Comments on: A sweatheart deal for LAFCO chief

By: Brenda

Brenda — Thu, 07 Feb 2013 21:48:03 +0000

To Mr. Steers point…who else is involved in this fiscally irresponsible endeavor? As a Cameron Park resident I understand we have a representative on LAFCO, Ms. Shiva(the destroyer)Frentzen. I would be very curious to know if she was for spending our District’s much needed resources, while ignoring our veterans!

By: Jim Riordan

Jim Riordan — Thu, 07 Feb 2013 21:01:46 +0000

Good Job Joe. As far as I’m concerned we can throw Laughco in the toilet. It smells just as bad as what we normally put in there. Let Hose-A, Hose-B and Hose-C go find a real job and see what they are worth in the real world. Thumbs up Phil, Cookie and Ken.

By: James Smith

James Smith — Thu, 07 Feb 2013 05:55:22 +0000

Really Joe? It’s like the pot calling the kettle black. Auditor-Controller wage and benefit package for Joe Harn as noted on the State Controller’s Office website for 2011; Total wages $200,106 = $155,676 in regular pay, $864 in lump sum, $43,566 in other pay (???). Add in benefits including $26,798 defined benefit, $4,745 in deferred compensation, and $16,093health/dental/vision contribution. This a total compensation package of $247,742. Are you kidding me? Fleecing of the taxpayer in El Dorado County. You sure are one to talk, Joe!

By: Ken Steers

Ken Steers — Wed, 06 Feb 2013 21:51:55 +0000

Is Jose Henriquez the LAFCO Executive that was given service credit for being an intern at the State Assembly while at the same time blocks the service credit time for our Veterans who served? Why would someone who schlepped coffee and donuts for politicians be rewarded for his time over someone who spilled blood in Afghanistan? Joe Harn who are the specific individuals who approved this package? Is it just Henriquez? Is Henriquez now stating that he did it because he thought Joe Harn wouldn’t care or wouldn’t find out? Who else was on this board that approved this deal Joe? This is something that smacks of the City of Bell scandal.

By: cookie65

cookie65 — Wed, 06 Feb 2013 19:13:01 +0000

Spliting hairs over how bad the taxpayers are getting it in the shorts because of the public sector takes away from the reality that there is no purpose for agencies like this in the first place. Think about it, the “Local Agency Formation Commission”, how on earth do they get away with creating such freeeeekin nonsense. That is what the discussion needs to be about. The Public Sector Welfare Programs that the taxpayers are told we can’t do without.

By: Raul

Raul — Wed, 06 Feb 2013 18:23:46 +0000

Oh I get it Joe. your obscene $200,000 a year plus beneits reflect the communities values?

What community or world do you live in?

How about it Joe, What is the truth on your retirement package. Come clean

By: raul

raul — Wed, 06 Feb 2013 17:58:25 +0000

Typical Harn. Our $200,000 plus benifits elected official plays this game with all county heads (unless you are a good ol boy).
loves seeing his name out there!
Whats your retirement deal Joe?

By: Phil Veerkamp

Phil Veerkamp — Tue, 05 Feb 2013 21:37:31 +0000

I recall a time when there was no LAFCO. We got along just fine.

By: Foaming at the Mouth

Foaming at the Mouth — Tue, 05 Feb 2013 05:35:44 +0000

What’d I tell you? Joe NEVER disappoints.

By: Joe Harn

Joe Harn — Tue, 05 Feb 2013 02:46:18 +0000

Mr. Henriquez’s comment above contains a number of inaccuracies. I have no record of the Lafco staff trying to meet with me regarding this issue. I have received no e-mails from Lafco requesting a meeting. No phone messages were left for me requesting a meeting. In the comment that Mr. Henriquez posted above he states that, “Lafco’s draft contract does allow employees to receive service credit for all eligible public service,” That is NOT true. The contract that Mr. Henriquez asked Lafco to approve only allows his public service at the California Legislature to qualify as public service for computing retirement benefits. Mr. Henriquez states that the CalPERS contract will save over $10,000 of taxpayers’ money. That statement is NOT true. Mr. Henriquez is trying to transfer a portion of Lafco’s CalPERS obligation over to the County. Further, after Mr. Henriquez exercises his right to claim service credit for his work at the legislature, Lafco’s CalPERS rates will go up. Joe Harn

By: Foaming at the Mouth

Foaming at the Mouth — Mon, 04 Feb 2013 16:43:18 +0000

Joe Harn apologize?? Surely you jest.

By: Evelyn

Evelyn — Sun, 03 Feb 2013 02:07:09 +0000

Mr. Henriquez: In light of the information you provide, it appears as though Mr. Harns should submit a correction. And, perhaps, an apology.

By: Jose C. Henriquez

Jose C. Henriquez — Sun, 03 Feb 2013 00:02:45 +0000

Mr. Harn’s letter is misleading and does not present all the facts. LAFCO staff have been trying unsuccessfully to meet with Mr. Harn for four months to discuss the CalPERS contract, and only very recently learned of his concerns. The fact is that LAFCO has been operating under the County’s CalPERS contract since 2005, but CalPERS now requires LAFCO to have a separate contract. LAFCO is not allowed to reduce benefits for current employees below the levels in the previous County CalPERS contract. LAFCO intends to reduce benefits for new employees, but cannot do so until we have a CalPERS contract, which CalPERS staff and LAFCO staff have been attempting to finalize. LAFCO’s draft CalPERS contract does allow employees to receive credit for all eligible public service, as do many CalPERS contracts, and LAFCO negotiated for the inclusion of the service credit for veterans. Since the military service credit was inadvertently left out of the draft contract we will ask CalPERS to correct it before the contract is signed.

The bottom line is that LAFCO will save money by having its own CalPERS contract, and will not affect the County’s CalPERS costs. Anyone who is interested can review the official CalPERS actuarial report for the LAFCO contract at http://www.edlafco.us and see the numbers for themselves. The new CalPERS contract will save LAFCO over $10,000 of taxpayer money, and that certainly does reflect the values of the community.

By: francescaduchamp@att.net

francescaduchamp@att.net — Sat, 02 Feb 2013 03:59:31 +0000

“LAFCO has made a big mistake.” Good for you Mr. Harn for stepping up. I have been told that youre one of the “good” guys. I hope that many more in government positions step up and do the right thing. It s time.

By: Evelyn

Evelyn — Sat, 02 Feb 2013 01:07:29 +0000

LAFCO's last 6 audits HERE. One reason this matters is that new layers of government -- that must be paid for -- keep being added. Probably the vast majority of the population knows nothing of their existence. They are determining our choices and shaping how we live.

By: Evelyn

Evelyn — Sat, 02 Feb 2013 01:01:13 +0000

LAFCO's Staff Salary Schedule, effective December 5, 2012, is on page 3, HERE.

By: Evelyn

Evelyn — Sat, 02 Feb 2013 00:58:03 +0000

The taxpayers will be picking up the tab for "special enhanced benefits". LAFCO staff and commissioners can be found HERE.

By: Evelyn

Evelyn — Sat, 02 Feb 2013 00:00:55 +0000

Editor: Do not go to print with “sweatheart” deal. Rather, “sweetheart”