California Attorney General Takes Orange County Deputies' side in Pention Fight!! (L.A. Times September 3, 2008)

California attorney general takes Orange County deputies' side in pension fight

Jerry Brown speaks of filing a brief opposing the county's effort to slash the benefits. The county's lawsuit seeks to repeal a retroactive increase, saying it was unconstitutional.

By Christian Berthelsen, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer
September 3, 2008

California Atty. Gen. Jerry Brown waded into the legal fray Tuesday between Orange County and the union that represents sheriff's deputies, taking the union's side and saying he would seek to file a brief opposing the county's effort to slash deputies' pensions.

Brown's entry came after months of discussions with Tom Umberg, a former Democratic state assemblyman now representing the deputies union as a lawyer in the case, and Wayne Quint, the president of the union.

The two flew to Oakland to meet with Brown on two occasions in recent months, according to people familiar with the talks who spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak publicly about them.

In announcing his intent to file a friend-of-the-court brief, Brown said in a statement: "The deputy sheriffs put their lives on the line for us, and they deserve fair compensation for their hard work serving and protecting the people of Orange County. County supervisors are not entitled to suddenly change their minds and decide to take away important pension benefits that the deputies bargained for in good faith."

The attorney general's decision has the potential to bring more attention to the case, a high-stakes battle over public employee retirement benefits that could have far-reaching consequences yet has received little attention outside the public employee pension realm.

"We are glad the attorney general is interceding," said Quint, president of the Assn. of Orange County Deputy Sheriffs. "It truly reflects the magnitude of the issue."

At issue is the structure of a labor contract between the union and the county that has been adopted by countless government agencies throughout the state for all manner of public employees, including police, teachers and general government workers. All but two of California's 58 counties have adopted the same type of deal with their public safety unions.

The 2001 agreement increased pensions by one-third and granted the benefit retroactively. This year, the county, now led by an entirely new Board of Supervisors, concluded that the retroactive portion was unconstitutional because it violated a state prohibition on pay for work already performed, and filed a lawsuit seeking to repeal that part of the contract.

Board of Supervisors Chairman John Moorlach estimates that the deal allows deputies, on average, to retire with a pension of $70,000 a year, and that the retroactive portion will cost the county $187 million over the next 30 years.

Brown's announcement did not articulate the legal grounds on which he intends to challenge the county's lawsuit. A spokeswoman for the attorney general said the legal arguments were still being developed and were not ready to be unveiled.

Separately, the California Public Employees' Retirement System, the $230-billion public pension fund that administers benefits for government workers, said Brown would be representing its interests in the court case. CalPERS contends that the benefits are constitutional.

Mario Mainero, the chief of staff to Moorlach, who led the county to file the suit, criticized Brown's decision to get involved as political and said his initial comments indicate that he doesn't understand the basis of the lawsuit.

"It's pretty clear here that Atty. Gen. Brown, who apparently wants to be governor again, is going to try to gain the support of people who can raise a lot of money for him," Mainero said.

christian.berthelsen

@latimes.com

Sheriff probes allegations that officials received gifts

BS Ranch Perspective

This story, like the previous one that was basically the same Investigation, However there was never any follow up Story, about how any prosecution or Disciplinary action was taken. So, if there was nothing that came of the first Investigation, such as a Disciplinary Plan that was undertaken, against the guilty especially after the story was in the L.A. Times!

Now it is back inside the L.A. Times indicates to me that the people that were in charge of the Investigation it, seemed that they were, just waiting for the report that was in the L.A. Times to be forgotten then they just swept the investigation under the rug, as Unfounded!! But with the whole thing reopened means that it was not unfounded, and that they were wrong to make the whole investigation disappear the first time around!!

Lets pray that they get it right this time!!!

Then you have to wonder how many other Southern California Jails and County Officials have been collecting this kind of benefit from their job!! Makes everyone wonder!!

BS Ranch

...NOT AGAIN!?

Sheriff probes allegations that officials received gifts

The firm that sells snacks and beverages to jail inmates says it spent about $35,000 in 'client hospitality' on executives in eight years.

By Stuart Pfeifer
Los Angeles Times Staff Writer

September 26, 2007

The Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department is investigating whether some of its executives improperly accepted gifts and entertainment from the company that has a multimillion-dollar contract to sell snacks and beverages to County Jail inmates, sheriff's officials said Tuesday.

Compass Group USA Inc. spent about $35,000 on "client hospitality" for sheriff's executives between 1997 and 2005, according to a report released Tuesday by the county auditor-controller. The company sold more than $78 million worth of merchandise to County Jail inmates between 2000 and 2005. Compass has acknowledged that it often bought lunch during meetings with sheriff's employees. In addition, the company paid for golf outings for sheriff's employees and bought them tickets to a Celine Dion concert, according to one source familiar with the investigation.

During its review, the auditor-controller identified sheriff's employees who accepted about $11,000 worth of gifts from Compass. The auditor forwarded those names to the Sheriff's Department and district attorney's office, but did not disclose the names in Tuesday's report.The sheriff's investigation will look at whether the department's executives violated department policy that prohibits employees from accepting gifts from the public. It will also examine whether the executives followed state law that requires government officials to disclose gifts they receive worth more than $50.

Michael Gennaco, chief attorney for the sheriff's Office of Independent Review, which monitors the department's internal-affairs investigations, confirmed the department's investigation into the Compass gifts. "There's an investigation ongoing. Once it's completed, we can talk about the outcome and the number of people who were held accountable, if any, and we'll describe the incidents," Gennaco said. Steve Whitmore, a spokesman for Sheriff Lee Baca, said the department would release the names of the employees who have been identified as recipients of Compass hospitality, but only after it completes its investigation.

"We're going to release the list, but we can't do that until the internal affairs investigation is completed," Whitmore said. "The Sheriff's Department has decided to release the names so the public doesn't think we're protecting anybody." Prosecutors are awaiting the completion of the sheriff's internal affairs investigation before determining whether any sheriff's employees violated criminal law, according to Jane Robison, a spokeswoman for Dist. Atty. Steve Cooley. The policy prohibiting gratuities from the public is open to interpretation. Sheriff Lee Baca has accepted more than $40,000 in gifts, including meals and golf outings, since taking office in 1998.

In an interview last year, the sheriff said the policy was intended to prevent deputies from accepting gifts from business owners and the public to avoid the appearance that sheriff's services are for sale. He said the policy did not apply to celebrities who pick up his golf tabs or companies that send him fruit baskets around the holidays. The sheriff said he gives many of the gifts, including sports tickets and food baskets, to department employees.

He said he reports all gifts worth more than $50 on his statement of economic interest, as required by state law. Whether the Compass gifts were a violation of department policy is now under review, said Whitmore, the sheriff's spokesman. "We're certainly going to examine the audit carefully. We take it seriously," Whitmore said. "And we will then take the next appropriate step. And that depends on what the investigation finds," he said.