Here's something you might be interested in.
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
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
Unemployment benefits plus retirement equals foul
“Flagrant abuse of the system,” says city attorney
City attorney Jan Goldsmith's office, carrying a somewhat tarnished image after a string of recent defeats, the failed prosecution of a man scrawling anti-corporatist rants using sidewalk chalk that drew national headlines, and a questionable meeting with opponents of city policy, was in a victorious mood Monday, as a January 13 release celebrated victory over a former city employee attempting to collect unemployment insurance.
Jorge Leon, an appeals board ruled on January 10, was improperly granted unemployment by an administrative law judge in October after being forced out of a job he'd agreed to leave five years prior.
Leon was a participant in the city's Deferred Retirement Option Program, which allowed him to quit making pension contributions and begin drawing pension benefits while still employed, though those benefits were to be diverted to an account that would not be accessible until retirement. In exchange for the opportunity to draw benefits early, Leon and other program participants agree to freeze their pensionable salary base at the time they enter the program. They also agree to formally retire no more than five years after beginning to receive program benefits.
The measure has stirred controversy since it was introduced in 1997 as a way to retain experienced workers longer, thus avoiding new hires for whom the city would need to make additional pension contributions. A 2011 study cited by the then-San Diego Union-Tribune found the program had cost the city nearly $150 million.
"We chose to pursue this appeal because we viewed this as a flagrant abuse of the system and we did not want to open the possibility of other [program] participants claiming benefits," said Goldsmith via release. "We cannot not allow former employees who voluntarily retire to double and triple dip at the expense of the taxpayers."
The appeals board found that in signing the agreement to retire upon or before the passage of five years, Leon "did not act as a person genuinely interested in maintaining employment," and that despite his refusal to resign as agreed, he had voluntarily left work and was thus ineligible for benefits.
Here's something you might be interested in.
Unemployment benefits plus retirement equals foul
“Flagrant abuse of the system,” says city attorney
Unemployment benefits plus retirement equals foul
“Flagrant abuse of the system,” says city attorney
City attorney Jan Goldsmith's office, carrying a somewhat tarnished image after a string of recent defeats, the failed prosecution of a man scrawling anti-corporatist rants using sidewalk chalk that drew national headlines, and a questionable meeting with opponents of city policy, was in a victorious mood Monday, as a January 13 release celebrated victory over a former city employee attempting to collect unemployment insurance.
Jorge Leon, an appeals board ruled on January 10, was improperly granted unemployment by an administrative law judge in October after being forced out of a job he'd agreed to leave five years prior.
Leon was a participant in the city's Deferred Retirement Option Program, which allowed him to quit making pension contributions and begin drawing pension benefits while still employed, though those benefits were to be diverted to an account that would not be accessible until retirement. In exchange for the opportunity to draw benefits early, Leon and other program participants agree to freeze their pensionable salary base at the time they enter the program. They also agree to formally retire no more than five years after beginning to receive program benefits.
The measure has stirred controversy since it was introduced in 1997 as a way to retain experienced workers longer, thus avoiding new hires for whom the city would need to make additional pension contributions. A 2011 study cited by the then-San Diego Union-Tribune found the program had cost the city nearly $150 million.
"We chose to pursue this appeal because we viewed this as a flagrant abuse of the system and we did not want to open the possibility of other [program] participants claiming benefits," said Goldsmith via release. "We cannot not allow former employees who voluntarily retire to double and triple dip at the expense of the taxpayers."
The appeals board found that in signing the agreement to retire upon or before the passage of five years, Leon "did not act as a person genuinely interested in maintaining employment," and that despite his refusal to resign as agreed, he had voluntarily left work and was thus ineligible for benefits.
Comments