Just a lump of coal in the stockings of the retirees.

It really is quite odd when you think about it, though. Even if you consider Lago and Anderson’s proposed $1,300 lump sum a pittance, it is significantly more than $0, which is what the class members are apt to receive thanks to the commission’s impasse. Why would Ariel, the guy who ridiculously touted legislation that would give maybe $100 to a smattering of seniors as…sound the trumpets…“Economic Stimulus,” reject an opportunity to give hundreds of retirees significantly more? Yes, I know he was pushing for a higher amount, but once you reach the point in a horse trade where the only possible outcomes are something vs. nothing, you should really take the something.

And then there is Kirk, who in one moment will tell you how enamored the state legislature is of the city’s triple-A bond rating, and then in the next argue in favor of a measure that would add millions of dollars of pension debt to the city’s balance sheet. I know Kirk tends to check out when it comes to anything that does not involve either parks or the zoning of neighborhoods near the Crafts Section, but he at least could have pretended as though he gave this item a modicum of thought beforehand. It is almost as if some of these people aren’t taking this whole fiduciary responsibility thing seriously.

To be continued…