.
.
.
[Just got this from the offices of George Urch. Haven’t been following the issue, but it looks like something you could all argue about while I continue to play all of Orange County’s pianos… Ed.]
APPELLATE COURT THROWS OUT COUNTY OF ORANGE LAWSUIT
REGARDING DEPUTY SHERIFF PENSION ISSUE
After An Extremely Short Deliberation, The County Of Orange’s Legal Effort To Overturn 3% At 50 Pension Benefit For Orange County Deputies Is Thrown Out Of Court A Third Time
LOS ANGELES – The Second District Court of Appeals unanimously affirmed in a 3 to 0 opinion today, to uphold an earlier judgment by the Los Angeles County Superior Court, to throw out the County of Orange’s lawsuit to overturn 3% at 50 pension benefits for Orange County Deputy Sheriffs (COUNTY OF ORANGE v. ASSOCIATION OF ORANGE COUNTY DEPUTY SHERIFFS et al., Case #B218660). After an extremely quick 7 days of deliberation, the court also awarded the Association of Orange County Deputy Sheriffs (AOCDS) their costs for the appeal.
The decision marks the third time in 2 years the County of Orange has been rejected by the courts in their legal effort to overturn 3% at 50 pension benefits for Orange County Deputy Sheriffs. They were quickly tossed out of Los Angeles Superior Court last February 26 and again on May 22, before even being set for a formal hearing.
The County of Orange filed the controversial lawsuit in February 2008, despite having three different outside law firms they had hired for legal counsel, warn them they could not win such a case. As of July 31, 2010, they have spent almost $2.3 million on their legal costs.
“After three strikes, the County is out,” said Wayne Quint, President of the Association of Orange County Deputy Sheriffs (AOCDS). “We hope the Orange County Board of Supervisors now come to their senses and realize what we, and their attorneys, told them four years ago — they are wrong on the facts and wrong on the law on this one. They can’t win. They have been told this by three different law firms and four judges in two different courts. If they don’t realize it at this point, they are in major denial. How much more apparent can it be that they have no legal argument?”
#####
COUNTY OF ORANGE LEGAL COSTS FOR DEPUTY SHERIFF PENSION LITIGATION
As of July 31, 2010, the County of Orange has spent a total of $2,264,166.34 in legal costs associated with the Board of Supervisors’ litigation effort regarding Orange County Deputy Sheriffs’ pensions.
Law Firm Amount Paid
Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP $ 99,598.40 (Jan. 1, 2006 to Dec. 1, 2007)
Reish Luftman Reicher & Cohen $125,561.04 (Jan. 1, 2007 to Dec. 1, 2007)
Snell & Wilmer LLP $ 57,713.00 (June 30, 2007 to Dec. 1, 2007)
Kirkland & Ellis LLP $1,981,293.90 (June 1, 2007 to July 31, 2010)
————————————————————————————–
TOTAL LITIGATION COSTS BY COUNTY $2,264,166.34
Kirkland & Ellis Billings
$ 138,461.10 (October 2007)
$ 82,753.25 (November 2007)
$ 60,004.56 (December 2007)
$ 106,538.09 (January 2008)
$ 38,202.72 (February 2008)
$ 133,317.84 (March & April 2008)
$ 65,123.57 (May 2008)
$ 95,405.18 (June 2008)
$ 61,424.67 (July 2008)
$ 21,231.07 (August 2008)
$ 52,559.88 (September 2008)
$ 51,877.56 (October 2008)
$ 72,609.49 (November 2008)
$ 80,938.84 (December 2008)
$ 228,109.14 (January 2009)
$ 155,873.17 (February 2009)
$ 104,559.92 (March 2009)
$ 76,968.04 (April 2009)
$ 67,903.31 (May 2009)
$ 12,057.65 (June 2009)
$ 37,561.93 (July 2009)
$ 19,462.68 (August 2009)
$ 25,910.49 (September 2009)
$ 5,762.87 (October 2009)
$ 5,063.05 (November 2009)
$ 110,448.35 (Dec. 2009 & Jan. and Feb. 2010)
$ 4,640.30 (March 2010)
$ 1,920.45 (April 2010)
$ 20,469.75 (May 2010)
$ 24,322.13 (June 2010)
$ 19,812.85 (July 2010)
$1,981,293.90 (October 2007 – July 2010)
* As per records provided by the County of Orange County Counsel’s office
You can anticipate an appeal by the county – unless the majority of the Supervisors vote to not appeal. John Moorlach’s office posted comments after the Second District Court of Appeals hearing last week that reflected the justices had a conflict of interest (their own pensions) and, to me, implied an expectation that this court decision would go against the county. On a related matter, the above costs do not apparently include the cost of hiring Moorlach’s former aide, Mario Mainero, to advise the County CEO on this lawsuit. The media has reported he is to be paid $ 70 per hour for his work, whatever that is, so the above cost figures will go up a little bit. And, to some the hiriing of Mainero did not pass the gilggle test.
Disband the sheriffs department.
Hire, or sub contract from riverside county sheriffs who make half as much.
Spin off the pension for those retired.
Make the Board of Supervisors a part time position paying not more than 24,000 to 36,000 per year.
When was the 3% at 50 deal initiated?
Who approved it?
Who was on the BOS then?
Where are they now (and who paid to get them there)?
The FACT is: Law enforcement is a risky job, however, it is not a DANGEROUS ONE, compared to say: Truck Driver or Crane Operator. So a sober look needs to be taken here.
If pensions are in fact a fiscal “disaster waiting to happen” for OC, than this is very much a public safety issue, and the management and politico’s need to treat it as such and STOP the bleeding now. So that we can protect future generations of Orange County children. Right???
Look no further than United Airlines…….Management caved, in the long term EVERYBODY lost, the pilots, the shareholders, the passengers and finally the company! Same thing here.
dkmfan.
It took some legwork but I have your answers.
The 3%@50 pension began in the state legislature in 1999 as aB 1937 and was adopted by the OC BOS effective June 28, 2002.
The five members in office on that date were as follows:
1st District Chuck Smith
2nd District Jim Silva
3rd District Todd Spitzer
4th District Cynthia Coad
5th District Tom Wilson
While I can’t speak for Cynthia Coad’s registration, the other four BOS members are Republicans and were all in office after the 1999 date.
They keep voting Republican but expecting a different result – it becomes insanity.
I don’t think it was mandated by the board but rather approved as part of a collective bargaining agreement – that’s what makes it difficult to overturn – unless you go back to the bargaining table. These lawsuits are just to deflect blame from the Republican supervisors.
dkmfan and Larry – all 5 of those Supervisors are now out of their Supervisor office, though Silva currently serves in the State Assembly. According to media reports Spitzer has an election war chest of nearly $1 million raised while he, too, was an Assemblyman, and just may run for his old Supervisor seat in a couple of years when the current incumbant – Bill Campbell – is termed out. Besides the possibility that Spitzer will be back on the Board, there is some speculation that Silva may run for his old seat in 4 years when current Supervisor John Moorlach is termed out. If all this plays out as described, the voters may get a crack at questioning that 3% at 50 pension vote these two made in 2002. One thing term limits has brought us is recycled and rotating electeds. Voters so often seem to vote for termed-out electeds to move into some other office, so don’t be surprised if these two find their way back. If they do run for office, it will be most interesting to see what the Republican Central Committee of OC does with regard to endorsing or not endorsing them, given this pension vote issue.
Of course Coad was/is a Republican. Got her start as a dim-witted NOCCCD Trustee, rubber stamping whatever expensive idiocy was being proposed by the Chancellor.
On the BOS she was so dumb she let herself get redisctricted right out of office. Not before she had done permanent damage, of course.
I believe she was a supporter of Sidhu which pretty much puts the icing on the Coad cake.
I went on line and read the Appeals Court decision. I am not a lawyer, so my observations may be incorrect – but the way I read it the Court has, step by step, legal precedent by legal precedent, dismantled the county’s case as wrong, wrong, wrong. For those who are really in to this subject, suggest going to the court’s web site and reading it all, as tedious as that may be. A list of published court opinions starts on the first page of the web site and, as of this date, this lawsuit is the second one listed. Left click on it to read. Here is the site: http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/courts/courtsofappeal/2ndDistrict/
For those no familiar with who is covered by the 3%@50 pension here’s the list:
Safety members including fire fighters, sworn deputies, investigators, Sgt’s., and law enforcement management of OCSD and DA’s Bureau of Investigation.
Larry Gilbert – I vaguely remember that County Probation Officers and management were brought into it too, a little later than the first deal with the Deputies, but I could have that wrong. Wonder what will happen next – Moolach quoted as saying it will go to the California Supreme Court, but until the Supervisors digest the Appeals Court decision and act as a group he speaks only for himself at this point, I think.
FMO.
I think you are correct in adding the probation officers to the pension recipients.
As to the future I prefer not speculating on the outcome other than to acknowledge that we cannot sustain the costs associated with funding all the current pensions.
The money tree in our back yard died a few years ago.
Thank You Larry. Good work and a good deed!
While I am opposed to any abhorrent waste of money, I have as I mature (rapidly) determined I best suited to a position when well informed. your pieces to my puzzle help.
Thanks
The cost of funding all current pensions is a fuzzy figure. The Appeals Court decision includes a description of all the factors that must be estimated in order to come up with a future cost figure, and seems to imply that at best it is a guestimate. I believe it is also the worst case estimate that is being thrown around as the unfunded liability, when reality is probably something less. Even so, it is not peanuts. As for the inability to fund the promised pensions, spread over 30 years as these programs are calculated, it may not be as unfundable as some would think. For instance, I think the total county budet is around $ 8 billion a year, multiply that by 30 years and you come up with $240 billion – squeezing out a few billion during that 30 year period to fund pension obligations should not be that big a deal, seems to me. A good place to start with a list of county government cost reductions would be to cut out the pork, redundancy, padded payrolls and other money eating practices in the county government. Perhaps we should start a serious list of what can be cut – growth in management positions and costs in the Public Admin-Guardian shop, funding things like a film commission, human relations commission, the Orange County Business Council, require the Supervisors to get along with a personal staff of 2 or 3 instead of 5-9 as has been the historic practice, look at the legions of analyists in the CEO’s department as well as throughout the county structure, etc.. If the county was forced to focus on only its core business a lot of savings could be generated, perhaps enough for the county to live up to its apparent obligatiions. A radical thought in these times of living beyond one’s means, I know. It would also be helpful to eliminate the union shop commitment that the Supervisors have given away to labor over the years – a first step in reigning in the power of unions.