Yaroslavsky Takes Raise He Had Declined

Los Angeles City Councilman Zev Yaroslavsky has quietly decided to accept a 5% pay hike that he and most of his City Hall peers had forsaken last year in a widely advertised gesture of fiscal belt-tightening.

The raise would be worth only $1,200 this year but is worth much more in pension benefits when the 46-year-old lawmaker becomes eligible to draw retirement pay at age 55.

Yaroslavsky’s decision comes as he prepares to end his lengthy City Hall career and join the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors, to which he was elected in June. Late last year, Yaroslavsky and 12 of his 15 council colleagues voluntarily agreed to forgo a 5% pay increase available to them on Jan. 1, 1994.

The move to reject the money was initiated by City Councilwoman Laura Chick, who represents the southwestern portion of the San Fernando Valley. She argued that such self-sacrifice was a signal the lawmakers needed to send to taxpayers and city employees at a time when the city faced alarming budget deficits and aggrieved municipal employees seeking long-delayed pay increases.

Yaroslavsky was the first recruit to Chick’s campaign, joining her at a news conference where the pair urged their colleagues to do without the money.

Tim Lynch, spokesman for city Controller Rick Tuttle, said Yaroslavsky is the only one of the 13 to rescind his pay-hike denial agreement.

Yaroslavsky is out of the country until Sept. 17 and could not be reached for comment. But his chief deputy, Alisa Katz, denied that the move was financially motivated. “That’s not why he took it,” Katz said.

The councilman intends to donate the proceeds equally to four “deserving local programs,” including a project to build a library in Studio City and to the Sherman Oaks senior citizens center, Katz said. Also benefiting would be the Beverly-Fairfax Patrol and the Westwood Farmers Market.

Katz confirmed that Yaroslavsky would realize a financial gain--by boosting his future pension earnings--but denied that such considerations played a role in his decision.

Katz said the councilman decided to take the money after it became clear that the need to send a message to city employees negotiating for raises had passed.

“At this point, city employees are getting increases,” Katz said. “And the amount Zev is taking is only 1.25%, and that’s even less than what the civilian employees are getting.” Employees have been offered a 2% increase, although only one of the bargaining units representing them has accepted the offer.

Top officials at City Hall have also pointed out privately the city is still grappling with a budget crisis--one of the reasons Yaroslavsky originally cited for turning down the pay hike. One noted that Tuttle recently warned that the city had $37 million less in its budget than originally projected, which may require midyear budget adjustments.

“The city’s fiscal crisis is not over,” one official said.

City officials have confirmed that Yaroslavsky, in a one-sentence letter from July 22, rescinded his previous decision and is now ready to accept the pay increase. On an annual basis, the hike boosted lawmaker salaries from $90,680 to $95,214.

But Yaroslavsky’s decision to accept the increase in pay became effective only on Aug. 22, said Tuttle spokesman Lynch. Because he will be stepping down from the City Council in early December to assume his duties at the county, his pay hike will be in effect only for slightly more than three months, producing only about $1,200 in additional pay.

Still, the new salary will be used to recalculate--and increase--Yaroslavsky’s pension benefits.

For a retiree like Yaroslavsky with 19 1/2 years of city service, a $1,200-per-year pay increase would translate into more than $500 a year in additional pension benefits, said Lorraine Osuna, deputy general manager of the City Employees Retirement System.

All told, Yaroslavsky would be entitled to a pension of more than $37,000 annually from the city upon retirement.

While campaigning for the Board of Supervisors this spring, Yaroslavsky frequently criticized the board as fiscally reckless, citing in particular a secret decision by top county officials to increase the pensions of thousands of county employees--with the biggest windfalls going to the board itself and senior bureaucrats.

“I cannot imagine that (council members) would take a pay increase at a time when we are asking our own employees to make a sacrifice,” Yaroslavsky said last November, when he joined Chick in urging his colleagues to reject the pay hike.

Chick refused to comment on Yaroslavsky’s decision.

This year, Yaroslavsky--as chairman of the council’s powerful budget committee--voted against a pay hike worth a total of 9% over two years for the city’s police, saying it was too generous, while voting for a plan--still the subject of negotiations with unions--to offer the city’s civilian work force a 2% pay increase in 1994-95 and another 2% in 1995-96.

Only Councilman Hal Bernson, who represents the northwest San Fernando Valley, and Councilman Nate Holden opted to accept the 5% increase. Both said, however, that they intended to donate the proceeds to police units in their districts.

Councilman Joel Wachs, who also represents the Valley, originally agreed to forgo the increase only until June 30, 1994. Lynch confirmed that Wachs has been receiving the additional pay since that date. Wachs, some city officials have pointed out, is up for reelection in 1995. If defeated, he would leave office June 30, 1995. By taking the pay hike for a full year, Wachs would be able to maximize his pension benefits.

The 5% pay hike was mandated by law. Under a City Charter provision, council pay is automatically keyed to match the salaries of Municipal Court judges--which were raised 5% this year. In 1990, voters approved an ethics reform measure that brought City Council salaries into line with those of the judges--a move that gave council members an immediate $24,000 pay increase.