Convicted Ex-Los Angeles Councilman Will Continue Collecting Six-Figure Pension

Former Los Angeles Councilman Richard Alarcón’s was
convicted of four felonies this week, including voter fraud and
perjury. It turned out he lied about where he lived in 2007 and
2009 in order to represent the city’s District 7. His wife was also
convicted of three counts.

But he will keep his pension, which totals $116,000 a year for
that short stint on the City Council.  From the
Los Angeles Daily News:

Alarcón’s conviction comes three months after City Councilman
Mitchell Englander introduced a motion that would require city
workers convicted of a felony involving the use of their city
position to forfeit their pension. The proposed law was spurred by
revelations over the $72,000 annual pension collected by a recently
convicted
city building inspector, Englander’s motion states.

Englander’s office didn’t respond to a comment Thursday. But
earlier in the week, an Englander spokeswoman said the councilman
is still pushing to pass the ordinance. Amid growing scrutiny over
workers’ benefits, Gov. Jerry Brown in 2012 signed a law requiring
public employees convicted of a felony to forfeit retirement
benefits accrued after the date the felony occurred. However, Los
Angeles has its own pension systems, and the state law doesn’t
apply to the city.

It may not actually be possible to strip him of his pension
retroactively even if Los Angeles ultimately does pass a law.
Unsurprisingly, some who serve office or have worked for the city
don’t seem particularly outraged:

City councilman and former Los Angeles Police Chief Bernard
Parks, whose own hefty annual pension has been criticized, didn’t
seem fazed by Alarcón’s pension allocation, despite the
convictions.

“He earned the pension — once you earned it, it’s yours,” Parks
said Thursday. “By City Charter, there’s nothing you can do
retroactively to take it away. Just because he was found guilty
does not terminate nor mitigate the contract he had with the City
as an employee.”

Having a plum contract with the city is not exactly the same as
having “earned” anything. It reminds me of when contestants on
Survivor argue over who more “deserves” to win $1
million.