Anchor ads are not supported on this page.
Archives
Classifieds
Stories
Events
Contests
Music
Movies
Theater
Food
Legal Guide
February 12, 2025
February 5, 2025
January 29, 2025
January 22, 2025
January 15, 2025
January 8, 2025
January 1, 2025
December 25, 2024
December 18, 2024
December 11, 2024
December 4, 2024
Close
February 12, 2025
February 5, 2025
January 29, 2025
January 22, 2025
January 15, 2025
January 8, 2025
January 1, 2025
December 25, 2024
December 18, 2024
December 11, 2024
December 4, 2024
February 12, 2025
February 5, 2025
January 29, 2025
January 22, 2025
January 15, 2025
January 8, 2025
January 1, 2025
December 25, 2024
December 18, 2024
December 11, 2024
December 4, 2024
Close
Anchor ads are not supported on this page.
Realistic Funded Level of City Pension Plan Now 56.8%
Don, you can just keep on smiling.... hope you're feeling better.— May 25, 2009 2:06 p.m.
Realistic Funded Level of City Pension Plan Now 56.8%
Besides, without this to keep you entertained, I guess you'll have to go on "Just Wondering"— May 25, 2009 2:05 p.m.
Realistic Funded Level of City Pension Plan Now 56.8%
Come, Johnny,come! The game is afoot. That would be like asking you to step out from behind the curtain. For reasons we BOTH understand that won't happen anytime soon.— May 25, 2009 2:02 p.m.
Realistic Funded Level of City Pension Plan Now 56.8%
Don, By negotiation "new" employees do not have rights to DROP or Retiree Medical. This, over time, will reduce the unfunded liability. I suppose the issues are over existing employees, the ones granted DROP and Retiree Medical Benefits but not eligible to retire due to age or years of service. Thus Sanders and his henchmen/women (I love the term) are trying to get as many senior employees to leave as they can. But is their method legal? Those are newest issues to be revealed by the journalist at the Voice of SD. As noted by our City Attorney, SDCERS and court rulings so far, these are vested individual benefits and can only be removed by a vote. Yet knowing this, Sanders and his minions duped the Council and imposed illegal contracts on two labor groups. Now, through some investigative journalism the light of truth is being shown on City leaders once again.— May 25, 2009 10 a.m.
Realistic Funded Level of City Pension Plan Now 56.8%
Johnny, You and I both know when a Judge allows a complaint to be amended "over and over" he or she is sending a message. This has happened eight times in two cases so far. Either there is some VERY POOR lawyering going on, or the theories are so weak a demurrer will end the matter. Wasn't a portion of Aguirre's last 6th Amended complaint finally dismissed with prejudice? Heck, you believe in this, why haven't offer your vast wealth of experience and talent pro bono? You relentlessly claimed it's for the public good.— May 25, 2009 8:51 a.m.
Realistic Funded Level of City Pension Plan Now 56.8%
And while your coming up with another retort, why not comment on the latest news broken by Rani Gupta over at the Voice of San Diego. With the U/T in shambles we know no one there will dig for these stories. Here is the link: http://www.voiceofsandiego.org/articles/2009/05/2… Ms. Gupta diligence is now uncovering documented lies from our Mayor, his staff and his outside hired lawyers. The ethic from his office are nowhere to be found. No wonder Mayor Sanders dissolved the office of Ethics and Integrity. But not all is lost in our ethics challenged Enron By the Sea. City Attorney Goldsmith and SDCERS Administrator Wescoe both showed they ARE men of ethics AND integrity. Each man told the truth or showed through documentation how the Mayor's office is lying. Of other interest will be the outcome of Local 127's complaint against the City regarding bad faith bargaining. Should the Board rule against the City and Mayor's office, it will underscore the level of dishonesty now practiced by our city leaders.— May 25, 2009 8:39 a.m.
Realistic Funded Level of City Pension Plan Now 56.8%
Johnny Your theory is a based upon the premise of a scam. Over and over the trial courts are ruling these are negotiated benefits reached through the proper meet and confer processes. Whether it was Mr. Aguirre's litigation (which the court allowed him to amend six times) or now the Orange County case, now amended twice, the results are the same; FAILURE, then dismissal. Will the cases proceed to a higher level? Probably, the lawyers full employment act encourages frivolous appeals.— May 25, 2009 8:15 a.m.
Realistic Funded Level of City Pension Plan Now 56.8%
Say Johnny, I read the Judge up in LA tossed Orange County Supervisor's 2nd amended complaint in their action against the Deputy Sheriff's and the three @ 50 controversy. Orange County Supervisor John Moorlach, who launched the lawsuit and the amended complaint, said he’ll be asking his colleagues to stay the course and pursue an appeal through the state’s appellate courts and eventually the Supreme Court. It seems after fifteen months and $1.7 million in outside legal counsel fees, their side has yet to show any progress on this misguided effort. Considering the county’s present fiscal crisis, the Supervisors should come to their senses and cut their losses. It's apparent they have no chance at all of winning this case.— May 24, 2009 9 p.m.
Realistic Funded Level of City Pension Plan Now 56.8%
Don, June's SDCERS system valuation snapshot WILL be interesting. With it just over a month away the deep recession will, no doubt, have a negative impact on the system's overall valuation. While it WILL show the funding level less than the previous official report, I believe the bounce between March and June 30th will take a little of the sting out of it. I wonder... what is the the time requirement for SDCERS to publicly disclose the data?— May 23, 2009 11:15 a.m.
Realistic Funded Level of City Pension Plan Now 56.8%
Johnny, I'll take your bet but with Don's caveat. The City will not declare bankruptcy while Sanders is at the helm. His ever growing ego, which is already larger than his waist, won't allow it to happen EVEN IF it may be in the City's best interest. Is it a bet?— May 23, 2009 11:08 a.m.