Well Peeps, here we ARE, five and a half years after the adverse PERB decision against City with this Decision coming across my desk this morning from my monthly retirement “union’s” newsletter.
I haven’t had a chance to peruse the entire decision yet but the case has been reversed and remanded back to the 4th DCA, Div 1 (SD) for “further proceedings to resolve issues beyond the scope of this opinion.” Please wait to load pdf:
Predictably, Proponents of the measure (Lincoln Club et al?) elected to appeal the aforementioned Feb 2013 (subject of this thread) PERB decision re: illegal placement of Prop B on the 2012 ballot and won at the appellate level. Then the unions appealed that decision to the California Supreme Court which issued its opinion on 8/2/18. Due to the City Attorney’s office’s blatant conflict of interest (their own union was one of the charging parties in the ULP charge which was the subject of the underlying PERB decision which was appealed, lol), the firm of Lounsberry Ferguson Altona and Peak out of Escondido was hired to represent them before the California Supreme Court (partially with YOUR tax dollars, folks). Opposing counsel (for Firefighters Local 145) were among the heaviest-hitting, most well-versed labor law attorneys in the entire state (Smith & Steiner of Smith Steiner Vanderpool and Wax).
The four attorneys from LFA&P likely cost City several hundred-thousand dollars in fees because the case is still ongoing (City will likely end up being on the hook for the three Respondent unions’ attorney fees) and has undoubtedly proved to be a HUGE FAIL for Team City and a colossal waste of money. (Do any of you still have potholes that have needed filling in your neighborhood for years?)
We can assume by the Supreme Court’s instructions for remand that the placement of Prop B on the City ballot in 2012 by then Mayor Sanders, et al was found to be illegal due to City’s failure to first meet and confer with all unions representing city employees who would be adversely affected by the passage of Prop B (involuntary reduction in wages, salary, benefits or working conditions). Of course, the city employees most harmed by City’s failure to meet and confer were those employees hired from as far back as FY 05/06 to the present who will or already have been placed on a “401K-style” retirement tier created by Prop B. (The “pensionable pay freeze” that was supposed to be implemented on current employees during the ensuing years pursuant to Prop B never came to pass due to an agreement with the unions over meet & confers on that issue during Mayor Filner’s tenure.)
It is very likely that more than half of those similarly-situated employees hired in the past ~12 years are already vested. However, city has since removed their “Retirement Plan Summary Booklet” link for General Members from their site re: vesting rules (perhaps since this Decision came down?) See:
Well, of course they did, since it appears City will soon be court-ordered to “undo” everything they have done to new hires since the passage of Prop B. Are we surprised?? How much is all this going to cost City taxpayers? Will City need to bring in outside actuaries and other specialists to reverse the big mess they made by jumping the gun to implement all or part of Prop B while still in litigation?? It’s going to be interesting so stay tuned!
Meanwhile, Ex-Mayor Sanders and Ex-Councilman DeMaio et al are both still beyond delusional and eager to waste millions more of your money. See:
I do NOT believe that City’s Petition for Rehearing (filed 8/20) will be granted.
Phaster . . . where ARE you?? You’re a resident of SD. Have you been paying attention to this recent “real-world” occurrence (instead of your usual rant-filled Libertarian blogs)?
The wheels of justice turn slowly . . . . but they DO turn :=D
