Sunday, September 4, 2011

In 1991 the California State Controller Reported that the SBCERS Pensions Previous Funded Levels were as Follows: 12/86 102.0% Funded 12/88 91.0% Funded 12/90 83.0% Funded. In a 2009 Santa Barbara County Document the values have been altered, is that a crime? The 2009 Document shows that in 12/86 the SBCERS was only 67.1% Funded, in 12/88 67.2% Funded, Finally in 12/90 only 61.40% Funded, How Can There Be Such a HUGE VALUE Difference?

Subject: My SBCERS Pension Data will be used on a T.V. Show / A Sheriff had a comment on the Pension Data.
 As I returned home from a meeting this week there happen to be two County Sheriffs in our complex, doing their usual OUTSTANDING job. I asked one of the Sheriffs if I could show him the same 2 documents that I am about to share with you all. The Sheriff looked at the first document which was from 1992 and showed the SBCERSpension was fully funded. Then the Sheriff and I compared that data to what was later reported to the Santa Barbara Retirement Board in 2009. He could not believe that these two documents differed from each other by 35% for the same time frames.  
 Knowing that I keep a blog he made a request. He asked that I remind people that Law Enforcement are the good guys. It seems because of all the issues with law enforcement currently in the news the public has become a bit distrusting. All I can say is that all the Sheriffs I have been in contact with out here perform their duties both Fair and Just. 
   For the past 18 months I have been investigating the SBCERS Pension fund. I have always felt that it was mathematically impossible for the SBCERS Pension fund to currently be under funded in any way shape or form. As a result of my hard work I can now challenge the funded levels and investment return averages for as far back as 12/31/86. Because of all this I am trying find a way to present my findings on local T.V. in the near future. However today I only want to concentrate on the pensions reported funded  levels for the years 12/31/1986, 12/31/88 and 12/31/90. Now lets review the older data that was presented way back on June 3oth 1992.
 The 1991-92 cover page from the California State Controllers Office reads as follows:
To the Citizens, Governor, and Members of the Legislature: I am pleased to submit the 14th edition of the Public Retirement Systems Annual Report  for the fiscal year ended June 30th 1992. This file is available @  
and we are concerned with page 5 of 6. Half way down the page under the heading Summary of Funding Position the reported values are as follows.
....................Unfunded Obligation...........Funded Ratio
12/31/86..........- 4,630,000........................102.10%
 The problem is that between this 1992 report and the next 2009 document, the reported funded values of the pension differs for the same reported years. To prove my point we will now review the 2009 Retirement Board document below and it's data. I have included the web location for this document for your review.

Santa Barbara County Employer Employee History of Costs

The 2009 Retirement Board County Employer-Employee History of Cost document claims that in:
12/31/86 The SBCERS Pension was ONLY 67.10% Funded
12/31/88 The SBCERS Pension was ONLY 67.20% Funded
12/31/90 The SBCERS Pension was ONLY 61.40% Funded 
The 2009 Document also shows the Unfunded Future Pension Obligation as 
12/31/86 The SBCERS UAAL was 112,647,000
12/31/88 The SBCERS UAAL was 132,291,000
12/31/90 The SBCERS UAAL was 185,762,000 
 So in 2009 the Santa Barbara County now claims that the SBCERS PENSION WAS ONLY 67.1% FUNDED on 12/86. This creates a discrepancy of 35.0% with 10 California State Controllers Public Retirement Systems Annual Reports. Because in all these yearly reports 1986, 1987,1988,1989,1990, 1991, 1992, 1993, 1994, and 1995 they show the SBCERS pension to be 102% FUNDED for 12/31/86. I have put the two values (2009, 1992) side by side so you can see what I am talking about.
 Reported in......1992-93*........2009.....Negative impact on Pension
 There is more here but I am really trying to keep a complex issue as simple as possible. How can we have a 35%, a 23.8% and a  21.6% lower funded level difference between the two reports for the years 1986, 88 and 90? Than we have to ask at what cost has this come to Santa Barbara County Government? If you look further and do the math the unfunded pension liability will be different between the two documents as well. The 2009 document shows a UAAL value of - 112,647,000 for 1986. While the 1992 report shows there was actually a surplus of 4,630,000 for the same 1986.  That is a 120 million dollar difference between the two documents. Did Santa Barbara County Residents pay twice for the same pension? Further more the 2009 document  shows that there was 19 years of amortization payments to still be made from 12/86. When in fact if the pension was 102% there would be no need for ANY TYPE OF AMORTIZATION payments to be CARRIED OVER!
 I have tons of Pension data on my blog and the link below. Just click on any year below and the link should open up that file.

California Public Retirement Systems Annual Audit Reports 2007-08 – 1997-98. Also Past Fund Values from 1996-97 – 1978-79 for 5 California County Pensions; Los Angeles(LACERA), Santa Barbara(SBCERS) Ventura(VCERA), Kern(KCERA), and Contra Costa(CCCERS) County

Please click on any  orange highlight and that PDF file will open for your review.

California Public Pension Funds Yearly Audits from the Office of the California State Controller. Pubic Pension Reports County by County and City by City @

California Public Retirement Systems Annual Reports

 1996-97  Fund Values for 5 California County Public Pensions; Los Angeles(LACERA), Santa Barbara(SBCERS) Ventura(VCERA), Kern(KCERA), and Contra Costa(CCCERS) County

It may be easier to use my other blog posting  to click and open each year pdf file.@ 

    To Order Publications

    [Copying and mailing charges may apply]
    By E-mail: Please complete the E-mail Inquiry Form.
    By Regular Mail:
    For State and Local Government Annual Financial Reports:
    Office of State Controller John Chiang
    Division of Accounting and Reporting
    P.O. Box 942850
    Sacramento, CA 94250
    For Annual Audit Reports or Audit Guides:
    Office of State Controller John Chiang
    Division of Audits
    P.O. Box 942850
    Sacramento, CA 94250
    For Unclaimed Property or Tax Publications:
    Office of State Controller John Chiang
    Unclaimed Property Division
    P.O. Box 942850
    Sacramento, CA 94250
    For all other publications:Office of State Controller John Chiang
    P.O. Box 942850
    Sacramento, CA 94250
    By Phone: (916) 445-2636
    S.B.C.C.C. The place where COMMON SENSE never goes out of style!

    No comments: