Marin County analysis rejects grand jury pension report

Dismissing assertions by a civil grand jury as incorrect, Marin officials rejected the panel’s contention the county repeatedly broke the government code by approving pension benefits without public notice.

Although agreeing the county did not “fully comply” with rules that future costs of pension increases be disclosed two weeks before they were adopted a decade ago, officials said most other respects of a jury report were amiss.

The county staff’s response to the jury, based on an independent analysis by the Meyers Nave law firm of Oakland, will be reviewed by county supervisors about 9:30 a.m. Tuesday at the Civic Center.

Essentially, the law firm found the county in substantial compliance with the law despite jury contentions to the contrary.

The jury’s claim that violations of public notice, disclosure and related rules years ago might jeopardize pensions that were awarded has no merit, the county indicated.

“Outside legal counsel has revised relevant case law and has advised that the government code sections at issue to not state that failure to comply makes pension increases void, and the county substantially complied with the requirements of the government code,” the response drafted by the county administration said. “In the opinion of outside legal counsel, based on the county’s substantial compliance, there is no basis under the government code sections at issue to void the pension increases.”

The county administration document rejects jury claims that the county and other agencies violated the law by using the same actuarial report for a number of pension increases. It says pension matters were on the agenda, and notes that county supervisors approved just four pension increases from 2001 to 2005, not 23 as the jury reported.

The response rejects jury proposals, including establishing a citizens oversight panel for pension matters, and says a recommendation that the county report publicly on pension costs is already in place.

The jury report said that “the citizens of Marin County were never given proper notice about pension increases that are now costing them millions of dollars.” Of 107 violations targeted by the jury, 92 were attributed to county supervisors.

The jury investigation, “Pension Enhancements: A Case of Government Code Violations and A Lack of Transparency,” mirrored a 2012 probe and similar findings by Sonoma County grand jurors, where authorities later indicated there was no legal problem.

The county used an outside law firm to analyze the jury report after County Counsel Stephen Woodside drew fire from critics alleging conflict of interest because he draws two public agency pensions in addition to his Marin paycheck — and served as Sonoma County Counsel during a time of pension missteps there.

June 27, 2015

Marin Independent Journal

By Nels Johnson