From the AOCDS (deputies' union) Board of Directors:

Sheriff Carona, my boss, enjoys making me attend board hearings every once in awhile. He thinks it's painful penance for sins he believes I've committed in the past. I think it's torture and should be ruled unconstitutional. Perhaps staff members over at the board offices could look into the issue.

Which leads us to today's OC Board of Supervisor hearing."Enjoying the distraction of staff time," as Supervisor Moorlach wrote to John & Ken last week, Sheriff's staff met Saturday afternoon to discuss the pension issue and begin composing remarks for the Sheriff to address the board.

In speaking with the Sheriff, he told us how he had heard from many people who support the immediate rescission of deputy pensions. These individuals informed the Sheriff that he should stay out of this issue - that it was an issue between the board and the unions - and he should not get involved.

Certainly, from a political vantage point, they are probably correct. However, in speaking to the Sheriff, it became crystal clear that this is not a political issue to him – it is an issue of being faithful to your word and being true to the promises you’ve made in good faith. So, naturally, I was apprehensive about writing a speech for him.  I’ve been down this road before.

We can write a great speech full of pension details and background and issues, which we did, and we can discuss it with the Sheriff and the Command Staff, which we did, and we can hand it over to the Sheriff, which we did. But will he use it? 

The Sheriff did use the speech. During the board hearing, he turned the speech over and used the back to jot down his notes. I’ve been down this road before. It’s a speech from the heart, and you just can’t write it for him. 

Thankfully, we have a staff member who just happens to be enrolled in court reporting school.

So here’s Sheriff Carona’s speech, as transcribed in our office:

First of all, thank you very much for allowing me to come up and spend a few minutes on this. I have to tell you, though, this has been a disturbing and annoying process for me.   

As an elected department head, I'm even more frustrated today listening to the presentations that this has been going on and gestating for a period of some six-seven months that the board members have been involved with this and that in fact this has been an issue that Supervisor Moorlach has tasked one of his staff members to analyze, and yet as an elected department head, the Sheriff of Orange County, who has the vast majority of the people to be affected by the research that's been done on this is -- -- the first time I heard about it was on July 17 when I was asked to attend a meeting with my Undersheriff, with Supervisor Moorlach and his chief of staff Mr. Mainero.   During that meeting, pretty much what you heard today was laid out to me as the Constitutional problems the infirmities that existed with respect to the 3 percent at 50 contract and the benefits that were given to deputy sheriffs and, by the way, also to members of Orange County District Attorney’s office, the investigators that work there.  I was asked to hold that in confidence because of the cataclysmic nature of what could be proposed, and Supervisor Moorlach and Mr. Mainero both spent a great deal of time telling me that they wanted me to keep that confidential because they were still working through this, and they wanted to see if there were any other options that were available other than dropping what was described as a nuclear bomb on the county employees and specifically the Association of Orange County Deputy Sheriffs.  I honored that request.   

Unfortunately, three days later on July the 20^th, I watched on television and then got to see in the newspaper exactly what Mr. Moorlach and Mr. Mainero had planned for the Board of Supervisors and where this was going.  Yet I was never advised of that. I had nothing in writing.  While I maintained the confidentiality, my employees read about it in the newspaper, heard about it in the newspaper, and were wondering why the Sheriff had not informed them, and I want them to understand today because the Sheriff didn't know.   Now, as I listen to this debate, I'm still unclear even after the presentations today if we're talking about a legal issue, a Constitutional issue, or if we're talking about a mathematical issue, whether or not this was paid for, and how it was paid for.  So far, the Board of Supervisors has been told there's only one way to resolve this issue, and that is by declaring a Constitutional infirmity, by declaring this illegal, by going to court, and seeking declarable relief and getting an injunction.  That is the most Draconian of any of the options that I can think of.   

Now, granted, I'm not a lawyer and I'm not an actuarial, but I do have responsibility for forty-two hundred men and women of the Sheriff's Department, and I take very seriously the concerns of their lives and what they do.  What you're suggesting is, because you don't know whether or not you have the right to do what a former Board has done, is to impact the salaries of those people who retired in good faith and in reliance on a decision that was made by the Board of Supervisors by some 33%.  You tell them overnight we're going to take that money from you, and we're going to put it into an escrow account, because we're not sure, and until this is litigated, we're not going to give you the money back.  If it is, we'll give you the money back.  And if it isn’t, we are going to keep it.  That is the most Draconian of all the options.   

Let me give you some insight as to how 3 percent at 50 came about, because unlike the members of this Board, I was there when these discussions took place.  3 percent at 50 was not something that was given to AOCDS or to the members of the Sheriff's Department and the D.A.’s office.  It's not something I gave away.  It was something that was negotiated between the Board of Supervisors and The Association of Deputy Sheriffs.  That was allowed to happen because the State of California passed a piece of legislation that allowed the 3 percent at 50 be enacted in cities and counties.  It was permissible.  You didn't have to go down that path. In fact, Orange County was one of the last counties in California to adopt 3 percent at 50.   

Why did counties and cities put that into play?  Well, it's the same reason you give pay raises to people.  You want to have good salaries and benefits for employees to be able to attract them.  This is one of the most expensive areas in America to live.  You want to have competitive salaries so you get the best people.  Orange County recognized that.  They looked all around us, and people were going to 3 percent at 50.  We were losing people from the Sheriff's Department, the D.A.'s office going to other counties and other municipalities.  We wanted to be competitive.  So the Board of Supervisors, through the C.E.O., reopened negotiations with the Deputy Sheriffs, and they negotiated 3 percent at 50.  Now, I keep hearing about this retroactive portion of it or how this was not paid for.  After I left my meeting with Supervisor Moorlach and Mr. Mainero, I had my staff pull together all of the data that I had in my office, the notes that were reflective of the discussions that took place with the then Board of Supervisors and the then C.E.O., and I had I concern. 

With all due respect to the Board Members, I'm the one that has to manage my budget.  So when we were looking at 3 percent at 50, there was a cost associated with it--some $21 million.  We identified by name the number of individuals that were going to be--could be affected by this and that might retire, prospectively the number of people that we'd be dealing with and there was an unfunded liability, a nut that we had to crack.  The money was put into that account for 3 percent at 50 by the County, by our contract partners, by the Deputy Sheriff's.  They realized there was a shortfall, and the only way for us to get there to make this happen was that they were going to have to take an increase in their overall contribution to the retirement account to make this happen.   And, by the way, to use Mr. Mainero’s analogy, he's absolutely correct.  The Deputy Sheriff, on June 27th of 2002, would have gotten 2 percent at 50.  And on the 28th, if he retired, or she retired, they'd have gotten 75 percent, 3 percent at 50.  But that individual at 27 didn’t get anything retroactive.  In fact, everybody who retired on 2 percent at 50 got no enhancements.  That what's they agreed upon.  When they were working, that’s what the package was. It wasn't until after it was approved that they got the increase.  Mr. Mainero and Supervisor Moorlach state that OCEA did it the right way.  Well, at least we know we have a model out there for how it should be done in doing benefit enhancement at 2.7 percent at 55.  Guess what?  If an OCEA employee retired on June 27th of 2005, they would have gotten 1.6 percent.  If he had retired on June 28th of 2005, when you passed the 2.7 percent at 55, they would have gotten 2.7 percent.  Why does that happen?  It's the same way that all retirement funds are handled throughout the State of California.  You look at the total amount of money that it's going to take to pay not only for those people prospectively but for people that are going to retire. We did that with 3 percent at 50.  You did that with 2.7 percent at 55. And now I get to Mr. Mainero’s argument.  If this is a Constitutional issue, and I'm not I lawyer so I have no idea, then it's going to have broad application to all retirement programs that have been enhanced.  3 percent at 50 is not here just in Orange County.  It's throughout the state of California.  So if it's a Constitutional crisis, then this is much broader than just the Association of Deputy Sheriffs.   

If, in fact, it's not a Constitutional crisis, and you can correct that by the way the contributions were put into the program as evidenced by the fact we had comfort with the way OCEA did it, then why don't we take a look at the analysis of how 3 percent at 50 came into play.  I've got all those documents.  The CEO’s probably got those documents.  I know County Counsel was at the table through all those discussions.  Let's see, in fact, whether or not there was -- all the money was put in there and that it was done right, and then you don't have a Constitutional crisis, you don't have to spend money on the lawyers. 

You're being told there's only one option.  Let me suggest--here's a couple others to you.   I would suggest you work with the affected employee unions, the C.E.O., County Counsel to review past actions and determine what took place during 3 percent at 50 and if structural change is needed, work comparatively and cooperatively to resolve those issues. 

Number two, hire forensic accounting and actuarial experts to work with the Orange County Employees Retirement System, the C.E.O., AOCDS to determine the accuracy of the cost estimated, the amounts funded, when 3 percent at 50 was enacted and also the prospective costs associated with that.  Conduct a detailed analysis to determine what agreements were made and how they were paid for by the Sheriff, by the County, and by the employees.  Direct the C.E.O.'s office to report back on the status of these actions with a recommendation to resolve the concerns that reflects the Board's desire for a legal and financially responsible solution to what may or may not be a problem. 

Number five, use this analysis to rectify the agreement, if necessary.  Deputy Sheriffs have been in negotiations for fifteen months.  For nine months, they've been -- they have been working without a contract.  You can't tell me that you've been looking at this for six to seven months, and if it's an issue that needs to be negotiated, that you wouldn’t put it on the table for them for negotiation.  If, in fact, there's a problem with the way the contract was structured, you, ladies and gentlemen, have an opportunity to talk with deputy sheriffs in negotiations and resolve that.   

And finally, if no resolution can be attained, if, in fact, what has been proposed to you in terms of the Constitutional infirmities and the way this was funded, made it illegal, then you can go to court.  That should be your last option. 

Why you are jumping to a point where you're going to create this nuclear war between a group of retirees who retired in good faith, current employees who are looking at this Board and wondering, do you value them as employees, and you haven't gone through any of the other options other than the most Draconian, I think speaks volumes to the employees of this county. 

I would ask you to use measured steps, use your wisdom and your leadership that you employed throughout leading this county, and do the right thing.  You have some time between now and September the 11th to get the analysis to get the facts before you go to guns and attack employees of this county.  Thank you for letting me speak.

To quote an email Supervisor Moorlach sent to the John and Ken show last week, “we’re enjoying the distraction of staff time,” preparing for tomorrow’s board hearing discussing Moorlach’s theories on deputy pensions.

The hearing will be available live via the internet and can be viewed here.

We’ll have complete coverage of the hearing after the vote.

Today, Supervisor Moorlach sent an email with three articles on the pension issue with the following commentary:

"Tomorrow will be a most important Board of Supervisors’ meeting as we discuss the constitutionality of having granted unfunded, retroactive pension benefits.  Consequently, there will be some media coverage on this matter.   

The LA Times has an article today on the supposed “conflict” component of the debate.  The reporting doesn’t cover the constitutional issues, but conflict is what subscribers want to read (so they tell me).  I had my share of it back in 1994, too.  The LA Times ran a long article on Bob Citron and how I was running against him because of his age (69 at the time), even when I had vehemently denied that to be the case.  Forget about his borrowing $14 billion and cover a manufactured spat.  Oh well.  Their piece is provided last.   

The opening of the LAT article deals with my first post-election encounter with the General Manager of AOCDS in November, five months after the election.  By August, three months prior, Nick Berardino, General Manager of OCEA, had already made a telephone call and we started restoring our relationship.  But never a peep from AOCDS until being jumped at the restaurant.  So, here I am again, addressing the critical fiscal issue of the day, and all we get to read is the supposed feud between two parties.  Oh well. 

The OC Register’s Sunday Commentary section had good coverage on the topic in the Letters to the Editor section. 

The Orange County Business Journal printed my editorial submission to explain the crux of the matter, with a counter submission from AOCDS President Wayne Quint.  And Executive Editor Rick Reiff gave kudos to my Chief of Staff and Chairman Chris Norby’s Chief of Staff for their efforts in regards to this matter."

I spoke to the OC Register’s Rachanee Srisavasdi this afternoon regarding Orange County’s Superior Court contracting with a company who outsources data entry of traffic tickets to Mexico.

Rachanee wanted to know if we had any experts who would say “whether or not it is a concern to have personal information sent overseas.” I spoke to one of our Economic Crimes Investigators as well as Rancho Santa Margarita Lt. Charles Wilmot, who once served as the Sergeant of Economic Crimes.

Both agreed that the practice of “sending information overseas” is not new (banks do it all day, everyday) and, if done properly, is quite safe. From a law enforcement standpoint, unless personal information had been compromised or stolen, this would not raise any red flags.

Of course, we don’t have all the details about the OC Superior Court contract or the Mexican company handling data entry, so we couldn’t discuss this specifically.

Details continue to emerge, however, and now it appears that this subject will be discussed at next Tuesday’s Board of Supervisors’ meeting.

Here's Rachanee's story.

On Friday, July 20, Supervisor Moorlach issued a memo to the Board titled, "Rescission of the AOCDS Retroactive Pension Benefit." During his press conference Supervisor Moorlach detailed his theories on the problems of retroactive pensions; however, he neglected to discuss any possible solution other than rescinding the retroactive portion and slashing retiree pensions by 33%.

On Tuesday, July 24, Supervisor Moorlach issued a revision, apparently due to feedback from fellow supervisors and the public. Note the changes in tone and urgency.

This issue goes to the board on Tuesday, July 31.

July 20, recommended action #1:Rescind, as void and in violation of Article IV, Section 17, Article XI, Section 10(a), Article XVI, Section 6, and Article XVI, Section 18 of the California Constitution, the retroactive portion of the “3% at 50” pension increase to all Public Safety employees who received such retroactive increase as part of the Amendment to the MOU with the County of Orange approved by the Board of Supervisors on December 4, 2001 (made effective June 28, 2002), except that members who retired after such retroactive increase took effect shall not be required to repay any pension payments representing the retroactive increase that they have actually received since the MOU was approved and implemented, but shall only be ineligible to receive payments attributable to such retroactive increase going forward;

July 24 revision to recommended action #1:(a) Indicate our intention to rescind, as void and in violation of Article IV, Section 17, Article XI, Section 10(a), Article XVI, Section 6, and Article XVI, Section 18 of the California Constitution, the retroactive portion of the “3% at 50” pension increase to all Public Safety employees who received such retroactive increase as part of the Amendment to the MOU with the County of Orange approved by the Board of Supervisors on December 4, 2001 (made effective June 28, 2002), except that members who retired after such retroactive increase took effect shall not be required to repay any pension payments representing the retroactive increase that they have actually received since the MOU was approved and implemented, but shall only be ineligible to receive payments attributable to such retroactive increase going forward; and (b) direct staff to return on September 11, 2007 with a recommendation on how to effect such a rescission immediately thereafter.

July 20, recommended action #2:Employ counsel to immediately file a Declaratory Relief action in the Orange County Superior Court against AOCDS and the Orange County Employees Retirement System (OCERS), confirming the rescission, seeking a judicial declaration that the retroactive portion of the “3% at 50” pension increase to members of AOCDS violates the debt limitation provisions, is a gift of public funds, and is extra compensation paid to public employees, all in violation of Article IV, Section 17, Article XI, Section 10(a), Article XVI, Section 6, and Article XVI, Section 18 of the California Constitution, and that the County of Orange has no obligation to make any further payments toward the retroactive portion of the pension increase, and enjoining further payments by OCERS of the portion of payments to retirees based on the 1% retroactive portion; and

July 24 revision to recommended action #2:Direct County Counsel to immediately complete a Request for Proposals and return on September 11, 2007 with a recommendation to employ counsel to immediately file a Declaratory Relief action in the Orange County Superior Court against AOCDS and the Orange County Employees Retirement System (OCERS), confirming the rescission, seeking a judicial declaration that the retroactive portion of the “3% at 50” pension increase to members of AOCDS violates the debt limitation provisions, is a gift of public funds, and is extra compensation paid to public employees, all in violation of Article IV, Section 17, Article XI, Section 10(a), Article XVI, Section 6, and Article XVI, Section 18 of the California Constitution, and that the County of Orange has no obligation to make any further payments toward the retroactive portion of the pension increase, and seeking an injunction against making further payments by OCERS of the portion of payments to retirees based on the 1% retroactive portion;

July 20, recommended action #3: Direct the CEO and/or County Counsel to send a letter to the Chief Executive Officer of OCERS informing him or her that the Board of Supervisors considers the retroactive portion of the “3% at 50” pension increase to all members of the AOCDS pursuant to the Amendment to the MOU with the County of Orange approved by the Board of Supervisors on December 4, 2001 unconstitutional and void, that the County of Orange will not include as its future payments the retroactive increase, requesting that OCERS immediately calculate the required future payments based on a “2% at 50” rate through the effective date of the Amendment to the MOU and a “3% at 50” rate thereafter, and that OCERS immediately begin paying retirement benefits to retirees applying a “2% at 50” formula to their service through the effective date of the MOU and a “3% at 50” rate thereafter, if an AOCDS member continued to work after the effective date of the MOU.

July 24 revision to action #3:Direct staff to determine, in consultation with OCERS, the cost of having the active safety employees pay for the retroactive benefit and consult with AOCDS over a proposed contract for the deputies to agree to make such payments.

The entire July 20 memo is available here.

Here's the July 24 revised memo.

The Register's Greg Hardesty attended the dedication of a tree and a permanent memorial made in honor of Samantha and all victims of child predators: 

Thursday, on what would have been Samantha's 11th birthday, Erin Runnion tearfully accepted the tree and a permanent memorial as a gift for her slain daughter and for all victims of child predators.

"Samantha deserved to be mourned; she deserves to be remembered," Erin Runnion told a hushed crowd outside FBI headquarters in Los Angeles, where the tree and a black-marble monument with an etching of Samantha's smiling face were unveiled.

Five summers have passed since Samantha, 5, was abducted, sexually assaulted and murdered in one of Orange County's worst crimes during a season of high-profile child kidnappings.

Her death accelerated statewide adoption of the Amber Alert system and led to the formation of Runnion's Joyful Child Foundation, which organizes Neighborhood Watch-style programs and safety campaigns.

But instead of focusing on her crusade against child predators, Runnion spent most of her 14-minute speech talking about Samantha, bringing many hardened police officers to tears.

"When she was just 3 days old," Runnion said, "I was holding her, and she started to squirm, and I remember I watched as she mustered every ounce of strength within her and raised that little head out from her neck and looked me straight in the eyes."

"That's when a mother falls truly in love.''

The entire Register story is here.

AOCDS (the deputies' union) sent out the following update today:

On Tuesday, July 24, 2007, AOCDS President Wayne Quint, Second Vice-President Bill McGovern and Interim General Manager Mike Carre met with our attorneys regarding the current reduction of retirement benefits proposal introduced by Supervisor Moorlach. Our attorneys, William Dohrmann and Michael Four, are from the law firm Schwartz, Steinsapir, Dohrmann and Sommers in Los Angeles. Also in attendance at the meeting were Captain Mike James and Captain Jay LeFlore from the Association of County Law Enforcement Managers (ACLEM).

Our legal team has been working on this issue since Friday, July 20, 2007. They believe strong and sound legal arguments exist in opposition to the theories proposed by Supervisor Moorlach. The team we have assembled is prepared to challenge every legal theory presented by the County.

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS MEETING

Supervisor Moorlach will introduce his proposal at the next scheduled Board of Supervisors meeting on Tuesday, July 31, 2007. As we have indicated in a previous "Member Advisement," the proposed implementation dates for the reduction in benefits has been changed to a future Board of Supervisors' meeting in mid-September.

Our legal team has requested the following regarding Tuesday's Board of Supervisor's meeting: The AOCDS Board of Directors, along with the boards from ACLEM and REAOC will be present with our legal team. We will be requesting the Board of Supervisors to not to support Supervisor Moorlach's proposed lawsuit and reduction in retirement benefits. While we know this issue is critical to all of you, our legal team believes that we need to show restraint and professionalism at this initial Board meeting.

AOCDS RECEIVES SUPPORT

ACLEM has committed to stand with the AOCDS in this fight to preserve your retirement benefits with both human and financial resources. Additionally, numerous law enforcement, fire, and labor organizations throughout California have reached out to us, pledging to stand side by side with us in this fight, both legally and financially. We thank all of these organizations for their support, encouragement, and offers of resources in this fight.

The AOCDS and its members continue to show exemplary professionalism in these times of attacks on all public employees. The AOCDS' political, legal, labor and public relations experts as well as the Board of Directors believe that anything other than displays of professionalism at this time are not in the best interest of our organization or our members. Thank you for your unity, support and confidence during these most challenging of times.

For visitors of the OC Fair, the Orange County Sheriff’s Department, Drug Use Is Life Abuse and the Orange County Sheriff’s Advisory Council are staffing a booth inside the Orange County Building, #16.   Each year the participants compete in several categories including education, staff interaction, and theme.  This year our booth took BEST OF SHOW ribbon, as well, receiving ribbons in theme and staff interaction.  This is the 5th consecutive year we have been awarded BEST OF SHOW.  Congratulations to all the divisions who have supported the booth by providing friendly, informed staff. 

The booth is entirely designed by Orange County Sheriff’s employees. The Orange County Fair is in full swing and will run through Aug. 5^th

From The Joyful Child Foundation, in memory of Samantha Runnion: The public is invited to join Erin Runnion and the FBI Los Angeles Bureau at a dedication tree-planting and memorial ceremony in honor of Samantha Runnion and all child victims and survivors. The event will be held at 10:00 am on July 26th, Samantha's birthday, at the FBI headquarters on the front lawn of the Federal Building in Los Angeles.

11000 Wilshire Blvd. Los Angeles, CA 90024

From KNBC, Channel 4: LOS ANGELES -- Samantha Runnion, the 5-year-old Orange County girl who was abducted and murdered in 2002, will be remembered this week with a tree- planting ceremony that will celebrate the lives of all victims of crimes against children.

Erin Runnion, Samantha's mother and creator of the Joyful Child Foundation, will join representatives of the FBI for Thursday's ceremony on the front lawn of the Federal Building in Westwood. The ceremony, which is being held on what would have been Samantha's 11th birthday, is open to the public. The news report is available here.

Many Southern Californians stopping to fill their cars with gas have, undoubtedly, seen Sheriff Carona on the fuel pump recruiting for the OC Sheriff's Department.  As the Grand Jury reported earlier this year, "In 2006, 4,414 people applied to the OCSD for a deputy sheriff position, 1,146 passed the written exam, and 118 completed the background process and were hired. Of these 118, 19 were lateral transfers from another law enforcement agency and the rest were sent to the OCSD Academy. Of the 99 sent to the OCSD Academy, 49 graduated." 

PumpTop TV was brought to us by a generous member of the Sheriff's Advisory Council. Recruiting isn't getting any easier and we are always looking for new ideas to get our message out.

We've attached the Internal Affairs Unit Report for 2006.

From the forward: "The Internal Affairs Unit serves a critical role in upholding the high standards of conduct expected of employees of the Orange County Sheriff’s Department while also meeting legal mandates to respond to complaints of misconduct initiated by the public.  The investigations undertaken by Internal Affairs are confidential, the details of which cannot be disclosed except under certain controlled circumstances.  As such, much of the work of Internal Affairs is unknown and shrouded by the necessities of confidentiality, the Peace Officer’s Bill of Rights (AB 301), and other applicable human resources law and requirements.  The reality of Internal Affairs and the investigative process is frequently misunderstood not only by the public but also by most other members of the Sheriff’s Department.  We hope this 2006 Annual Report will provide insight into this relatively unknown facet of the Department’s Professional Standards Division."

One statistic that surprised me: "The majority of complaints initiated for investigation in 2006 came from internal Department sources."  Simply put, we don't look the other way to "protect our own," contrary to what the media reports.

Here's the entire report.

Thanks to Red County, video is available of Moorlach's announcement that retroactive pensions are unconsitutional. We'll post the first of eight segments below. The rest is available right here.

The afternoon of July 17th, Supervisor Moorlach and his staff briefed the Undersheriff and me on his legal theories regarding retroactive pension benefits.

He told us this matter was confidential and requested we not discuss this matter. He also asked us to attend closed session on July 24th to discuss the potential impacts to our employees and public safety as well as to discuss possible options, impacts and solutions with county executives and attorneys.

Today, however, he held a press conference where he outlined why he believes retroactive pension benefits are unconstitutional and he will be asking the board of supervisors to approve his legal strategy on July 31. If approved, the board will seek an injunction against further payments on retroactive pension benefits.

While there may be various legal arguments regarding the issues raised, there is no question regarding the original intent of the Board of Supervisors to legally offer employees this retirement package. All employees rely on the county supervisors and their staff to review the legal implications of any and all agreements prior to approval.

As the Sheriff, I have always believed it is extremely important to honor our commitments to our employees.

This is obviously a very complex issue and one that will take time to resolve. However, be assured that we will update you on any new developments.

While it is difficult to make this request, I would ask that you remain patient while this issue is being debated. I also ask that you share your questions, concerns, and feedback with me. Please send me an email or use the feedback button on the blog to share your thoughts. It is my intention to convey your comments to the Board of Supervisors.

Your commitment and dedication to the residents, businesses and visitors of Orange County never ceases to amaze me. I sincerely appreciate your knowledge and expertise, and I know that you will continue to serve Orange County with extraordinary success.

Much has already been written on this still-developing issue so I will point you to all relevant information we have at this point.

Supervisor Moorlach believes that retroactive pension benefits are unconstitutional and he will ask the Board to approve his legal strategy at the July 31st hearing. If approved, he will request an injunction against further payments on retroactive pension benefits.

Here's Moorlach's presentation from the press conference this morning.

Orange County Register articles are here and here. OC Reg blog posts are here, here and here.

The AOCDS (the deputies' union) sent this email to its members today: "The Orange County Register is reporting that Orange County Supervisor John Moorlach is holding a press conference today where he will announce a plan to significantly reduce retirement benefits for all retired and active deputy sheriffs, investigators, sergeants and DA investigators. We have not seen any details of this plan. As soon as we have had the opportunity to examine the details of this or any other plan that could impact our current retirement formula, we will respond accordingly.

We recognize how news such as this can negatively impact morale within the entire Orange County law enforcement community. As such, we ask each and every deputy sheriff, DA Investigator, and Orange County police officer to continue to perform their duties to the high levels the community has come to expect of us."

We are requesting your comments and feedback on this issue. Please use the email button on the top left of this page to send an email to Sheriff Carona and let us know what you think.

The Orange County Register this week highlighted Orange County Sheriff's Investigator Ty Risko and Deputy Tom Dominguez and his family in two separate stories on raising money for non-profit organizations.

Investigator Risko was diagnosed with non-Hodgkin lymphoma in 2005 and recently participated, along with many department friends, in the American Cancer Society's Relay for Life. Deputy Tom Dominguez and his wife April attended the Team Up for Down Syndrome event with their daughter Isabella, who was born with Down syndrome.

Dana Ford, a writer for Reuters news agency, visited the OCSD in May after speaking to southern California ICE officials. Her story's out today, including this highlight: 

Now 21 local law enforcement agencies have partnered with ICE in 12 states, more than twice the number of agencies at the end of 2006. A further 60 groups have applications pending.

California's Orange County started the program in its jails last January and has so far identified more than 2,000 inmates who are potentially deportable -- either because they are undocumented immigrants or have committed crimes that make them eligible to lose their legal status.

"At the end of the day, we want a program that's going to reduce crime," said Orange County Sheriff Mike Carona.

After they have completed their sentences, flagged inmates are released to ICE for possible deportation.

About 70 percent of the inmates identified in O.C. jails were charged with felonies or aggravated felonies, crimes like drug possession and murder.

Read the whole thing here.

For the record, from January 19 to June 30, Orange County Sheriff’s Department Jail Deputies interviewed 3,685 foreign nationals booked into Orange County jails, detaining 2,446 individuals for Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Among those detained, 159 were being held for aggravated felonies, 1,561 for felonies, 885 for misdemeanors and 143 affiliated with gangs.

In 2006, DHS/ICE maintained an average of 310 inmates in-custody with Immigration and Naturalization Services holds. Today, we have 1,116 inmates in-custody with INS holds -- more than tripling the average number of INS holds over last year. 

A letter from the Tustin Unified School District:

On behalf of the entire Tustin Unified School District, we want to express an on-going, sincere appreciation for Sergeant Brad Virgoe.

Over the years, Sergeant Brad Virgoe has proven to be a valuable asset to our district. His expert leadership of the School Mobile Resource Team (SMART) has assisted our schools and community in assessing student and school related threats on countless occasions. And after each assessment, a thorough disposition of "de-briefing" of the action taken is provided school administrators.