Ignoring a parade of critics
who championed grand jury assertions of pension improprieties at the Civic
Center, officials embraced a report indicating that benefits could not be
withdrawn because the county was in “substantial compliance” with the law.
The grand jury said retroactive
pension benefits were approved without appropriate public notice or cost
analysis more than a decade ago, and although county supervisors conceded that
officials did not fully comply with cost and related disclosure requirements,
they said nothing could be done now — other than follow the law in the future.
“We definitely will do it going forward,” said County Administrator Matthew
Hymel. “We will follow every statutory required procedure.”
At issue Tuesday was a county
document largely dismissing the grand jury’s disclosure of wrongdoing that
deprived the public of advance notice of benefit hikes and their costs. The
response to the jury, based on an independent legal analysis by the Meyers Nave
law firm of Oakland, was approved by the county board as written by the
administration.
Supervisor Steve Kinsey,
complimenting the jury for its work, said he regretted that the county board —
of which he was a member at the time — violated procedural requirements, but
added the shortcomings did not trump vested benefits.
Other officials joined Marin
Association of Public Employees chief Roland Katz in noting the same critics
who called for the independent legal analysis of the jury report, claiming
County Counsel Steve Woodside had conflicts of interest, now were rejecting the
independent report because they didn’t like its conclusions.
Pension critics
A dozen members of Citizens for
Sustainable Pension Plans, two supervisorial candidates and others lined up to
provide commentary that in general excoriated the legal analysis and the county
response. Pension critics handed over a detailed legal analysis by the group’s
lawyer that took issue with the county review. Asked later if the pension
reform group intended to sue the county, founder Jody Morales said, “I’ll let
you know.”
Supervisors rejected a call to
delay action giving citizens more time to chime in, and brushed aside a demand
that the three veteran board members benefiting from pensions, as well as
County Administrator Hymel, recuse themselves from the discussion due to
financial interest.
“The public was denied the
right to analyze and oppose ... pension increases,” despite government code
requiring it, noted critic Bob Stephens. Moves made without public disclosure
were costly, added critic Marty Miller, a retired actuary who said that $11
million in unfunded liability in 2001 had ballooned to more than $562 million
today after accounting changes were taken into consideration.
One man observed that county
officials seem to follow a “double standard” by requiring that others follow
the law, while giving themselves leeway to be in “substantial compliance” with
it. “You need to follow the letter of the law, whatever that is,” he declared,
adding the pension program was an underfunded “Ponzi scheme” destined to
collapse.
‘Thoughtful report’
But Katz, joined by colleague
Bob Briare, head of Marin Professional Firefighters, called the
administration’s response a “thoughtful report.”
In an unusual appearance 11
hours before their terms expired, most grand jurors attended the session, and
stood when jury foreman Jack Nixon, a former San Rafael city councilman, gave
them a salute from the podium as hard-working citizens doing their best work
for the county. “Our jury represents the brightest and best in Marin County,”
Nixon said in brief remarks. “You would not imagine how hard we worked on all
our reports.”
Jurors do not talk about
reports that are issued, Nixon added. “The reports speak for themselves.” The
policy prevented him from discussing jury conclusions that were rejected by the
county’s legal analysis.
The jury’s key claim, that
violations of public notice, audit, disclosure and related rules years ago
might jeopardize pensions that were awarded, has no merit, the county analysis
asserted.
“Outside legal counsel has
reviewed relevant case law and has advised that the government code sections at
issue do not state that failure to comply makes pension increases void, and the
county substantially complied with the requirements of the government code,”
the response said.
June 30, 2015
Marin
Independent Journal
By
Nels Johnson
No comments:
Post a Comment