3rd Effort to Rescind Pension Rules Fails : L.A. County: Supervisor Deane Dana changes his position and sides with Gloria Molina for repeal. But they are outvoted. The debate takes on a more bitter tone.

For the third time in as many months, the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors on Tuesday turned back efforts to rescind controversial pension rules that will cost taxpayers $265 million.

After a heated debate, in which a supervisor accused the board’s legal counsel of being dishonest and one supervisor charged that another was grandstanding for political gain--the board narrowly voted to keep the pension rules in place until a series of studies are completed.

Supervisor Deane Dana, in an unexpected change of position, joined Supervisor Gloria Molina on the short end of the vote to rescind some of the pension rules, which allow benefits such as car and security allowances to be counted with salaries in calculating retirement pay.

Dana, who had earlier joined efforts to block Molina’s efforts to repeal the pension rules, said that “a lot has happened in the last few weeks” that led to his change of heart. Dana, who is up for reelection to a third term on June 2, said “we sit here at the county fat and happy” while the state government faces a multibillion-dollar deficit and the general public suffers rising unemployment.

Dana said he was also touched by his own daughter’s recent experience with lost pension benefits. Dana recounted how his daughter’s company was recently sold and new owners provided no pension or medical benefits. “We in government often are insulated from circumstances people are facing,” said Dana. “We all need to reflect on this.”

Dana recommended that some of the benefits be repealed, while the bulk be left in place until two county commissions complete their study of the rules and their financial effect.

But Dana’s plea was rejected by a majority of the board, which relied on County Counsel DeWitt Clinton’s opinion that it would be illegal to rescind benefits retroactively. Supervisors Mike Antonovich and Ed Edelman also said that the board should withhold any action on the rules until the studies are complete. Supervisor Kenneth Hahn, who retires at the end of the year with a pension that is $25,000 higher than his current base pay of $99,000, voted with the majority.

The debate, while treading on the same ideas and arguments for the third time, took on a decidedly more bitter tone.

Molina charged that Clinton was being dishonest in his legal opinions and his characterizations of what the board members were told before the rules were put into place in early 1991.

“I’m not playing games,” an angry Clinton shot back at Molina.

Molina went on to liken the pension rules to “stealing and government corruption.”

Edelman, who said the whole issue was being driven by the media in stories “that are often distorted,” accused Dana of changing his position for political gain. He said Dana’s position change was disingenuous and was political grandstanding.

Dana replied that he can understand why the public is upset about the lucrative rules and promised to continue to push for their repeal.

The pension rules would boost the retirement pay of some officials by 19%, to more than $125,000 a year. Last month, a county study concluded that the rule changes have created a liability of $265 million that will cost the county at least $18 million annually for the next 30 years.

Two taxpayer groups have sued the county to repeal the pension rules. And on Monday, Gov. Pete Wilson signed legislation overturning a state law used by Los Angeles County officials to adopt the rules without a formal vote. The legislation repeals an obscure 1990 law that Wilson said was misinterpreted by Los Angeles County.

County attorneys have contended that the pension changes are irreversible because it is illegal to take away pension benefits.

Though some changes will benefit most of the county’s 85,000 employees, the Board of Supervisors and top county managers will derive the largest gains in retirement income.