City Attorney Michael Aguirre argued yesterday that an appellate court ruling bolsters his crusade to eliminate certain pension benefits for San Diego employees, while opposing attorneys said other precedents should weigh more heavily in the judge's deliberations.
Superior Court Judge Jeffrey Barton, who is presiding over the city's primary pension case, heard highly divergent interpretations of the June 28 decision by the state's 2nd District Court of Appeal.
In the case Carson Redevelopment Agency v. Padilla, the appeals court upheld a Los Angeles Superior Court decision in favor of the agency, which had sparred with a pair of landowners over a senior housing project.
Aguirre has personally argued the city's main pension case for most of the year, with help from his office's attorneys. Yesterday, he was joined by a lawyer who helped handle the Carson case for the redevelopment agency.
The city attorney quoted from the appeals court decision, telling Barton that “recovery of public money” should not be considered punishment, but a necessary remedy under the law.
The opposing attorneys, who include lawyers representing the city's pension system and four groups of employees, countered that the Carson decision “changes nothing” and was “old news.”
They contend that the appellate ruling supports a handful of points that could work against Aguirre's case, including the argument that innocent parties such as the residents of the Carson housing project or current and future city retirees should not be punished for the actions of others.
The Carson case involves a deal between the Los Angeles County city's disgraced former mayor, who pleaded guilty to extortion charges two years ago, and the landowners. The court declared the contract void because of $75,000 in payments the owners made to the mayor.
Barton called Aguirre and the other attorneys to court because the Carson decision involves the state's conflict-of-interest law, which bars officials from improperly benefiting from their decisions. It also has become the focus of civil and criminal court battles over San Diego's pension system.
The city agreed to retirement benefit increases in 1996 and 2002 that some link to decisions to underfund the pension. Aguirre contends the increases were part of illegal deals between city and pension fund officials that bilked the public and current and future retirees.
The opposing attorneys argue that the benefits came about as part of labor union agreements and subsequent legislation that had nothing to do with separate negotiations between the city and the pension board.
Jennifer Vigil: (619) 718-5069; jennifer.vigil@uniontrib.com
