I wish you all the best and offer my services to your campaign. Of course at breakfast there was also a definite candidate for City Council and I offer him my services as well.
Larry "Magic"Mendoza
From: sb_magic@hotmail.com
To: dfrancisco@santabarbaraca.gov; fhotchkiss@santabarbaraca.gov; ghouse@santabarbaraca.gov; rrowse@santabarbaraca.gov; mself@santabarbaraca.gov; hwhite@santabarbaraca.gov; dfarr@countyofsb.org; supervisorcarbajal@sbcbos1.org; jgray@co.santa-barbara.ca.us; steve.lavagnino@countyofsb.org; jwolf@sbcbos2.org; raym@silpac.net; geis@co.santa-barbara.ca.us
Subject: FW: More Documentation concerning the retroactive change of value to our SBCERS Pension fund between 1995-96 and 1996-97
Date: Sun, 10 Jul 2011 22:01:40 -0700
I have been contacted by one State Agency after sending them a copy of my S.E.C. complaint. Here is some additional findings I have made since filling that complaint.
I have since filed this with the S.E.C. as well...
TCR Submitted Successfully - Reference Number: TCR1310815614372
Mr. xxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxx
State of California
After our recent conversation I spent some additional time and performed a year by year comparison of the archived audit data that I recently received. At this time my focus was only with the Santa Barbara County Employee Retirement System (SBCERS) and there reported dollar and funded values.
What I have been attempting to expose is that some one or some agency within Santa Barbara County Government has retroactively altered specific reported values and funded levels of the SBCERS pension from there previously earlier reported values. What I find even more alarming is that the Valuation firm hired to set these values appears to have assisted the perpetrator with this act. In this case the Buck Consultants reported pension values published in the1995-96 State audit differs from those they report in the 1996-97 State audits. In the 1996-97 audits the 12/31/88 Actuarial Obligation was reported greater and the Valuation of Assets had been reduced. For example the funded levels reported between the two years can differ as high as 23.9% as you can see for yourself below.
California State Controllers Audit….1995-96…….1996-97…
December 31, 1995…………………..92.1%.............87.8%
December 31, 1994…………………..88.1%.............85.0%
December 31, 1992…………………..88.6%.............81.6%.
December 31, 1990………………….83.0%.............64.1%
December 31, 1988………………….91.0%.............67.1%
Lets look at 12/31/88 and the effect these differences had on the unfunded values between the two valuations. The Unfunded Actuarial Accrued Liability jumped from only 26,627,000 in the 95-96 report to 132,627,000 in the 96-97 audits. The 105,990,000 million dollar difference would definitely mean an increased cost to Santa Barbara County Government? Here are the additional changes found under the heading of “Summary of Funding Position” between the two years in question.
Audit of the California State Controllers Office
Summer of Funding Positions
The First Reported Values 1995-96
The Altered Reported Values 1996-97
Actuary Buck Consultants
Valuation Date…...Actuarial Obligations….Valuation of Assets…Funded Ratio
12/31/95…………….636,834,000….…………586,697,000……….92.1%
12/31/95……………..711,868,472….…………624,822,614……….87.8%
12/31/94…………….586,293,000…………….516,671,000……….88.1%
12/31/94…………….643,452,966…………….546,703,000……….85.0%
12/31/92…………….484,429,000…………….429,421,000……….88.6%
12/31/92…………….552,544,865…………….451,102572……….81.6%
12/31/90…………….400,373,000…………….332,170,000……….83.0%
12/31/90…………….517,987,560…………….332,225,133……….64.1%
12/31/88…………….297,168,000…………….270,543,000……….91.0% 12/31/88…………….403,824,675…………….271,533,553……….67.2%
As you can see the values and years most dramatically affected were 12/31/88 and 12/31/90.Between these two reported values for 12/31/88 there was an increase to the Actuarial Obligation of over 25% or 106,655,375! A 25% obligation increase over night to a 42 year old pension seems a bit drastic. I have forwarded my concerns to Santa Barbara County Auditor-Controller Robert Geis as well as the current Santa Barbara Board of Supervisors however to date no one has responded.
Once again I feel my research has left no doubt that an investigation is warranted for some type of misuse or misrepresentation of value with Santa Barbara County Government assets and the Santa Barbara County Employees Retirement Systems pension fund. I have attached the files with the data for 1986-87, 19895-96 and 1996-97 California State Controllers Pension Fund Audits for your review.
Best Regards
Larry Mendoza 07/10/11
Please feel free to contact me with any further questions you may have.
Below is the same data as above and how it originally appeared in their yearly audits.
Audit of the California State Controllers Off
Summer of Funding Positions
The First Reported Values 1995-96
12/31/95…………….636,834,000….…………586,697,000……….92.1%
12/31/94…………….586,293,000…………….516,671,000……….88.1%
12/31/92…………….484,429,000…………….429,421,000……….88.6%
12/31/90…………….400,373,000…………….332,170,000……….83.0%
12/31/88…………….297,168,000…………….270,543,000……….91.0%
Summer of Funding Positions
The Altered Values of 1996-97
12/31/95……………..711,868,472….…………624,822,614……….87.8%
12/31/94…………….643,452,966…………….546,703,000……….85.0%
12/31/92…………….552,544,865…………….451,102572……….81.6%
12/31/90…………….517,987,560…………….332,225,133……….64.1%
12/31/88…………….403,824,675…………….271,533,553……….67.2%
Please click on the links below to review the data for the year labeled
1996-97 Fund Values for 5 California County Public Pensions; Los Angeles(LACERA), Santa Barbara(SBCERS) Ventura(VCERA), Kern(KCERA), and Contra Costa(CCCERS) County1995-96
1986-87
No comments:
Post a Comment