WAM- Rent Board Stories, September 2002

Rent Board Stories, September 2002
By James L. Jacobson

RENT BOARD MEDICAL INSURANCE—
THE BUCK STOPS NOWHERE

There will be proposed changes to the Rent Control Law on the ballot next November and I was asked to write a ballot argument against the proposal to increase the compensation and benefits paid to the Rent Board Commissars. The Commissars believe that meeting for a few hours each month is such hard work that their pay should be doubled from $75 to $150 per meeting and that their salary should be increased at the full inflation rate as time goes by. I did not think this was a very good idea, so I wrote and filed the following argument against it with the City Clerk:

"The Rent Control Law amendments as proposed and supported by theBoard Commissioners benefits them more than it does Santa Monica tenants. Section 1803 (k) of the Proposed Law not only doubles the Commissioners' compensation from $75 to $150 per meeting, but also allows the Commissioners to receive full medical, dental and other health benefits. Providing this level of benefits for meeting for a few hours once a month is outrageous and should be rejected by the voters. And although the Proposed Law appears to cap compensation at $6,000 per year, that "limitation" is meaningless because the Board would have to meet 40 times in a year, which will probably never happen, given that the Board only had 15 meetings in 2001.

Public service should not be a "benefits bonanza" for those who serve. Vote NO."

At the approximately the same time I was submitting my argument against this change, the supporters of this Proposition filed the following statement in support of it:

"When the compensation for Rent Control Board members was established in 1979, no provision was made for inflation. Board members received $75 per meeting with a maximum allotment of $4,750 per year. They have not had an increase in over twenty years! And Rent Board members are the only elected officials in Santa Monica who do not receive basic health insurance.

Proposition ___ will fix these inequities. It will adjust Board member compensation to $150 for meeting with a maximum of the $6000 per year. It will also authorize the same basic health coverage that other elected officials receive.

Taxpayers will be protected. Other than adjustments for inflation, the amounts authorized by Proposition ___ cannot be increased without the a vote of the people. The increased costs, which are minimal, will be completely absorbed by the current and future Rent Control Board budgets. No costs will be paid out of the city's budget; thus there is no burden on Santa Monica taxpayers. The Rent Board's annual fees will not be affected either.

If we want to encourage civic-minded citizens to participate in our government, we must compensate them fairly. A maximum of $6,000.00 per year is neither extravagant nor excessive. The proposed increase is actually less than the inflation rate since 1979 when the existing compensation level was established.

It's time we fix this inequity in our City Charter. Please join us in voting YES on Proposition ___."

The argument was signed by Mildred B. Rosenstein "Senior Advocate" (mother of a former mayor was not mentioned), Dennis Zane as "SMRR Co-chair, former mayor of Santa Monica,"Dolores Press as "Former Chair Santa Monica Rent Control Bd," Sheila Keuhl as "State Senator, 23d District" and Richard Bloom as "council member of Santa Monica." (Notice how everyone who signed in support of the Proposition has benefited from being on the public payroll except the "Senior Advocate" who is also the mother of former Mayor, Paul Rosenstein.)

After reading the arguments made by the supporters of increased compensation for Rent Board Commissars, I wondered how it was possible to get something for nothing. I found it to be more amazing that they said that the money would come from "Rent Control Board budgets" and, "No costs will be paid out of the city's budget, thus there is no burden on Santa Monica taxpayers." So I wrote and filed the following rebuttal argument:

"Despite claims made by those who support increased pay and benefits for the Rent Control Board Commissioners, compensation of $150 PLUS FULL MEDICAL INSURANCE to meet for a few hours once a month is both "extravagant" and "excessive." Truly "civic-minded citizens" who provide "public service" on a very limited basis give the public more than they take.

Supporters of this Proposition state, "No costs will be paid out of the city's budget, thus there is no burden on Santa Monica taxpayers. The Rent Board's annual fees will not be affected either." So who pays the cost? Section 1803 (k) of the Proposition states, "Commissioners shall receive medical, dental, and health benefits paid for by the City provided these benefits are routinely and customarily available and paid for by the City to City miscellaneous employees." Since the City receives its funds from taxpayers, all Santa Monica taxpayers will be paying expenses for a Board which only benefits tenants under rent control.

Nothing in the Proposition limits the Commissioners to "basic health insurance." Nothing excludes their dependents who may need expensive medical care. Nothing requires the Rent Control Board to pay anything. There is no way to limit future cost increases for medical insurance.

Do not approve this Proposition if you are uncertain of the cost or who pays it. Do not approve this Proposition unless you believe our schools and parks have enough funding and you are willing to pay for more expensive government. Vote NO on Proposition ___.

Since the rebuttal was limited to 250 words, I was not able to state how hypocritical it is for Rent Board members (who index landlords "profits" to 40% of the change in the inflation rate) to demand full inflation indexing at 100% of that rate to preserve their "fair return." And there was no room to mention that the landlord compensation rate permitted in rent increase petitions had only increased from $7.00 per hour in 1979 to $8.00 per hour more than twenty years later. If I had more space, I would have also mentioned that the Rent Board met once a week during the first ten years of Rent Control but they only meet once a month now. Therefore, they spend 1/4 the time as the Board did in 1979.

Finally, I do not understand why the City Council members (who wrote and approved the Proposition) agreed to pay the bill for Rent Board Commissar medical insurance. Maybe the supporters did not read the Proposition, or maybe they were lying when they said it would be paid by the Rent Board budget and no costs will be paid out of the city's budget. But that is clearly what the Proposed Law says.

Sometimes when government officials are speaking, it is difficult to tell where ignorance ends and dishonesty begins. I can usually tell when they are lying because their lips are moving, but this time I am not sure. I am only sure that the Proposition says that all the City of Santa Monica and therefor all Santa Monica taxpayers will pick up the cost.

And if you don't believe it, carefully read the ballot instruction pamphlets, which will arrive at your home shortly before the November 2002 election. And the next time they ask for your approval to increase the "surcharges" on your property tax bill for schools, colleges, storm water drainage, mosquito abatement . . ., remember that they already have so much money that they can afford to pay medical insurance for all Rent Board Commissars to meet for three or four hours once a month.