If you have not seen this you need to read it and understand the thinking of the City and mayor.
9th Circuit Ruling on DROP (June 10, 2009)
City Attorney Press Release (June 10, 2009)
This is just in and I have read it once and do not see the same thing Goldsmith is espousing in his release.
6-10-2009 1745 hours (Addition to above)
OK, I have read and re-read this ruling and the subsequent idiocy of the City Attorney. I am no lawyer but being a participant in this litigation and involved from the beginning the question as I understood it before the court was in simple terms; "Was the 3.2% equivalent being taken from DROP participants legal?" The SDPOA believed this reduction from DROP participants to be punitive and illegal. We believed at the time the City was TAKING AWAY a benefit without providing something of a similar value. Non-DROP participants had the 3.2% placed into their retirement accounts and the money was of a benefit to them. DROP participants LOST the money as it was taken and no benefit was provided.
I do not see anywhere in this decision from the 9th District that it opined DROP was NOT a VESTED BENEFIT. Someone help me out here. Goldsmith is all over this as a ruling in the City's favor saying it vindicates him and the City and they can now move to eliminate, change or reduce DROP. I do not see it!!!! On Pages 6924 and 6925 the judge frames the issue and on page 6926 she clearly discusses "DROP Salary" not the DROP as a benefit. I must not understand the English language or writings of judges or attorneys. Maybe I am in the wrong field of work to be making decisions on case law and legal rulings since I am a complete idiot in this area.
6-10-2009 2100 Hours
I appear to have read the ruling correctly. Several attorneys have reviewed the ruling and agree there is nothing in the language that deals with Charter Section 143.1 nor the question of DROP and it being a vested benefit. The City Attorney is AGAIN jumping the gun and making foolish statements and putting out incorrect information. This is reminiscent of the last four years with Mike Aguirre. This is a sad state of affairs to have to deal with such incompetence not only in the mayor's office but the City Attorney's office at the same time.
The local news reporting on this issue is a feeding frenzy and also indicative of the lack of experience and knowledge of REAL Investigative reporting and the ability to do their due diligence BEFORE putting false information out to the public.
The scary part of all of this is with the total inept, pathetically incompetent people in positions of authority within city government; even a blind squirrel finds a nut once in a while. God forbid when this incompetent lot gets something right.
4 comments:
I know this sound rash, and I realize this ruling WILL be appealed but, this ruling cements my decision to retire and take what retirement benefits are left intact. I'm tired of second guessing. I and others have endured completely unnecessary stress associated with unethical and morally corrupt behavior of city officials.
Our city may be on its way to bankruptcy, but there is NO DOUBT in my mind the political leaders are morally bankrupt and devoid of ethics.
The leaders of our City in the the 80's and 90's made promises. Promises made to employees, ones requested by them so they could continue to deceive the general public about the City's financial viability. It is simply disgusting, there's no other way to define it.
Apparently the City Attorney has reconsidered his initial impression because his hasty press release has been retracted.
Do we really have to endure four years of an incompetent mayor and city attorney? Lord help us!!! I thought Aguirre was gone? Is he really Goldsmith in disguise?
When will all of this stop? How much longer will it take before this is all decided? I cannot continue to live like this. We did nothing wrong and yet Sanders keeps fucking with us. It has to stop.
Post a Comment