PAC
Report
by Kerry Condon
MEMBER ADVISEMENT - AOCDS PENSION LAWSUIT
February
27, 2009 –
Rejecting
legal arguments by the County of Orange that Deputy Sheriff pension benefits in
Orange County are unconstitutional, Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Helen
Bendix threw out of court a lawsuit by the Orange County Board of Supervisors to
overturn 3% at 50 pension benefits for Orange County Deputy Sheriffs (County
of Orange v. AOCDS & Board of Retirement, Case #BC389758) yesterday by
ruling in favor of the AOCDS’ “MOTION
FOR JUDGEMENT ON THE PLEADINGS”, two months before the case was
scheduled to go to trial.
The Court ruled that the 3%
@ 50 retirement benefit, providing credit for prior service time IS NOT
a gift of public funds, sharply rejecting the County’s cause of action on this
matter. Judge Bendix further ruled and dismissed the County’s second cause of
action (as written), in that the County failed to prove that adopting the 3% @
50 retirement benefit exceeded the County’s debt limitation requirements. (The
Court did however allow the County 30 days in which to amend their complaint on
this cause of action. Amending the suit to this cause of action will only
serve to delay the eventual dismissal of this matter. The AOCDS legal team, of
Morrison & Foerster and Manatt-Phelps, is confident and has advised them
that the facts simply do not support this argument.)
Wayne Quint, President of AOCDS said,
“The Deputy Sheriffs, their families, and especially those deputies who no
longer work, are pleased -- but not surprised -- by the Court's decision to
throw out the County's case.” “The
County spent hundreds of thousands of dollars getting opinions from three
different outside law firms that all predicted this outcome prior to filing, the
opinions of a former and current California State Attorney General do not
support, and now a qualified, competent and highly respected Superior Court
Judge has ruled against. We only hope they will not lay off any more county
probation officers who work with and protect our children or eliminate welfare
fraud investigators who save the County tens of millions of dollars annually in
thwarted welfare fraud scams in order to finance an appeal. Or, the Board of
Supervisors can choose to do the right thing and consider the matter
resolved.”
Continued Quint, “To quote
What’s next? The County
can chose to pursue one of three basic courses of action;
1. File an amended complaint
as to the Debt Limitation cause of action, in which the amended complaint will
be heard before Judge Bendix,
2. The County can chose to
appeal the Court’s ruling to the Court of Appeal, or
3. The County can do the
prudent thing and accept the Courts decision, and consider the matter resolved.
After months of the County
stalling to avoid the inevitable, the matter has been soundly defeated at the
trial court level based on the Facts and the Law, (the suit
didn’t even merit a trial). The Board of Supervisors should now feel confident
in knowing they have met their constitutional oversight responsibilities. The
Board of Supervisors is now free to focus their full attention and resources
to the more pressing economic matters at hand.
February 24, 2009 –
The legal team for AOCDS has advised us that Judge Bendix is being very
thorough in her review of their Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings.
Throwing this out before trial would mean that the Judge does not believe the
County has a case, even if one were to believe everything the County alleged
in its complaint. Initially, AOCDS believed Judge Bendix would issue her final
ruling on February 23. However, she informed the lawyers for all the parties
that she would be taking more time than she originally thought would be
necessary to complete her legal opinion. The legal team for AOCDS is still
optimistic and heartened that the judge is being so careful in her analysis.
They believe the more thorough her analysis, the less likely the County
will be to waste taxpayers money on appeal.
The
APA will continue to keep our members updated on any additional information
pertaining to the litigation proceedings.
February
9, 2009 –
The APA has learned that a new “Pension
Initiative” has begun circulation in the State of
This initiative, if
successfully passed, would amend the Constitution of the State of
The initiative’s summary
date, according to the Secretary of State’s office, was January 21, 2009. That
was the first day the proponent could circulate the initiative for signatures. The
minimum number of signatures required is 694,354 and have to be obtained by June
22, 2009.
The APA is monitoring this
initiative and the reports of the actions being taken regarding the initiative
throughout the state. We are in contact with our political and legislative
advisors who are also monitoring this situation. We are conversing with
many of our affiliated organizations such as the California Coalition of Law
Enforcement Organizations (CCLEA) and the Southern California Alliance of Law
Enforcement (SCALE) and Peace Officer Research Association of California (PORAC)
to determine a strategy to challenge this initiative.
We will keep you advised of
further developments in this regard. If you have any questions regarding
the initiative please check the Secretary of State’s website at www.sos.ca.gov
and go to the section entitled “News Releases and Advisories” or call the
APA office.
********************************************************************
Budget
Problem
February
23, 2009 –
On Thursday, February 19th, 2009, The Anaheim Police Association had
an initial informal meeting with the City over their structural budget deficit.
In attendance for the APA were President
Suffice to say this was just
a preliminary discussion with the City over their financial state, and the cost
of labor which comprises the lion’s share of the general fund.
We entered into these discussions with the City in a cooperative manner.
The city knows that any agreements require the ratification of our
membership.
One of the main things we
discussed was an actual dollar amount the City wants from the police department.
We wanted this amount so that we could identify cost cutting approaches
to our budget while minimally impacting our membership.
The City also was made aware of the fact that we possessed an audit of
their most recent CAFAR which identifies amounts the City has in reserves.
We had a good discussion on reserve accounts also.
The bottom line is that we will be holding more meetings and the City
will begin to identify a bottom line amount they need in order to meet their
budget constraints. They also
elected to do a side by side comparison of our audit of the city finances and
the city’s own numbers which they claim are more recent.
They will present this to the APA in upcoming weeks
In essence, we are now in
negotiations with the city over our next contract.
When this happens things often change rapidly.
Ideas are put on the table and also taken away during these meetings.
It is not productive to bring the membership the information discussed at
every contract discussion as they are not binding and often change from meeting
to meeting. We have a lot of work
ahead of us. The APA Negotiating
Team needs to look at the cities finance information given by the city and our
own audit to determine the amount of financial cuts that are reasonable,
determine what cuts need to be made by the city, police department management,
and AMEA prior to making any cuts affecting the APA Membership.
As we continue to work side by side with our legal team, we will strive
to bring forward the best contract for our membership.
There is no quick and easy solution to our negotiations and financial
responsibility with the city of