"should this reach the courts and should the courts agree..." C'mon Jubal. Thats a huge hypothetical. And if it occurs then so be it, but asking the Supes to support suspending retirement benefits based on that hypothetical is downright unethical.

There are many aspects of Supervisor Moorlach's theory that are considered flawed. In fact the debate could drag on for years. Irregardless of what you think, the County is contractually tied to the benefits that were promised to the retirees and unless and until a court decides otherwise, it is improper to suspend benefits.

Moorlach and his Chief of Staff will cost the taxpayers of Orange County hundreds of thousands of dollars with this folly. They have no chance of success. They were told by several very well qualified law firms that they had no case, but kept seaching until they found one that would go foward. They claim to be the protectors of tax-payers, but they will throw away tax dollars to pursue their vindictive attacks against those who opposed their election.

AOCDS' memo states,

"The board of supervisors should follow the ethical concept of “a promise made is a promise kept...” ROFLMAO!!!

Wayne Quint and his board majority should practice what they preach - and start with following the Police Offficers Code of Conduct! There is no accountability for Quint as he continues to waste hundreds of thousands of our dues paying dollars every year on candidates of his choosing. Heck, why doesn't AOCDS put a portion of our dues into a retirement savings account or something?!

I find it laughable and disgusting at the same time that the "leadership" of AOCDS claims to speak for all of us who wear the uniform - they don't! There are many of us who are embarrassed by their actions. There are many of us who know and understand that 3 at 50 is an unfair amount of money to be paid for the work we do. There are many of us who are tired of our dues being used to fund expenses we don't agree with. Unfortunetly, there are too many of us who don't vote and pay attention to what Quint and his cohorts are doing, which is why he's been the president for so long.

Memeo to the public and to Moorlach: Keep the pressure on Quint and Carona. We need your help if we are to ever have the pride and satisfaction of working for the Dept. like we used to have. This 3 at 50 is a no brainer. I don't want anymore than my fair share when I retire. This program simply takes advantage of the taxpayers. It should be stopped immediately. Not all of us are bad, greedy cops. Keep up the pressure!

Thanks Bill(Hunt)....We hadn't heard from you for a while.

GM:

To my knowledge, I don't think anyone has called for ending the retroactive benefits prior to a court decision.

bad medicene:

opt out - and the PAC will not use your money, but you still benefit from it

cash out - don't take your retirement, cash it out, 401k it and do it on your own

get out - since you don't vote, leave, your as much a part of the problem as those you complain about

what part of "immediately" not understood?

1. Direct the CEO and/or County Counsel to send a letter to the Chief Executive Officer of OCERS informing him or her that the Board of Supervisors considers the retroactive portion of the “3% at 50” pension increase to all members of the AOCDS pursuant to the Amendment to the MOU with the County of Orange approved by the Board of Supervisors on December 4, 2001 unconstitutional and void, that the County of Orange will not include as its future payments the retroactive increase, requesting that OCERS immediately calculate the required future payments based on a “2% at 50” rate through the effective date of the Amendment to the MOU and a “3% at 50” rate thereafter, and that OCERS immediately begin paying retirement benefits to retirees applying a “2% at 50” formula to their service through the effective date of the MOU and a “3% at 50” rate thereafter, if an AOCDS member continued to work after the effective date of the MOU.

And what will happen is AOCDS will go to court, a judge will issue an injunction against suspending those benefits until the courts have settled the issue.

Jubal,

The point is that it was unethical to ask for such a thing in advance of a court ruling that the payments are illegal, which is far from a foregone conclusion.

What Supervisor Moorlach has requested is that the county hold the money in escrow until a decision is made. So in essence the retirees benefits, which were agreed to by contract would be held hostage until a decision is made. Then what? Suppose Moorlach is wrong. Does he get to just walk away and say "oh well, I tried". What about the financial distress he caused for the retirees while he chased his theory. Would they have a civil case against him and the county?

I think Supervisor Moorlach is poking and prodding in many directions trying to undo the retirement benefits that the county agreed to. I realize that has been his mission for several years and while I disagree with him, you've got to admire his tenacity. Nonetheless, he shouldn't be allowed to create a legal theory and enact a solution until and unless he is validated by the courts.

I've talked to some people who are involved in this process and are opposed to Supervisor Moorlach's plans. They too make a compelling argument as to why his theories are flawed and why he will lose this battle. Their premise is also based on legal interpretations and case law. I don't pretend to understand the intricacies of the laws as they pertain to these issues, but one thing is for certain. This thing is FAR from decided. Until a court decides otherwise, the contract with AOCDS is legal and binding. The county has a moral and legal obligation to live up to it.

All those who believe "bad medicine" is a deputy sheriff can start drinking their Kool-Aid now!

[i}Thanks Bill(Hunt)....We hadn't heard from you for a while.[/i]

Sorry, even Bill Hunt stands to lose retirement dollars if Moorlach's gets his way.