City Attorney Officially Replies to “Pension Tsunami” Civil Grand Jury Report

I’ll tell you, the easy ones, they’re easy to predict. You know, your BART cop homicide, your Michela Alioto-Pier second-term-as-a-Supervisor case, your Bicycle Plan injunction lawsuit – you can easily see how those legal disputes are going to end up months and years before final resolution. But how about this one, how about the brouhaha over the recent “Pension Tsunami – The Billion Dollar Bubble” report from our Civil Grand Jury?

Take a look at this one and see what you think. You Make The Call:

Tsunami pdf

Anyway, that’s what just got posted at the City Attorney’s website this AM. Check it:

In accordance with state law governing Civil Grand Juries, the City Attorney’s Office has responded to jury members’ findings and recommendations about City employee pension and health care benefits.”

This one is beyond my ken, obliviously.

But, you’re smart, check it out.

Just a taste, after the jump.




Office Response to Finding Cl.Partially disagree. The San Francisco Employees’ Retirement System (the “Retirement

System”) has confirmed to us that, as the Grand Jury Report states, the City’s contribution rate to

the Retirement System has exceeded 0% for every fiscal year since the fiscal year beginning

July 1, 2004. Accordingly, we agree that the meet and confer and cost-sharing provisions in

Charter Sections A8.595-II(e) and A8.596-ll(e) (Proposition H November 2002) were first

triggered in July 2004 and have continued to be triggered since then.

Civil Grand Jury Report refers to the meet and confer and cost-sharing language in Charter

Section A8.595-l1 ( e), which governs the police plan, it omitted reference to the identical

language in Charter Section A8.596-ll (e), which applies to the firefighter plan. References to

“Proposition H” here include both of these Charter provisions.)

But we disagree that the City has not complied with Proposition H. The conclusion of

the Civil Grand Jury Report that there have been no meet and confer sessions to establish a costsharing

arrangement appears to be based on incorrect facts and on a misinterpretation of the law.

(Vole note that while thelFor the reasons we explain below, the City has met the requirement that it negotiate with

representatives of police officers and firefighters to effect a material reduction in General Fund

costs in years in which it faces a positive contribution to the Retirement System. But, as we

describe further in this response, the City can and should do a better job of implementing

Proposition H by conducting the process annually and making the process more transparent to

the public. And the Civil Grand Jury Report touches upon serious policy questions about

‘whether the City needs to take other actions to ensure the long-term viability of its Retirement

and Health Systems and protect its General Fund. As described below in our response to

Recommendation C2, we are prepared to provide legal advice to the City policy-makers should

they wish to examine taking such actions.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

One Response to “City Attorney Officially Replies to “Pension Tsunami” Civil Grand Jury Report”

  1. jeff says:

    yeah, and the previous Civil Grand Jury report also ‘touches upon serious policy questions’

    but that was toilet paper, right?

    but only because ( I heard on the radio), this pension tsunami will cost upwards of 500 million, during the next few years

    so that’s what makes them pay attention, money, right?

    but that can’t be it either because that’s how much SF spends on all the homeless services, 500 million a year…half a billion

    so it’s gotta be something else