Ask a Hipster — Advice you didn't know you needed
Big Screen — Movie commentary
Blurt — Music's inside track
Booze News — San Diego spirits
Classical Music — Immortal beauty
Classifieds — Free and easy
Close to Home — What it’s like on the street where you live
Cover Stories — Front-page features
Drinks All Around — Bartenders' drink recipes
Excerpts — Literary and spiritual excerpts
Feast! — Food & drink reviews
Feature Stories — Local news & stories
Fishing Report — What’s getting hooked from ship and shore
From the Archives — Spotlight on the past
Golden Dreams — Talk of the town
The Gonzo Report — Making the musical scene, or at least reporting from it
Letters — Our inbox
Movies@Home — Local movie buffs share favorites
Movie Reviews — Our critics' picks and pans
Musician Interviews — Up close with local artists
Neighborhood News from Stringers — Hyperlocal news
News Ticker — News & politics
Obermeyer — San Diego politics illustrated
Outdoors — Weekly changes in flora and fauna
Overheard in San Diego — Eavesdropping illustrated
Poetry — The old and the new
Reader Travel — Travel section built by travelers
Reading — The hunt for intellectuals
Roam-O-Rama — SoCal's best hiking/biking trails
San Diego Beer — Inside San Diego suds
SD on the QT — Almost factual news
Sheep and Goats — Places of worship
Special Issues — The best of
Street Style — San Diego streets have style
Surf Diego — Real stories from those braving the waves
Theater — On stage in San Diego this week
Tin Fork — Silver spoon alternative
Under the Radar — Matt Potter's undercover work
Unforgettable — Long-ago San Diego
Unreal Estate — San Diego's priciest pads
Your Week — Daily event picks
Appellate Court Says DROP Not Vested Benefit
First Jim Warning, now Ann Smith. I suppose I'll keep you guessing. Don, that's the point DROP salary, the salary you earn while active in the DROP program is what the court narrowly focused on. This three judge panel from the 9th believes it is not vested and I understand their reasoning. This panel did NOT opine on whether "DROP" the pension benefit program in its entirety is vested on not. I think I can get even Johnny to go along with that much FOR NOW pending appeal. My point, the title of this blog thread is inaccurate or purposely misleading at worst, IF you read AND understood the Court's ruling.— June 11, 2009 5:02 p.m.
Appellate Court Says DROP Not Vested Benefit
Hey Johnny, I forgot to ask... now that you have had a chance to re-read the 9th's ruling carefully, in your learned opinion is "DROP SALARY" and its vested state the same or different than the DROP program? Or did the Court separate the two? Leaving the question of whether, DROP, as a program, is a vested benefit open still?— June 11, 2009 3:25 p.m.
Appellate Court Says DROP Not Vested Benefit
As for the "promises" that were made, they were very one sided (in favor of employees) and not above board. ------------------------------------------------------ Tell me, when the City proposed to the employees, we need to shed Social Security and Medicare in the early eighties, who initiated the bargain, claiming it would be a temendous savings to the City? It was Pete Wilson, you know former Mayor and Govenor of California, Favorite Son of San Diego. The employee initially opposed the idea... it was only when then Mayor Wilson and I believe it City Manager John Lockwood at the time, offered to create a supplemental savings program AND lifetime medical care to replace SS and Medicare. Twenty five years later, Mayor Sanders doesn't like the deal and wants to end it, but, of course keep it for himself. What a hypocrite!— June 11, 2009 3:21 p.m.
Appellate Court Says DROP Not Vested Benefit
AGREED!— June 11, 2009 11:42 a.m.
Appellate Court Says DROP Not Vested Benefit
One could equate it as a promise made to you for your pension, a promise you planned and relied on. One to be honored by people who claimed to be honorable. But in reality have no integrity. Alas, it appears that both you and Johnny are delighted that our city leaders are less than honorable, have little, if any, integrity to live up to promises made. You and I both know it is completely unethical and dishonorable to renege on an obligation you chose to assume. Sadly, it's amplified even more when those who led before convinced employees to support you in the process and now claim poverty because you mismanaged the assets. These people are not much different than the ones you report on regularly in the Scam San Diego Blog. But what really saddens me, if you and Surfpuppy-Johnny-BillyBobHenry really believe this is acceptable business and moral behavior you're no better than those who are perpetrating these acts now. Until San Diegans realize their government leaders only serve THEIR own interest and not the people's best interest this situation will only get worse.— June 11, 2009 7:01 a.m.
Appellate Court Says DROP Not Vested Benefit
Really Don, regarding Post #8 I am curious what you believe about promised benefits made years ago when the city proposed the changes... You don't really want to hid behind Johnny's skirt...do you?— June 10, 2009 9:48 p.m.
Appellate Court Says DROP Not Vested Benefit
From another bog on the issue: "Several attorneys have reviewed the ruling and agree there is nothing in the language that deals with Charter Section 143.1 nor the question of DROP and it being a vested benefit. The City Attorney is AGAIN jumping the gun and making foolish statements and putting out incorrect information. This is reminiscent of the last four years with Mike Aguirre. This is a sad state of affairs to have to deal with such incompetence not only in the mayor's office but the City Attorney's office at the same time." The local news reporting on this issue is a feeding frenzy and also indicative of the lack of experience and knowledge of REAL Investigative reporting and the ability to do their due diligence BEFORE putting false information out to the public. The scary part of all of this is with the total inept, pathetically incompetent people in positions of authority within city government; even a blind squirrel finds a nut once in a while.— June 10, 2009 9:43 p.m.
Appellate Court Says DROP Not Vested Benefit
In particular, and thing you may not have been aware of... as part of the Sanders, do my or else philosophy, in 2005 when the city imposed another set of demands, the added a penalty to those already in DROP... those employees, (only POA represented ones) were required to pay 3.2% of the gross salary right off the top. This deduction, labeled POA 3.2 DROP RED... was Sanders sticking it to the labor group members who did not reach an agreement. Thus lowering the members DROP salary... the POA brought litigation on the matter and the loons in the 9th agreed, for now, with the city.— June 10, 2009 9:08 p.m.
Appellate Court Says DROP Not Vested Benefit
Well Gloating time is already over and opinions on the court's decision are already in flux. Don will need to amend his blog.... The courts decision had nothing to do with DROP being a vested pension benefit. The only decision the court made was DROP salary may lawfully be modified because the salary is not vested. Also, this decision in no way effects the current litigation that the SDPOA is defending itself against by the city. Again, CA Goldsmith's analysis is flawed just as his opinion on Charter section 143.1.— June 10, 2009 9:02 p.m.
Appellate Court Says DROP Not Vested Benefit
DON, Would you care to share your opionion about retiree medical benefits. More specifically, benefits promised to those who left the SS and Medicare systems in 1982 at the request of City officials? Some of these employees, now in their mid 60s are not eligible for medicare as they have not earn the necesseary quarters. Just Wondering....— June 10, 2009 7 p.m.