City Finances Need Hard Analysis, Professional Approach. Chris Tomlinson (Writing from Austin), HoustonChronicle.com ($$$)
Pro-forma party rhetoric is not the solution, though, because both conservatives and progressives are responsible for this mess.
A bipartisan Texas Legislature passed, and a Republican governor signed, the 2001 pension changes that boosted benefits to municipal employees in return for small increases in contributions. State officials, city leaders and pension experts all misunderstood the implications of that change, and some Houston leaders exacerbated the problem by kicking pension payments down the road.
New Mayor Needs to Lead Houston out of Financial Trouble. Lisa Falkenberg (Still polishing that gift Pulitzer apparently) HoustonChronicle.com ($$$)
All this started with a 2001 increase in retirement benefits that was based in part on flawed projections. Unexpectedly, pension costs skyrocketed. The city has only met its obligations two times for police and municipal pensions.
....
One roadblock to a solution is that some employees are controlled by the Legislature. Local leaders can negotiate changes to police and municipal benefits if the respective pension boards agree. But changes to firefighter benefits must be approved by lawmakers.
Forgetting, for a moment, that the Chronicle has published two fairly worthless columns on the matter, (Both are just a rehashing of what we already know, followed by a "who knows?" by both writers) there is a bigger point to be made about the folly of keeping what are basically local political matters at the State level.
Both writers are correct however in this: In 2001 Houston forwarded, to the State Legislature, an unsustainable pension deal that was passed and signed into law by the Governor. Tomlinson uses this as cover for his "neither progressive or conservative" straw-man and Falkenberg uses it for filler apparently. Neither writer fully grasps the concept of deference on local issues, and why this is so bad.
When this law was forwarded in the Legislature, by then Representative Turner (D-Houston) and State Senator Whitmire (D-Houston) the idea was that they both knew what was best for their respective city and the other politicians, not having the supposed level of detailed knowledge regarding Houston's finances that then-Mayor Lee P. Brown, Whitmire and Turner possessed. This happens fairly often in Texas odd State method of governance and can result in some pretty bad local policy.
What both Mayoral candidates should be pushing for is an end to this practice. King is, Turner is not.
The key is that bringing pensions under local control is NOT going to prevent bad Mayors and City Councils from making bad deals, but it is going to make it easier to undo them, without having to navigate through Austin politicians who have a private financial stake in the outcome. (Also not mentioned in either Chronicle article)
Unfortunately, this issue has been largely ignored in Houston where our media and politicians have focused on Parklets and special accommodation for minority groups. Yes, the can has been kicked down the road for years now, and it's very likely that we are going to see more attempts at can-kicking should Turner win the election.
