Supes vote 5-0 To Greenlight Legal Challenge To Retroactive 3%-@-50 Pensions
Posted by: Jubal | 01/29/2008 3:38 PM
The Board of Supervisors voted 5-0 today to proceed with their legal challenge against the constitutionality of retroactively giving AOCDS members the 3-at-50 pension spike they received in 2002 (as OCEA General manager Nick Berardino predicted on Red County Radio Roundtable last week.)
Kudos to the Board for moving forward with this challenge. Critics cite the $500,000 spent on the legal challenge thus far - curious criticism from quarters not generally known for parsimony with the taxpayer money. If the Board honestly believes the retroactive spike to be unconstitutional -- and they clearly do -- then they have an obligation to proceed.
I'm no indifferent to the situation of those AOCDS members who took advantage of the retroactive spike and retired as soon as it took effect, but that concern is trumped (in my view) by the constitutional question. The stakes are too huge in terms of the obligations currently heaped on taxpayers' shoulders due to overly generous public safety retirement packages,
Kudos to the Board for moving forward with this challenge. Critics cite the $500,000 spent on the legal challenge thus far - curious criticism from quarters not generally known for parsimony with the taxpayer money. If the Board honestly believes the retroactive spike to be unconstitutional -- and they clearly do -- then they have an obligation to proceed.
I'm no indifferent to the situation of those AOCDS members who took advantage of the retroactive spike and retired as soon as it took effect, but that concern is trumped (in my view) by the constitutional question. The stakes are too huge in terms of the obligations currently heaped on taxpayers' shoulders due to overly generous public safety retirement packages,
Jubal,
Would you please be more specific in the term, "overly generous public safety retirement packages?"
A broad statement like this is not helpul to anyone.
Perhaps you could add some clarity to what benefits and at what level they should be at?
Thanks,
how many officers "retroactively" got it?
Jubal,
I thought you were monitoring comments like those from "TBONE".
I listened to the public comments section yesterday on this matter. I was especially interested in Reed Royalty's remarks as it relates to his being the Chair of the retirement board. He basically stated the BoS was suing the retirement system for following the directions of a previous group of supervisors. I have to admit that is a very curious action. I believe Reed has a point in addressing who is being sued by the wronged party in this manner.
The retirement board is really an escrow company for managing the pension fund.
so, it is a violation of constitutional law....
Does this mean that those who passed it are guilty? if so shouldn't they be prosecuted? or at least made to pay back the $500-1000k