1) SDCERS v. City Attorney and Cross Complaint (GIC841845).

     I made a hasty trip to the courthouse on Friday [September 22. 2006), after reading (late Friday morning) that Judge Barton had issued a tentative ruling on Corbett, favorable to the post 1996 retirees. (He said Corbett superceded MP1, and that therefore the 1996 benefits were off the table). The article also said the hearing was Friday afternoon!
Not much advance notice.

     Not many spectators were at the hearing, a few MEA persons and me, plus reporters and attorneys. The hearing lasted until 4:30, when Judge Barton postponed it to this coming Thursday, September 28, at 1:30 p.m., Department 69. I thought Aguirre gave a pretty good rebuttal to Barton's ruling, but he also misrepresented Corbett payments from the 'Surplus Undistributed Reserve' as applying to both pre 2000 and post 2000 retirees. He called the Surplus Undistributed Reserve 'illegal'' so he seems to be attacking the validity of Corbett as well. If that is the case, it could involve the pre-1996 retirees, since their Corbett benefits are paid via the Surplus Undistributed Reserve.

2) McGuigan v. City of San Diego (GIC849883)

     At the last CSDREA Board meeting, I was the only person who expressed concerns about the consequences of the McGuigan settlement on retirees -- particularly the post 1996 retirees -- because we are included in the McGuigan plaintiff class and are specifically precluded from taking any action against the City for adverse consequences to us (whether known or unknown) that might arise in the future. To me, that meant that I would have no redress from the City if my benefits were reduced by the cross complaint by Aguirre, no matter how unfair. Most board members had no concerns, and the board voted not to take any action on McGuigan.

     However, David Strauss, the attorney for AUE, will make a formal
objection to the settlement agreement for basically the same reasons
I expressed. And the AUE newsletter indicated that he is working in
cooperation with the attorneys for the 'union allies' on this issue
(presumably MEA , etc.) Also one of our members phoned me today, with similar concerns about McGuigan, and she emailed me a letter she and her husband have written to the judge. Her special concern is that she retired earlier than she had
originally planned, using five years of purchase of service toward her 20-year retirement credit. What will happen if purchase of service is deemed illegal? Is she no longer eligible to receive a pension? I had wondered if there were people in her category, which presents a special dilemma. This settlement lets the City completely off the hook to help her and others, and for a relatively small amount of money, part of which (tobacco settlement - $100 million) was to go to SDCERS anyway.

     This settlement will help SDCERS, but it could be very adverse to individual retirees. In addition, I don't think we received timely notice from Mike Conger; he should have come to a meeting before last month to tell us the terms of the settlement and answer questions we might have had. This whole thing has been pushed along too fast, and without letting the people most affected really understand the consequences. The formal notice arrived only a few days ago, with a deadline of this friday. I am very concerned about the way this settlement has been handled.