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
Ex–pension-board members to rake in $5.4 million?
Appellate court says city is required to pay criminal defense costs
The court case over whether the city should pay the legal costs for six former pension-board members is now one step closer to being a done deal. The most recent appeal filed by the city attorney's office in March of last year has been denied, leaving the city on the hook for $5,419,516 in legal fees, interest, and late fees incurred by the former board members.
The 4th District Court of Appeal published their final ruling on January 22. Despite the decision, the city council has voted to petition the state supreme court to hear the case.
The case dates back to the 2002 pension debacle, when pension-board members increased benefits while at the same time decreased payments, eventually resulting in an estimated $2 billion underfunded pension account. Around the same time, city-council members adopted a formal resolution that guaranteed legal indemnification for boardmembers in the case of any lawsuits.
At the time, councilmembers reasoned that boardmembers "may, from time to time be subjected to claims and suits for actions taken in [that] capacity...there is a need to protect and encourage individuals who volunteer their time and their talent to serve in the public interest."
In 2005, district attorney Bonnie Dumanis filed criminal charges against the former pension-board members. The accused — Cathy Lexin, Ronald Saathoff, John Torres, Mary Vattimo, Terri Webster, and Sharon Wilkinson — requested the city defend them in court. Failing to muster an adequate number of council votes, Lexin, Saathoff, Torres, Vattimo, and Wilkinson were forced to hire outside legal counsel.
Dumanis eventually dismissed the charges. Cleared of any wrongdoing, the pension-board members turned to the city to pay their legal fees. In January 2012, they sued the city for legal costs. Nine months later, superior court Judge William Dato ruled in their favor, granting them nearly $5.5 million in legal fees: Lexin, $1,708,621; Saathoff, $774,837; Torres, $434,621; Vattimo, $945,696; Webster, $1,060,297; and Wilkinson, $495,441.
"The plain language of the City's resolution requires it to pay criminal defense costs and there is no statutory impediment," reads the December 23 judgment. "The board members were not accused of theft-related crimes; the City was not a victim, but rather solicited the approval of [the 2nd pension agreement]; the board members based their defense request on a resolution the City passed to specifically provide them with a defense to any claim or lawsuit arising from their approval of [pension agreement]; the City has never found the board members acted with fraud or outside the course and scope of their employment; and the board members' approval...has effectively been determined not to be criminal."
According to Tom Mitchell from the city attorney's office, the city must submit their petition to the state supreme court by February 3.
Here's something you might be interested in.
Ex–pension-board members to rake in $5.4 million?
Appellate court says city is required to pay criminal defense costs
Ex–pension-board members to rake in $5.4 million?
Appellate court says city is required to pay criminal defense costs
The court case over whether the city should pay the legal costs for six former pension-board members is now one step closer to being a done deal. The most recent appeal filed by the city attorney's office in March of last year has been denied, leaving the city on the hook for $5,419,516 in legal fees, interest, and late fees incurred by the former board members.
The 4th District Court of Appeal published their final ruling on January 22. Despite the decision, the city council has voted to petition the state supreme court to hear the case.
The case dates back to the 2002 pension debacle, when pension-board members increased benefits while at the same time decreased payments, eventually resulting in an estimated $2 billion underfunded pension account. Around the same time, city-council members adopted a formal resolution that guaranteed legal indemnification for boardmembers in the case of any lawsuits.
At the time, councilmembers reasoned that boardmembers "may, from time to time be subjected to claims and suits for actions taken in [that] capacity...there is a need to protect and encourage individuals who volunteer their time and their talent to serve in the public interest."
In 2005, district attorney Bonnie Dumanis filed criminal charges against the former pension-board members. The accused — Cathy Lexin, Ronald Saathoff, John Torres, Mary Vattimo, Terri Webster, and Sharon Wilkinson — requested the city defend them in court. Failing to muster an adequate number of council votes, Lexin, Saathoff, Torres, Vattimo, and Wilkinson were forced to hire outside legal counsel.
Dumanis eventually dismissed the charges. Cleared of any wrongdoing, the pension-board members turned to the city to pay their legal fees. In January 2012, they sued the city for legal costs. Nine months later, superior court Judge William Dato ruled in their favor, granting them nearly $5.5 million in legal fees: Lexin, $1,708,621; Saathoff, $774,837; Torres, $434,621; Vattimo, $945,696; Webster, $1,060,297; and Wilkinson, $495,441.
"The plain language of the City's resolution requires it to pay criminal defense costs and there is no statutory impediment," reads the December 23 judgment. "The board members were not accused of theft-related crimes; the City was not a victim, but rather solicited the approval of [the 2nd pension agreement]; the board members based their defense request on a resolution the City passed to specifically provide them with a defense to any claim or lawsuit arising from their approval of [pension agreement]; the City has never found the board members acted with fraud or outside the course and scope of their employment; and the board members' approval...has effectively been determined not to be criminal."
According to Tom Mitchell from the city attorney's office, the city must submit their petition to the state supreme court by February 3.
Comments