Endorsement: L.A.'s Charter Amendment FF is pension giveaway

Endorsement: No on Charter Amendment FF. L.A. can’t afford this pension giveaway

A park ranger carries propane tanks found in the Sepulveda Basin Wildlife Reserve

Oct. 10, 2024 5 AM PT

Charter Amendment FF has flown under the radar, and perhaps that’s by design.

At a time when Los Angeles can’t afford to replace broken street lights, fix dangerously damaged sidewalks or operate safe, humane animal shelters, Mayor Karen Bass and the City Council are asking voters to spend $23 million from the city budget so park rangers and some police officers can turn their good pensions into great pensions.

Charter Amendment FF raises significant questions about city leaders’ priorities. Voters should reject it and send the mayor and City Council back to the negotiating table. L.A. is facing another budget crisis, and city leaders need to reconsider the costs and tradeoffs of their promises to public employee unions.

FF would let some 460 police officers and park rangers in the Police, Airport, Harbor, and Recreation and Parks departments transfer their pensions from the generous general city worker system to the even more generous Los Angeles Fire and Police Pension system, which could allow them to collect tens of thousands of dollars more each year in retirement.

For example, an employee in the general pension system would receive roughly 63% of their salary if they retired after 30 years on the job. Those in the police system get 75% of their salary after 30 years, and 90% after 33 years, The Times reported.

The price of FF would be a one-time $109-million payout, plus about $6.3 million a year in ongoing costs. The city’s general fund would be on the hook for $23 million upfront and an additional $1 million a year, money that would otherwise be used for basic city services, such as street sweeping, tree trimming, police and fire response. The Airport and the Port of Los Angeles would share the remaining one-time cost of $86 million, plus $5.3 million a year, paid from their department revenues.

The proponents, including the Los Angeles Airport Peace Officers Assn., argue FF is a matter of fairness. They say that because all peace officers employed by the city go through the Police Academy, they should receive the same benefits whether they work for the LAPD, Airport, Harbor or parks department.

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 L.A. is already having a hard enough time recruiting LAPD officers. Peace officers working at the port, airport and parks certainly face risks on the job, but they are lower than those faced by LAPD officers patrolling the streets. And they knew that it came with a less-generous pension when they signed up for the job. (Park rangers also don’t carry guns, though there have been proposals to arm them.)

Further complicating matters is that a portion of peace officers are already enrolled in the police pension system. Previously, voters approved moving new port hires into the more generous pension plan.

Officers already employed by the departments were allowed to transfer into the police pension plan but were required to pay the full expense because, voters were told, the move would be cost neutral. The upfront cost was so high that only a few officers transferred. Charter Amendment FF would now move those officers to the police pension at no cost to them and refund the officers who previously paid the transfer costs.

It’s understandable that the union representing peace officers would advocate for the best benefits for their members. But Bass and the City Council have a responsibility to be good fiscal stewards, including ensuring that the city can afford to deliver reliable services and maintain public infrastructure.

That’s not happening, and voters should say no to irresponsible promises like Charter Amendment FF, which will only make the situation worse.