Comments on May 4, 2004 Special Meeting
Speaker: Michael Conger, Plaintiff’s Attorney in
Cases against the City and CERS
May 21, 2004
The speaker described some of the “faults” of the city and SDCERS that led to the Gleason-Wood and Wood cases. He stated that the Wood (Brown Act) case was necessary due to lack of access to information about items on Board and Committee Agendas and lack of opportunities to speak when the Board/Committees are deliberating Agenda Items. The results of the settlement of that case are that two notebooks containing Agenda information are now in Board Room, rather than the Reception Area, and Speaker Slips are provided.
Comments: It is my understanding that prior to the filing this suit the Plaintiff and his attorney demanded many documents, even “Draft” reports not yet acted upon by the Board. While the settlement of the case addresses the items mentioned above, the case arose from a demand for documents made under the Freedom of Information Act. CERS staff subsequently responded to Plaintiff and his attorney and provided the majority of the documents requested. Despite this, shortly thereafter the suit was filed. The cost of defending this case plus attorney fees thus were no longer available for CERS and retiree’s benefit. It has been my experience with and observation of Board and Committees that persons with specific concerns with Agenda Items are knowledgeable of when the Items will be heard, request and get needed information from CERS staff or Board members in advance, request to speak and are prepared at the time of the meeting. The meetings were generally informal and productive. The result of this settlement are nice, but was a suit necessary? I doubt it! Did retirees receive a tangible benefit from this case, something that will buy a cup of coffee?
Some of the most re-assuring comments at this meeting came in answers by the speaker to questions. Some of the answers appeared to be inconsistent with the stated causes for serious concerns about continued payments to current retirees.
Why did you settle? Better to close the issues than drag it out through appeals and probably have better results than would be obtained by trial.
What might have happened with bankruptcy? Not sure, very few cases filed or settled by trial.
Are current retires at risk of loss of current monthly pensions? Very little chance, even under bankruptcy.
The proposed settlement provides for increased city contributions to CERS with listed property as collateral.
Comments: What is the benefit for current retirees? Anything to take to the bank? Future retirees gain some security from a better-funded system. The city may receive a higher bond rating. The higher city contributions will drain funds that may have saved some jobs.
A jaundiced view? Maybe.
Robert P. West
The opinions are those of the author and may or may not be those of SDCREA.