San Rafael denies wrongdoing in response to [Marin County] grand jury pension report

Though the process may not have been perfect, San Rafael city leaders say they did no wrong when they approved employee pension enhancements without proper public notice, despite allegations by the Marin Civil Grand Jury that the law was broken.

The San Rafael City Council on Monday voted 3-1, with Councilman John Gamblin dissenting and Councilwoman Kate Colin absent, to approve the city’s response to the grand jury report, “Pension Enhancements: A Case of Government Code Violations and A Lack of Transparency.”

The report asserts that the city violated public notice and disclosure rules in 2002 and 2006 and that such violations might jeopardize existing pensions. The report also called for responses from the Board of Supervisors, Novato Fire District and Southern Marin Fire Protection District.

In its response to the grand jury, the city disagreed, saying though it didn’t fully comply with a Government Code Section 7507 requirement to publicly disclose future costs of pension increases through actuarial reports within two weeks of adoption, the city substantially complied with the law. The city hired independent counsel Colantuono, Highsmith, Whatley PC, based in Penn Valley, for $375 an hour to assist with the review.

PUBLIC NOTICE

The city only gave a few days’ public notice before adoption, but that is not grounds to retract the benefits, the city’s response states. Officials believed at the time that adequate public notice was provided by making city meeting agendas available 72 hours in advance, Mayor Gary Phillips said.

“We did everything else in accordance with the requirement,” Phillips said. “We weren’t aware of 7507 or else we would’ve done that too.”

Phillips, who was on the council at the time the pension enhancements were approved, said the process was done differently in those days. It was spearheaded by a financial officer and human resources director who were not fully aware of Section 7507, he said.

Gamblin said he disagreed with the grand jury’s findings and doesn’t think pension enhancements should be tossed out. But because the city didn’t provide two weeks’ public notice as required by law, officials should be forthright and say that they didn’t comply, he said.

“I don’t believe in gray lines,” Gamblin said. “I think it’s one way or the other. If we didn’t comply, we didn’t comply. To say we substantially complied or complied within spirit, I don’t think that’s what the grand jury is looking for or what our constituents are looking for. We need to own up to the mistakes made.”

By Stephanie Weldy, Marin Independent Journal