Pensions

California and three dozen other states formed a task force Friday to investigate whether the abuses alleged at a New York state retirement fund are taking place at public pension agencies across the country. The announcement marks the latest expansion of a pay-to-play probe that has increasingly revealed California connections. New York Atty. Gen.

Bank of America Corp. owes Kenneth D. Lewis, who is quitting as its chief executive at year's end, $68.8 million on his way out the door. Lewis accumulated that amount in his 40 years of work at Bank of America and predecessor companies. Topping the list of assets is a lump-sum pension benefit that was valued at $53.2 million in the bank's last public report on his holdings. That report, in a proxy filing this year, also said Lewis, 62, had $10.6 million in deferred compensation coming his way. And he will keep 305,000 shares of restricted stock that will vest over the next few years, which, at today's stock price of $16.34, is worth about $5 million.

Costs are quickly mounting in Orange County's effort to invalidate its pension agreement with sheriff's deputies, public records show. The county has already paid a total of more than half a million dollars to four law firms in the last year to research and develop a strategy for a legal challenge -- and that's before supervisors have even decided to take the case to court.

The rumor had swept through this border town early in the morning, and soon several dozen women were clamoring outside a small government office. The rumor would prove false, as it has on many other days. There would be no distribution of pension payments for the Iraqi widows. Often, months pass between payments, with no provisions made for back payments and no explanations given for the gaps in time. "I have nothing," one widow cried to a government employee peeping out from a half-opened door.

Could a lawsuit seeking to cut pensions for Orange County sheriff's deputies be tried fairly in one of the county's own courtrooms? That question is at the heart of a motion filed recently by the board of the county retirement system, which has been sued by Orange County in a closely watched battle over $187 million in benefits.

When Reed Royalty endorsed Orange County Supervisor Janet Nguyen's reelection campaign last month, he praised her for seeking to reduce pension benefits for sheriff's deputies "that may be unconstitutional." It was a logical comment for Royalty, an advocate of low taxes and limited government who is president of the Orange County Taxpayers Assn.

Does your job guarantee you a pension for your retirement? Mine doesn't, and if you're like most private-sector workers, your pension plan is either crumbling around you or has been replaced with a 401(k) program, which may or may not receive a helping hand from your employer. Yet many if not most chief executives continue to enjoy lavish pension plans -- on top of their multimillion-dollar pay packages and sundry other perks. How can that be fair? The short answer, of course, is that it isn't.

Orange County supervisors voted unanimously Tuesday to place a measure on the November ballot letting voters decide if future pension increases for county government workers should be put to a public vote. If approved by voters as part of the Nov. 4 general election ballot, the measure would amend the county's charter to require that retirement benefit increases for county workers be approved by a majority of voters, with a study of the benefits' cost published in ballot pamphlets.

The board of the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power voted this week to give its No. 2 official an extra $152,000 toward his pension, as part of the deal that brought him back to the agency last year. On Wednesday, City Controller Laura Chick called the agreement with Chief Operating Officer Raman Raj "unprecedented" and said she would not cut a check until the City Council takes up the matter and hears why it is necessary. Raj receives an annual salary of $247,000.

Orange County's Measure J may be the closest thing to a sure bet on next month's ballot. Voters appear to so strongly favor the idea of requiring their approval of any future increases in county employees' pensions that unions for government workers aren't even campaigning against it. The bigger question is whether Measure J will make much of a difference in pension costs.