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:
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.
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.
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.