The Times headline article on the 26th left me with more questions than answers. Pension fund chief praised, defended.
If you clicked on the article you probably noticed that the on-line version has a different headline than the print version one that I used above. Call me old fashioned but there is something disingenuous about doing that. It can lead to all sorts of problems. Given how short-handed the editorial staff is over there I would have thought they would only want to edit one version of a story. I say that with the hope that a competent editor works on each story.
It appears that the city’s chief financial officer has fallen in step with the city manager. Earlier articles in the Times left me with the impression that the city manager and the chief financial officer were not talking.
The city has five board members. The three that dissented were city appointees. What happened to the other two? Were they not at this important meeting? Did they vote with the majority?
The Times used a lot of ink printing about “questionable actions and spending habits”. They did not talk about the board and it’s oversight responsibilities. Two of the city board members did not know about the director’s prior legal issues. Why not?
The director has been accused of wrong-doing in the past. That does not make him guilty. Any board member with an ounce of responsibility would have been watching him like a hawk, however.
How can the fund have a shortfall of $270 million four years after receiving a $210 million bailout?
Are the payouts too liberal? Is the investment plan defective? What are the numbers? Is the fund really losing about $70 million dollars a year?
Where is the board? What are they doing? What are the plans to fix this?
Was this article about running off the director when it should have been about the lack of board control?
Muckraker
elpasospeak 