Defined benefit pensions for public employees should be banned as governments are plainly incapable of handling them in a fiscally responsible manner.

I agree with Joseph. MP should go to a defined contribution plan, just like private industry. Where is it written that public servants should get whopping guaranteed pensions? And the myth of "no one will come to work in Menlo Park" if we don't keep up with what Palo Alto pays their people is just that; a myth. Public servant jobs now seem to pay better than private sector, with better benefits, better job guarantees and better pension and retirement programs. We need to end this nonsense. And we need to have the guts to end it when times are good, as the bad economic times tend to force our hands and make more desperate decisions.
Who in the Menlo Park civic government structure has the guts to stand up and make this happen?

Certainly, when there are LINES of applicants for some positions, we need to cut the pensions/costs on those positions.

Dozens, or even hundreds of qualified applicants for a couple openings - and we offer lifetime security like they won the lotto?

Inexplicable.

Actually, there's an easy explanation. It's called unions and unions influencing politics. It's not right, but very explainable.

Menlo Park could operate more efficiently and reduce the number of employees, especially now when there are so many vacancies.

Joseph and Inon the current net pension liability for Menlo Park is $54 million assuming a 7.5% return on their investments. But under the rules CalPERS has come up with to leave their system they make any agency pay a termination fee based upon a 3% assumed rate of return which increases the net pension liability to $207 million (about 5 times the current liability) for the city of Menlo Park. So if CalPERS needs that much money they must not be very confident in their current assumed rate of return.

My numbers are taken directly from the CalPERS actuarial reports for the city which are posted on line.

How can the city hire qualified people for positions if they don’t offer comparable packages that other cities offer. Seems to me that years ago when all the tech companies were on the rise those employers were paying top dollar for working for them. Those that took those whopping salaries should have thought about their plans upon retiring. City government employees at that time made far less in yearly salaries but took care to plan for their retirement because of the incentives offered by cities or state agencies. I don’t see how those who chose to go for incentives to secure a better pension should be singled out as being over paid. Like a basketball player who signs a huge contract during his prime years because it’s offered is not at fault for taking the money.. Those who receive a good pension because it’s offered are not at fault for taking those benefits because they were offered.

" Those who receive a good pension because it’s offered are not at fault for taking those benefits because they were offered."

You're right. Those that offered it are at fault. They offered a benefit that is financially unsustainable. If something doesn't change with the pension system for public employees in this state we are looking a state bankruptcy or huge tax increases to cover the shortfall. Having lived here most of my 60 years, my money's on the latter.

Given the "California Rule" the ONLY way to end the thievery (and YES it's THIEVERY) is to outsource EVERYONE.

Think it can't work ............. Google Sandy Springs, Georgia, and see just how well such a structure IS working. Yes, the Police ARE "employees" of the City, I believe the ONLY ones excepting the top 1 or 2 city-managers, but even the Police ONLY get DC retirement benefits. NOBODY get a DB pension..... NOBODY !

Do what private industry and many nonprofits have done, end the pension program and go to a strictly 401 plan.

"Do what private industry and many nonprofits have done, end the pension program and go to a strictly 401 plan."

That would be a great idea if the public workers unions didn't own the politicians that are SUPPOSED to negotiate for us, the tax payers. They're in the pockets of the unions so they DON'T. It would be nice to have someone on our side of the negotiating table for a change. Problem is public workers unions give the politicians a lot more money than we, the tax payers, do.