This iReport is part of an assignment:
Sound-off
1
of 4
More from sbmagic
- SBCERS Pension Actual Performance Out Earns Santa Barbara County's Assumptions in Every Example?
- 20YRS. 1988-2007, 20YRS 1989-2008 & 1988-2011 24 YEARS OF SANTA BARBARA COUNTY'S ECONOMIC ASSUMPTIONS v. ACTUAL (SBCERS) PENSION FUND PERFORMANCE 1988-2007.
- What are the Compensating Factors that Make it Impossible for the Santa Barbara County Employees Retirement Systems Pension (S.B.C.E.R.S.) to be Anything but Fully Funded? Posted on January 13, 2013by magicinsantabarbara
- 45 minutes of Interview: Larry Mendoza with Bill Windsor of Lawless America Talking about the Santa Barbara Police and How I Was Harassed by Them
- My Greatest Day Being an American includes the FDNY after 9/11
More iReports you should see
Documentation showing a Retroactive Change of Values to the SBCERS Pension Between 1995-96 / 1996-97 Reports
http://santabarbaracriminalcourtcorruption.blogspot.com/2011/07/more-documentation-concerning.html
What I have been attempting to expose is that some one or some agency within Santa Barbara County Government has retroactively altered specific reported values and funded levels of the SBCERS pension from there previously earlier reported values. What I find even more alarming is that the Valuation firm hired to set these values appears to have assisted the perpetrator with this act. In this case the Buck Consultants reported pension values published in the 1995-96 State audit differs from those they report in the 1996-97 State audits. In the 1996-97 audits the 12/31/88 Actuarial Obligation was reported greater and the Valuation of Assets had been reduced. For example the funded levels reported between the two years can differ as high as 23.9% as you can see for yourself below.
California State Controllers Audits..1995-96...........87.8%
December 31, 1994…………………..88.1%.............85.0%
December 31,1992……………...…..88.6%.............81.6%.
December 31, 1990………………….83.0%.............64.1%
December 31, 1988………………….91.0%.............67.1%
Lets look at 12/31/88 and the effect these differences had on the unfunded values between the two valuations. The Unfunded Actuarial Accrued Liability jumped from only 26,627,000 in the 95-96 report to 132,627,000 in the 96-97 audits. The 105,990,000 million dollar difference would definitely mean an increased cost to Santa Barbara County Government? Here are the additional changes found under the heading of “Summary of Funding Position” between the two years in question.
Audit of the California State Controllers Office
Summer of Funding Positions
The First Reported Values 1995-96
The Altered Reported Values 1996-97
Actuary Buck Consultants
.Actuarial Obligations. Valuation of Assets Funded Ratio
12/31/95…636,834,000…586,697,000…….92.1%
12/31/95.....711,868,472…624,822,614…...87.8%
12/31/94....586,293,000….516,671,000..….88.1%
12/31/94….643,452,966…546,703,000…...85.0%
12/31/92....484,429,000….429,421,000.….88.6%
12/31/92....552,544,865….451,102572…...81.6%
12/31/90….400,373,000….332,170,000…..83.0%
12/31/90….517,987,560….332,225,133.…64.1%
12/31/88….297,168,000….270,543,000…...91.0%
12/31/88....403,824,675….271,533,553.…...67.2%
As you can see the values and years most dramatically affected were 12/31/88 and 12/31/90.Between these two reported values for 12/31/88 there was an increase to the Actuarial Obligation of over 25% or 106,655,375! A 25% obligation increase over night to a 42 year old pension seems a bit drastic. I have forwarded my concerns to Santa Barbara County Auditor-Controller Robert Geis as well as the current Santa Barbara Board of Supervisors however to date no one has responded.
Once again I feel my research has left no doubt that an investigation is warranted for some type of misuse or misrepresentation of value with Santa Barbara County Government assets and the Santa Barbara County Employees Retirement Systems pension fund. I have attached the files with the data for 1986-87, 19895-96 and 1996-97 California State Controllers Pension Fund Audits for your review.
Best Regards
Larry Mendoza 07/10/11
Please feel free to contact me with any further questions you may have.
Below is the same data as above and how it originally appeared in their yearly audits.
Audit of the California State Controllers Off
Summer of Funding Positions
The First Reported Values 1995-96
12/31/95….636,834,000……586,697,000……….92.1%
12/31/94....586,293,000…….516,671,000……….88.1%
12/31/92....484,429,000…….429,421,000……….88.6%
12/31/90....400,373,000…….332,170,000……….83.0%
12/31/88….297,168,000…….270,543,000……….91.0%
Summer of Funding Positions
The Altered Values of 1996-97
12/31/95 ..711,868,472….624,822,614….87.8%
12/31/94….643,452,966….546,703,000….85.0%
12/31/92….552,544,865….451,102572….81.6%
12/31/90….517,987,560….332,225,133….64.1%
12/31/88.....403,824,675….271,533,553….67.2%
Please click on the links below to review the data for the year labeled
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
1995-96
1986-87
Compare originally reported values (1986-1996) against this 2009 document released by Santa Barbara County " employer cost history sheet for the pension" I attached or this link @ http://www.countyofsb.org/uploadedFiles/SBC/RPAAC/C%20-%20Employer-Employee%20History%20of%20Costs.pdf )
What I have been attempting to expose is that some one or some agency within Santa Barbara County Government has retroactively altered specific reported values and funded levels of the SBCERS pension from there previously earlier reported values. What I find even more alarming is that the Valuation firm hired to set these values appears to have assisted the perpetrator with this act. In this case the Buck Consultants reported pension values published in the 1995-96 State audit differs from those they report in the 1996-97 State audits. In the 1996-97 audits the 12/31/88 Actuarial Obligation was reported greater and the Valuation of Assets had been reduced. For example the funded levels reported between the two years can differ as high as 23.9% as you can see for yourself below.
California State Controllers Audits..1995-96...........87.8%
December 31, 1994…………………..88.1%.............85.0%
December 31,1992……………...…..88.6%.............81.6%.
December 31, 1990………………….83.0%.............64.1%
December 31, 1988………………….91.0%.............67.1%
Lets look at 12/31/88 and the effect these differences had on the unfunded values between the two valuations. The Unfunded Actuarial Accrued Liability jumped from only 26,627,000 in the 95-96 report to 132,627,000 in the 96-97 audits. The 105,990,000 million dollar difference would definitely mean an increased cost to Santa Barbara County Government? Here are the additional changes found under the heading of “Summary of Funding Position” between the two years in question.
Audit of the California State Controllers Office
Summer of Funding Positions
The First Reported Values 1995-96
The Altered Reported Values 1996-97
Actuary Buck Consultants
.Actuarial Obligations. Valuation of Assets Funded Ratio
12/31/95…636,834,000…586,697,000…….92.1%
12/31/95.....711,868,472…624,822,614…...87.8%
12/31/94....586,293,000….516,671,000..….88.1%
12/31/94….643,452,966…546,703,000…...85.0%
12/31/92....484,429,000….429,421,000.….88.6%
12/31/92....552,544,865….451,102572…...81.6%
12/31/90….400,373,000….332,170,000…..83.0%
12/31/90….517,987,560….332,225,133.…64.1%
12/31/88….297,168,000….270,543,000…...91.0%
12/31/88....403,824,675….271,533,553.…...67.2%
As you can see the values and years most dramatically affected were 12/31/88 and 12/31/90.Between these two reported values for 12/31/88 there was an increase to the Actuarial Obligation of over 25% or 106,655,375! A 25% obligation increase over night to a 42 year old pension seems a bit drastic. I have forwarded my concerns to Santa Barbara County Auditor-Controller Robert Geis as well as the current Santa Barbara Board of Supervisors however to date no one has responded.
Once again I feel my research has left no doubt that an investigation is warranted for some type of misuse or misrepresentation of value with Santa Barbara County Government assets and the Santa Barbara County Employees Retirement Systems pension fund. I have attached the files with the data for 1986-87, 19895-96 and 1996-97 California State Controllers Pension Fund Audits for your review.
Best Regards
Larry Mendoza 07/10/11
Please feel free to contact me with any further questions you may have.
Below is the same data as above and how it originally appeared in their yearly audits.
Audit of the California State Controllers Off
Summer of Funding Positions
The First Reported Values 1995-96
12/31/95….636,834,000……586,697,000……….92.1%
12/31/94....586,293,000…….516,671,000……….88.1%
12/31/92....484,429,000…….429,421,000……….88.6%
12/31/90....400,373,000…….332,170,000……….83.0%
12/31/88….297,168,000…….270,543,000……….91.0%
Summer of Funding Positions
The Altered Values of 1996-97
12/31/95 ..711,868,472….624,822,614….87.8%
12/31/94….643,452,966….546,703,000….85.0%
12/31/92….552,544,865….451,102572….81.6%
12/31/90….517,987,560….332,225,133….64.1%
12/31/88.....403,824,675….271,533,553….67.2%
Please click on the links below to review the data for the year labeled
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
1995-96
1986-87
Compare originally reported values (1986-1996) against this 2009 document released by Santa Barbara County " employer cost history sheet for the pension" I attached or this link @ http://www.countyofsb.org/uploadedFiles/SBC/RPAAC/C%20-%20Employer-Employee%20History%20of%20Costs.pdf )
What do you think of this story?
Select one of the options below. Your feedback will help tell CNN producers what to do with this iReport. If you'd like, you can explain your choice in the comments below.
Be and editor! Choose an option below:
More from this assignment - Sound-off
iReport welcomes a lively discussion, so comments on iReports are not pre-screened before they post. See the iReport community guidelines for details about content that is not welcome on iReport.
© 2013 Cable News Network. 
Comments