From the Press Release issue by Governor Schwarzenegger's office today:

 

Below is the transcript of Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger’s weekly radio address, hosted this week by Orange County Sheriff Mike Carona.

Hi, this is Orange County Sheriff Mike Carona, filling in for Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, with this week’s California Report.

As elected leaders, the Governor and I agree that public safety is our number one priority and I applaud his efforts to reform the state’s parole system because they will make California safer.

I have worked in law enforcement for 32 years and I know that parole reform is crucial to our work to fix California’s prison crisis and protect our people.

Our state has 120,000 inmates who finish their sentences every year and they are automatically placed in the parole system.

And because we have the nation’s highest recidivism rate, it is absolutely essential that we change the way we handle our parolees.

The Governor’s plan would allow authorities to focus on the most dangerous criminals and devote more resources to enforcing Jessica’s Law.

Offenders who have not committed serious or violent crimes would be eligible to go off parole after 6 months if they meet specific criteria and if they earn it.

In weighing eligibility, officials will consider evidence such as a parolee’s employment status and commitment to rehabilitation. And violent criminals would stay on parole up to the 4-year maximum under state law.

These improvements are based in science because parole regulations that include the right incentives have proven to be highly effective in other states.

Parole reform is part of the Governor’s comprehensive strategy to solve California’s prison crisis and head off the threat of a court-imposed cap on our prison population. In May, Governor Schwarzenegger signed a historic prison reform bill that will add 53,000 new beds and beef up rehabilitation programs to reduce our recidivism rate.

And just this week, he signed legislation to create the first secure re-entry facility in Stockton so inmates whose terms are ending will have direct access to programs like job training and counseling.

That will give them a much better chance of returning to their communities as productive, law-abiding citizens. As sheriff, I am honored that Orange County will be the first area to implement the Governor’s parole reforms.

We will critically evaluate the program and make any changes as necessary to ensure our ultimate goal of reducing recidivism and preventing future victims.

I know there is concern over these proposals, but make no mistake about it, the new parole reforms are tough on crime.

They still target the period immediately after release, when most violations occur. They provide incentives for rehabilitation programs that are proven to work.

And they continue to enforce strict regulations on the criminals who are most likely to commit new crimes.

All of these reforms were designed to better protect our residents and communities and they will produce a safer California.

On behalf of Governor Schwarzenegger, I’m Sheriff Mike Carona. Thank you for listening.

Kimberly Edds from the Register asks, "Why does it take so long for toxicology results to come back from the crime lab? And what do those really prove any way?"

Director Dean Gialamas helps with the answer: "[T]he folks at the Sheriff's crime lab can figure it out. All it takes is a little blood or tissue and a lot of time – anywhere from a few days to eight weeks. And they move through as many as 20,000 alcohol and drug cases a year – with a staff of 13, said Dean Gialamas, director of the county's Sheriff- Coroner's forensic sciences lab."

See Kimberly's entire report here.

Here's some more information on what our Forensic Science Services Division is doing:

SABRE (Sexual Assault Backlog Reduction Effort) 

The Orange County Sheriff-Coroner Crime Laboratory received a grant under the California Cold Hit Program from the California Governor’s Office of Criminal Justice Planning (OCJP) on July 01, 2000. The grant provided resources to screen, profile and confirm DNA evidence from unsolved, suspectless sexual assault cases and homicides with a sexual component which occurred between October 01, 1994 and October 1, 2003. The project was designated by the department as SABRE – the Sexual Assault Backlog Reduction Effort.  

337 previously unanalyzed cases were submitted to the Sheriff’s Crime Laboratory from all Orange County law enforcement agencies. 228 DNA profiles were obtained from these cases and entered into the DNA database (CODIS). The SABRE team also retrieved and reanalyzed cases that had been previously tested with older technology to generate new DNA profiles compatible with the current CODIS database. In addition, 38 cases from the Los Angeles Sheriff’s Office were analyzed by the OCSD Crime Laboratory under a contract agreement. 

This resulted in 29 cold hits and 28 case to case hits by the end of the program. OCSD had the state’s 100^th cold hit (a sexual assault case from Fountain Valley PD) and the state’s 2000^th cold hit (a Costa Mesa PD sexual assault case).  

Some project highlights include: 

The first cold hit identified the suspect of a 1980 Seal Beach PD rape and homicide of an elderly woman. This was a national database hit and the suspect was incarcerated in a Florida state prison.  A sexual assault case in Florida was also linked to the suspect. This case has not yet gone to trial because of the mental health of the suspect. 

Case to case links were revealed in 2002 between a Huntington Beach rape of an elderly woman, two Los Alamitos rapes of elderly women, the “Belmont Shores” serial rapes in Los Angeles County and a rape series in Washington State.  The suspect, Mark Rathbun, was later apprehended and tried in a LA County Court for the crimes. 

James SHIPP was a suspected serial rapist arrested by Orange Police Department in 2001 for two sexual assaults on cleaning women. He was also linked by DNA to an unsolved 1997 Santa Ana PD rape case, an unsolved 1995 Fountain Valley PD rape, a Tustin PD attempted sexual assault and an unsolved 1998 Irvine PD homicide.

Many of our readers may not know that Orange County is home to the first-in–the-nation Elder Abuse Forensic Center. As printed in today’s New York Times, "Some 6,000 cases of elder abuse are reported annually in Orange County. In California, 100,000 reports were filed in 2003, accounting for 20 percent of the 500,000 reports nationwide. But there is widespread agreement among professionals that those numbers may be low. In a 1996 study, only one in 14 cases of physical abuse and neglect were reported and one in 100 of financial exploitation."

The Orange County Sheriff's Department is one of several participating agencies working in a collaborative environment to investigate, combat and prevent elder abuse. Dr. Lisa Gibbs, an Elder Abuse Forensic Center team member recently participated in a conference near Seattle, Washington. The Seattle Post-Intelligencer reports:

"The warning signs of elder abuse and neglect aren't always so graphic or obvious. But they must be learned as the senior citizen population swells, experts said Wednesday at 'Making the Case for Justice,' a conference sponsored by the King County Prosecuting Attorney's Office and other groups.

'Elder abuse is where child abuse was 30 years ago,' entering the consciousness of a society that often does not consider the mistreatment of vulnerable adults, said Dr. Lisa Gibbs, an assistant clinical professor of geriatrics at the University of California-Irvine.

She spoke to about 300 legal, law enforcement, social and health workers in the opening session of a two-day conference at the Meydenbauer Center.

Those with undiagnosed dementia are 'particularly vulnerable to abuse, even if they're a charming, wonderful person who goes along with everything you say. That is a clue in itself,' said Gibbs, who is on the team at the Elder Abuse Forensic Center in Orange County, Calif."

More on the center:

Purpose

• Prevent and combat the abuse, neglect, and exploitation of at-risk older and disabled adults in our local community through the collaboration of professionals in law, medicine, and social services.
• Educate professionals who deal with the crime of elder abuse including law enforcement, the medical community, social services, the legal community, government officials and investigative agencies, academic institutions, as well as older adults and their families regarding effective prevention and prosecution.
• Advance the awareness of elder abuse through research on abuse and neglect of at-risk older and disabled adults.
• Create a new standard for interventions that are effective in combating and preventing mistreatment of older adults.

Overview

Approximately 2 million American seniors are abused, neglected, or exploited each year. In Orange County, Adult Protective Services receives 500 reports of abuse each month. For every report of abuse, five go unreported, indicating that more than 30,000 of our County's most vulnerable adults endure elder abuse each year.

Launched in May 2003, the Elder Abuse Forensic Center changes the way elder abuse cases are prosecuted through an unprecedented collaborative process. The Center is staffed by professionals from legal, medical, social services, and law enforcement agencies who conduct case reviews; in-home medical and mental status, and evidentiary investigation; taped victim interviews; education; consultation; and research. The collaboration brings these experts together to better understand, identify and treat elder abuse, determine more efficient ways to successfully prosecute elder abuse cases and support the prevention of elder abuse through greater awareness and education among those professionals who work with older and disabled adults.

The Center represents an important step forward in our nation's ability to combat and prevent elder abuse, neglect, and exploitation through its groundbreaking collaboration in service, education, and research.

Inmate movement is currently restricted and privileges are suspended indefinitely, at the Theo Lacy Facility in Orange, after a recent disturbance.  Thanks to the immediate response by Deputies, the situation was brought under control quickly and order was restored.  Jail staff and volunteers were uninjured. Two of the inmates involved suffered only minor injuries and received medical treatment. 

The Orange County Jails remain one of the safest mega-jails in the country. The safety of our inmates and staff remains our highest priority. Therefore, we evaluate our operations continuously to ensure a safe environment. Occasionally, staff must restrict all movement within a facility or facilities until such a time that it is deemed safe to return to normal operations. In such instances, inmates will be precluded from the commissary, church services, educational programs, showers and dayrooms. When necessary, visiting hours may also be interrupted. 

A lockdown does not limit court appearances, official visits from attorneys and bail bond agents, or law enforcement agencies. Inmates also continue to receive medication and medical treatment, when necessary. 

In February 2006, when race riots broke out in the Los Angeles County Jails, more than a hundred inmates were injured, many critically, and two were killed. At that time, inmate movement within the Orange County Jails was restricted to ensure that similar incidents did not occur within our facilities. The steps we took to maintain the safety of our inmates and staff were successful. 

We continue to evaluate our operation on a day to day basis and will return to normal operations as soon as it is prudent. 

Our jails remain safe because of the professionalism and dedication of our staff and their ability to proactively alter our operation whenever it becomes necessary. 

We will continue to provide media updates as needed.

Langley Productions will begin filming episodes of Court TV’s Inside American Jail within Orange County Correctional Facilities this evening. 

Langley Productions (LP) approached the Orange County Sheriff’s Department several months ago with their request. According to their website, “Langley Productions is one of the U.S.'s leading independent entertainment production companies, with dozens of television and film projects to its credit. The company is best known for the long-running, critically acclaimed reality television series COPS, currently in its 20th season." LP’s goal is to present the work of Correctional Deputies in a realistic, positive manner and we look forward to working with them in this effort.

Members of Sheriff Carona's command staff have worked with County Counsel and County Risk Management to ensure that this partnership is consistent with protecting public health, safety and public property, in accordance to Orange County Codified Ordinance.

We are confident such programming will highlight the professionalism and dedication of the men and women who provide for the safety and wellbeing of the inmates in our custody, while informing their viewers of the realities inside our jails.

Rising transportation costs as well as the cost of a barrel of oil appear to be at least partly to blame for our Board of Supervisors' decision to increase their pension contribution by 30 percent (while increasing other benefits) on the very day they moved to decrease public safety pensions by 33 percent.

Peggy Lowe's story, "Supervisors criticized over pensions," apparently struck a nerve. In an email, Supervisor Moorlach wrote, "The headline for the article begs for a response, as the article does not provide the full story. Transportation costs have increased. Oil is trading today at $82 a barrel."

The move was defended, in part, to maintain a benefit and pay differential between the county's appointed executives and elected officials. One wonders if there is some concern over at the Hall of Administration over the county's ability to recruit qualified elected officials in the future, thus the need for higher pay and benefits. Such a concern is surprisingly similar to the Sheriff's Department's challenge to recruit qualified law enforcement personnel.

The debate over appropriate pay and benefits will continue to grow. Especially as retired county workers see their pensions and benefits cut. Beginning January 1, 2008, retired county workers will see increases in their monthly medical premiums rise by, in some cases, about $1,000. Here's the spreadsheet on insurance rates.

Keep in mind, the supervisors don't pay a premium for their medical benefits. Their dependents are also covered.

The Board held a discussion on retired medical benefits on September 11th. Rising transportation costs and the cost of a barrel of oil affect these individuals too. But the county continues to move forward with cutting their benefits. And it has an impact:

Peggy Lowe writes:

"The Orange County Board of Supervisors sweetened their own retirement plans on the very day they made their first move to cut the pensions of sheriff's deputies.

Just minutes after approving the increase to their own retirement savings plans July 31– along with those of other elected officials and county executives – the board began discussions on Supervisor John Moorlach's plan to slash the retired deputies' benefits by a third.

The five supervisors upped the biweekly contribution to their 401(a) accounts – the government's version of a 401(k) defined contribution plan – from 6 percent to 8 percent[...]and increased their monthly car stipend to $765."

Yesterday, she issued a slight correction here. It's a moot point, however. The Supervisors receive a salary. Like any salaried worker, they aren't required to punch a timecard. They receive the same pay whether they show up healthy or stay home ill.

Let me be clear, this blog entry is not meant as a debate over benefits and who receives more or less. It is, however, meant to shed some light on this growing debate, the decisions being made and the excuses for those decisions.

Here's some OC blog reaction to Peggy's story:

The Liberal OC - Moorlach you spiked your own pension, get over it, and this.

OC Blog - Moorlach Responds To 'Hypocrisy' Charge

We've written previously about the grand opening of the Orange County Sheriff's Regional Training Academy. Those who attended the grand opening and dedication celebrated our fine tradition of law enforcement training, commemorated the lives of those lost on 9/11 and remembered our heroes in public safety who have paid the ultimate sacrifice.

Our celebration was not without "controversy," however, because of a story in the Orange County Register the day before the event. On September 18, the Orange County Register printed an editorial entitled, Sheriff's Department's gain is students' loss. What a silly and predictable title.

The truth, of course, is that the Sheriff's Department's gain is Orange County's gain and the college district's gain. The Rancho Santiago Community College District has been actively informing community leaders and residents on this issue. Below is some information from the college district on Measure E funds and the many improvements and updates they're making throughout the district.

A letter from Chip Ahlswede, Co-Chair of the Measure E Citizen's Oversight Committee:

"Priorities and planning are key to completing projects on time. Sometimes opportunities arise that shift those plans, and if done correctly, can improve the overall project. The Sheriff's Training Academy dedicated on Tuesday [September 11] is an example of such.

When Measure E was passed by voters in 2002, it listed projects to be completed at various sites within the district. One of those projects was improving the Sheriff's Training Facility operated by Santa Ana College.

The Science and math building referenced by Mr. Saavedra in his article on Monday is on the Santa Ana College master plan, however, it is dependent on other projects being completed first. Additionally, funding for this project could be augmented by state and federal educational grants and bonds.

When Tustin Air Base became available, the City of Tustin conveyed land to the district to build the Sheriff's Training Facility. The district then stopped leasing, and created a state of the art training facility where sheriff and police departments could send their recruits.

This change in priorities allowed the district to meet promises in Measure E, provide a state of the art training facility for police, own the property they are using instead of leasing, and at the same time find additional funding sources for the Math and Science Building on the Santa Ana College District.

As the representative from the Orange County Taxpayer's Association, and Co-Chair of the Bond Oversight Committee, the Board's actions are completely in accordance with appropriately delivering on the promises of Measure E, and insinuations to the contrary are not reflective of the entire situation."

From the Bond Oversight Report for 2006:

About the Bond Oversight Committee

Measure E received resounding support from local residents in 2002. Under Proposition 39, the Rancho Santiago Community College District Board of Trustees was responsible for appointing an independent Bond Oversight Committee within 60 days of the verified election results. Committee members serve as volunteers and are not compensated for their service. They serve two-year terms but may not exceed two consecutive terms. No committee member may be an employee of the college district or officials, vendors, contractors, or consultants of the college district. By law, the committee must include a representative from a taxpayers association, a member of the business community, an active member of a senior citizen’s organization, an enrolled student in the college district, a member of the college district’s foundation or another support organization, and two members representing each college from the community at large. 

All projects and activities under review by the Oversight Committee support the facility master plans for each campus and the district operations center. The committee will disband when all bond proceeds are spent and/or all projects funded by the bond proceeds have been completed. Bond Oversight Committee meetings are held three times per year at the district operations center in the Board room. Meetings open to the public. Learn more about Prop 39, the Bond Oversight Committee, and future meetings at www.rsccd.org.

Here's the full Bond Oversight Report for 2006.

Which agencies choose the Sheriff's Department for their training?

Orange County participating agencies: Anaheim, Brea, Buena Park, Costa Mesa, Cypress, Fountain Valley, Fullerton, Garden Grove, Huntington Beach, La Habra, Newport Beach, Orange, Orange County Sheriff’s Department, Placentia, Santa Ana Police Department, and Santa Ana College. 

Los Angeles participating agencies: Alhambra, Bell Gardens, Downey, Glendale, Manhattan Beach, Monterey Park, Palos Verdes Estates, Pasadena, Pomona, San Marino, Santa Monica, UCLA Police, and Whittier.

Avoid the 10 is a coalition of cities in South Orange County with the common goal of apprehending impaired drivers and reducing injuries and fatalities caused by these dangerous motorists.  By using team made up of experienced officers from throughout the region resources are better used in this important law enforcement role.

Enforcement is conducted through a combination of sobriety checkpoints, roving saturation patrols and warrant services targeting DUI offenders.  By using Reserve Deputy Sheriffs and Explorers for appropriate tasks along with the core Avoid the 10 task force deputies resources are expanded creating a more efficient program.  Many others support the program behind the scenes, completing tasks vital to ultimate mission.

Today we recognize the men and women of the Orange County Sheriff's Department's Avoid the 10 task force for their commitment to saving lives by reducing the threat from the menace of impaired driving which kills 70 people and injures over 2,000 more in Orange County each year.

We also wish to thank the California Office of Traffic Safety, lead by Director Christopher Murphy, for their continued support and funding for this program.  The ten cities in South County served by the Orange County Sheriff's Department also play a key role in the on-going success of the program.  Together we can make a difference in the fight against impaired driving.

Tune in to KDOC's Daybreak OC (Channel 6 on Cable, Channel 56 on the dish) Friday morning at 6:00 a.m. for more on Avoid the 10.

The Sheriff's speech is transcribed below. Here's his presentation, if you'd like to follow along.

Here's the conclusion:

And so I make the same recommendation to you that I did two months ago.  Thoughtful deliberation of all the facts need to be handled by this Board before you waste more money on frivolous lawsuits or political grandstanding.   

I would make one other request.  As information comes available on this, because I have some 500 retirees and 2200 active members of my department that are concerned with this issue, as an elected department head, I'd like to be informed so I can keep them informed.  This is creating a crisis for the men and women of the Sheriff's Department and frankly, for all public employees because if Supervisor Moorlach is correct about the Constitutional infirmity, it's going to apply to everybody in the State of California.  It's going to apply to OCEA.   

So the actions that you take are being watched by a number of people.  We need to hire qualified people which is why this 3% @ 50 was passed.  Please respect your employees.  Give them that dignity, and do the right thing not only for them but for the citizens of Orange County by having transparency in government. I'd be happy to answer any questions.

Read it all: 

Mr. Chairman, thank you very much for the opportunity to speak.  I know your office made that available to me yesterday afternoon.   Thank you sir.  

I had this Power Point presentation put together for you yesterday afternoon, and I have to tell you, it's changed--not the Power Point presentation, but some editorial comments that I'll be making.  I had the opportunity last night to be at an academy graduation where Supervisor Bates was the keynote speaker.  I did not leave there until after 10 o'clock last night.  And when I got home, I had delivered to my house by fax, a blog site, written by Peggy Lowe, about information surrounding the pension and issues around 3% @ 50.   

Two months ago when I appeared before this Board, I said I was frustrated by the lack of information that had been given to me as the Sheriff of Orange County and as elected department head that would be directly impacted by this.  Last night I was angry that I would, once again, read in the newspaper about what's happening with 3% @ 50, in the newspaper rather than being told about it as the elected department head.  More importantly, that the men and women of my department, those who are retired as well as those who are on the job who are concerned about this, who were worried about what the board may take as an action, are probably equally as frustrated this morning and probably equally as angry.   I've calmed down a little bit. I've had the time to think about the requests that I'm going make of you and some prudence that I think you can entertain as elected officials, as board members.  And I'll get back to the original Power Point presentation that I had for you because I want to educate you.  

You see, the last point on this first slide says the board continues to pursue civilian oversight.  I've heard from each one of you about your desire to have transparency in government, clarity.  Now that argument  has always been focused on the Orange County Sheriff's Department.  You want clarity as to how the men and women act in the field. You want clarity as to how they act in the jails.  You want clarity into the investigations that take place.  And frankly, I agree with the need for transparency.  I've disagreed with you about the way to accomplish that.  But I've never argued once that this Board should not be well informed.  Two months ago you decided that you were going to drop this, what I called a nuclear bomb, on the employees of the Orange County Sheriff's Department, especially AOCDS.  I read about it in the newspaper.  Then I saw a press conference, and then eventually I got a chance to speak before the board of supervisors.  Today this was supposed to come back. I understood this was going to be a public hearing.  And then I find out a couple days ago this was going to be in closed session.  If you're looking for transparency in government, I would argue this issue, of all the issues, needs to be put out in the public.  And now let me walk you through why.  

Next slide.  The road to 3% @ 50.  What you should know, as policymakers, as you go into your deliberations in closed sessions, is exactly how 3% @ 50 came about here in Orange County.  On August 25th, of 2000, the California Legislature passed AB 1937. This bill will authorize counties or districts, subject to the approval of the County Board of Supervisors to one, provide service retirement allowances for safety members based on 3% at 50 or 3% at 55 formula and two, increase allowances being paid on account of retired and deceased members by up to 6% as specified. September the 16th, 2000, the California Legislature SB 1696, this bill would authorize a board of supervisors or governing body of a district to apply any formula, retroactively, to service credit earned during the designated period prior to the adoption of the formula and two, subject to the approval by the employee representatives authorize collection of additional contributions attributable to that formula during the designated period as specified.   

Now, this particular piece of legislation was sponsored  by the State Association of County Retirement Systems.   OCERS, the Orange County Employee Retirement System, is a member of that 20-member body.  Then, Orange County Treasurer, now Supervisor, John Moorlach was a member of the OCERS board of directors.  He understood that this bill was moving forward.  We have researched the legislative intent behind this.  There were no letters of opposition from anyone on this particular piece of legislation.  There were no letters of opposition from OCERS or any of the board members.   

Next, August, 2001, AOCDS, the Association of Orange County Sheriff's enters into negotiations with the County of Orange. Supervisor Moorlach, then Treasurer Moorlach, was a member of the OCE, OCERS board.  The following meetings were held, and these are the accounts that I have in the documentation that we were able to pull up over the last two months from the archives that we have as to what took place of 3% at 50.  Meetings were held between the County the CEO's office, County HR, members of my department, and members of the Association of Orange County Department Sheriffs on August 8, 14, 22nd and 30th, September 13th, 21st, 24th and 27th. I had requested, as did other members at the table, that an actuarial report be run because there was some concern between the County and the Deputy's union as to which numbers were correct.  And so an independent third party that being OCERS, was contacted, and they were requested to hire an actuarial.  OCERS did that.  They hired Towers Perrin.  They conducted a cost analysis of the retirement.  

The next slides that you have to the right of this and on the next page are difficult to read, but what I want to highlight are the areas at the very top.  You'll notice on November the 2nd, 2000, there was a report issued by Towers Perrin with respect to the 3% @ 50 and the cost of 3% @ 50 for not only Orange County Deputy Sheriffs but for firefighers, and they come up with a total.  And that analysis, if you look at top header, it shows that the Orange County Employees Retirement System 3% @ 50, all service assuming shortfall paid by the member.  The page before that was all service assuming shortfall paid by the County.  If you go to that slide on the bottom on the right-hand side, 3% @ 50, future service only, you'll notice some marked increase in the overall cost between future service only at about $5 million for law enforcement to almost $15 million, if it's paid for either by the employer or by the employee.  Towers Perrin on the next page also ran a series of alternative  investment profiles and what the cost would be, again assuming a shortfall paid by the County, assuming a short fall paid by the member, still about $15 million.  

Next page.  And then Towers Perrin also did the examination of what it would be if it were only for future years.  The reason I want the board to understand that, there have been arguments made that this was some type of retroactive benefit.  Well, the discussion was had with the CEO, with the board of supervisors, with HR, about exactly what they were buying into in 3% @ 50.  You had an option, the board had an option, to buy into only future service.  That was given to them.  Towers Perrin did a 3% @ 55 calculation.  They did a 3% @ 50 calculation.  They analyzed it in an alternative environment.  All this information was presented to the board of supervisors, and by the way, the Towers Perrin report was appended to the board action that was taken in December of 2001.  The actuarial costs on November of 2001, were reviewed by the CEO, by AOCDS, by myself, and all of us agreed that those numbers were correct.  In December of 2001, the board of supervisors at that point in time reviewed the CEO's report, the Human Resources Department's report, the amended MOU, as Supervisor Campbell mentioned in the reopener, an approved resolution, 01410, which allowed for 3% @ 50.  I want to read these things into the record because I want the board to understand what has taken place.  

The board's motivation, because that was questioned the last time I was up here, now we're able to pull the exact verbiage.  The reason the Board of Supervisors approved this is because the request was primarily based upon market factors, i.e. a significant number of agencies in California had already implemented the benefit which would impact Orange County's ability to recruit top law enforcement candidates.  Number two, Board's words:  The applicant pool of qualified law enforcement recruits is diminishing, no different today six years later.  Factors causing this impact include a decline in population of people, people's ages 20 to 25 which is the sector where most law enforcement candidates come from.  Number three, the competition for top qualified law enforcement is fierce.  In order to remain competitive and to recruit the best officers, Orange County's benefits cannot lag behind those of other public sector jurisdictions.  Now specific to the funding. Next page.  We were able to pull up in the data that I have and we've now submitted to the County, the information that shows how these dollars were calculated.  At the table in the August 30th meeting was the CEO's office, County HR, AOCDS, members of my staff.  We debated and validated the CEO's calculations,  the 3% @ 50 would cost somewhere between $14.4 million and $15.8  million.  Calculations were based upon looking at one pay period, period 16, and then annualizing that over a year.  It was consistent with what Towers Perrin did in their report.  Towers Perrin also using their assumption came up with 26.6% of the work force that would be eligible to retire.  That was calculated into a shortfall that would have to be made up in one-time expenses.  Staff then calculated the first year.  We actually put a Cola to that. The revised amount that we came up with was $14.7 million, not significantly different than the CEO's findings and consistent with the assumptions given by the actuarial Towers Perrin.  One-time paydowns utilized in the 26.6% of the people that were eligible for retirement was $6.2 million, as calculated by my staff.   

Next page.   On August 30th, we went forward and discussed how we would pay for this.  Revenue offsets from contract cities were approximately $2.7 million, could be used to reduce the overall cost of this program.  Total first-year costs for ongoing retirement and one-time paydowns was $21 million.  How do we fund that?  Well, we came up with some very specific bullets as you can see before you.  $3.7 million came from rate reductions and retirement.  Law enforcement, public safety, the Orange County Sheriff's Department had a reduction from about 22% down to 8% in our retirement costs.  We had been supplementing the overall retirement system for a number of years, and we had dramatic reduction.  One-time pickups took that number back up to about 14%.  The overall savings were calculated into this particular formula. Law enforcement contract revenues from our partners, Santa Margarita's contract revenue, Aliso Viejo's contract revenue.  14B for $6.2 million, that's the one-time paydown.  Those costs are always my responsibility as a department head.  And we utilized 14B as a funding source to pay those off.  At the end of the day we still had a shortfall some $3.8 million.  The question was put back on the table on August the 30th, how do we pay for that. Gary Burton, who was the representative, from the CEO's office at that point in time, argued there is no general fund money to make this happen.  His words not mine.  So we had to figure out how to cover that debt.  AOCDS came to the table, the Association of County Law Enforcement Managers came to the table, and it was decided that 1.78% of their base pay would be utilized to cover this.  And they calculated out what would be a $3.8 million shortfall, and that was to be from June 28th, the inception of this contract, to the end of the contract, which made up the $3.8 million.   

Next page.  Some things that we know today:  According to Supervisor Moorlach, the retroactive pension increase violates the debt limitation provision.  That's what's been put before you.  We've had a group of attorneys that are reserves with the Orange County Sheriff's Department volunteer their time that took this on as a project to do some legal analysis.  I am not a lawyer.  I am just reciting some of their thoughts.  They came across two areas that were persuasive.  The first, the State Attorney General has specifically opined the so-called unfunded liability of the state's portion of the public employees retirement system does not violate Article 16, Section 1 of the California Constitution.  State Attorney General has said there is nothing in the debt limitation provisions of the State Constitution which suggests that the economic advisability of increasing contributions to a pension system is tantamount to indebtedness for a liability.  More importantly, you as a board of supervisors, Supervisor Moorlach when he was in his position as treasurer, and clearly the Auditor/Controller, has never identified the retirement contributions, the unfunded liability as a debt in any of the bond issues that you've put forward.  It is illegal to not list debt.  And my sense is that you wouldn't do something to violate the law.  My sense is the reason it's not listed as a debt is because you've never intended it to be a debt that in fact, this is an on-going obligation.  And so, therefore, we have by our own definition, not shown this as a debt in Orange County.  Number 2, Not a gift, Not extra compensation. In the presentation was made, it was identified as a gift of public funds.  A few weeks back again the same attorneys brought forward dozens of case citations which I'm sure now, after reading Peggy Lowe's article, you have as well.  They argue there are numerous cases that show that increased pension benefits based upon past service are not gifts.  In fact, that's true for both the State and Federal level.  Extra compensation for work already performed which is one of the other arguments that was put before you.  Again, pensions for all service have been okayed since 1941 by the California Supreme Court.   

Next page. What am I asking this for to do. Much like I did two months ago, I'm asking to you examine all the facts.  This was dropped on me, and I couldn't make as detailed a presentation two months ago as I could today.  I've spent hundreds of hours with my staff, digging through boxes in our archives, looking for every scrap of paper to try to piece together what took place during 2000 and 2001.  I now have that.  You now have that.  You've asked for an outside legal opinion.  And I believe you're going to get conflicting comments from the legal experts from what you heard two months ago.   Here's what I believe is the case.  Two months ago you were told in no uncertain terms that you were violating the Constitution of the State of California.  I heard a number of you say, "I took an oath of office to support and defend the Constitution of the United States.  I do not want to violate that oath." There were people that came up here and told you that you may be personally liable for the actions that you've taken.  You were told that if you don't rescind the benefits, if you continue paying these benefits to the individuals who are retired, you are in violation of the law.  Well, I'm going to give you some information now that I know.  First of all, this was not a gift.  This was not retroactive for all employees.  It was paid to anybody that was an active employee the date of July 28th, 2001, for all prior service which is consistent with what happens at the State of California and STERS and PERS and what was allowed under the Senate bill that was passed and adopted by this Board of Supervisors and your resolution.  It was fully funded at $21 million by a series of contributions including contributions by members of the Association of Orange County Deputy Sheriffs.   

This is the newest slide.  Do The Right Thing.  With Peggy Lowe's breaking news last night and the legal opinions now being presented, this clearly deserves more analysis.  I think the legal arguments that you're going to hear are compelling.  More compelling are the analytics behind what took place.  That I can share with you.  That you now have.  That we can now answer for you.  This was fully funded.   

The suddenly tight-lipped Supervisor Moorlach to the Daily Pilot's Alicia Robinson: “I just think while we’re still in the middle of all this that we wait until we get all the data and then I’ll comment,” he said Monday.

     **********

Sheriff Carona requested the opportunity to speak on a non-agenda item at today's Board of Supervisor's meeting. Today was supposed to be the day that the board met to discuss, once again, their intention (or lack thereof) to take the deputies, retirees, and other public safety personnel to court to rescind 1/3 of their pension.

In conduct not becoming their very public cry for transparency and open government (for others), the pension item was deleted from the public session and squirreled away to closed session. After the Sheriff's presentation, he was invited to attend the closed session, until he was uninvited.

Apparently not all of the Supervisors would agree to the Sheriff's presence.

Despite breaking news from the Register's Peggy Lowe, the Sheriff stuck to the PowerPoint we prepared because he felt it was still necessary to get the FACTS of this debate out in the open. A lot has been said as to the motive and intent of 3 @ 50 and most of this opining is being done by individuals who weren't in the middle of the discussion in 2001. The Sheriff was there and he knows the facts.

Here's the video of the meeting. Here's the Sheriff's presentation. Here's Peggy Lowe's take from her blog. Here's the statement from Morrison & Foerster, LLP to the Board of Supervisors "Regarding the lack of legal support for the Board's proposed rescission of the Deputy Sheriffs' pension benefits." Key graph:

"The Board now seeks to spend even more taxpayer money on a third legal opinion. In light of the opinion of the independent counsel retained by the County, we respectfully urge the Board to flatly reject the proposal for expending additional taxpayer funds to obtain yet a third legal opinion."

After the public session, the board went into closed session. Here's what Supervisor Moorlach had to say after closed session had wrapped:

"The Board selected a litigation firm during closed session to continue the process of evaluating the constitutionality of the 1% retroactive pension benefits and, if appropriate, representing the County in litigation.  The selected firm will review the facts of the matter and return to the Board of Supervisors with their assessment."

This firm, of course, will be the firm who would take this to court, should the board decide to head in that direction. This fact, in and of itself, would lead any reasonable person to believe that the scales are tipped in favor of heading to court. After all, this firm will be paid by the taxpayers for as long as this issue remains an issue.

Total bill so far: $80,000 and counting.

We'll have a transcript of the Sheriff's speech later this afternoon. Here's the speech.

Although we've been delayed in posting this, we wanted to make sure we highlighted last week's 9/11 Commemoration Ceremony at Irvine Valley College. The Sheriff was invited to offer the Keynote and he was joined by Orange County Supervisor Bill Campbell; Dr. Glenn R. Roquemore, President of IVC; Thomas A. Fuentes, Member Board of Trustees; Matthew Reynard, Student Trustee, SOCCD; and Ms. Diane Devore's 2nd Grade class. 

Here are excerpts from the speeches:

“Let us never forget the innocent people who died on this day six years ago – many of whom were police and fire personnel assisting others during the evacuation effort. These public servants paid the ultimate price for their service to those in need.”
Glenn Roquemore
President of Irvine Valley College

“That moment in time will be permanently implanted in my thoughts and the victims are permanently implanted in my prayers … As Americans, we did not and will not forget about 9/11.”
Matthew Reynard
Student member of the board of trustees for the South Orange County Community College District and a student at Irvine Valley College.
 
“You are truly the heroes because you care and you believe. You are what's going to make a difference in America and what's going to keep America safe. You are what makes America great.”
Michael S. Carona
Orange County sheriff, speaking to the audience on coming out to honor lives lost

So reads today's Los Angeles Times headline on the pension issue. It seems the law firm Supervisor Bates requested to review Moorlach's pension theories during the last public meeting came back with their report:

"Orange County supervisors have slowed the pace of their move toward reducing sheriff's deputies' pensions after receiving a sobering legal opinion questioning the plan's viability.

But people who have seen the legal memo say it doesn't appear to have dissuaded the officials from pursuing their case.

Supervisors originally had planned to vote this Tuesday on selecting a law firm to challenge the 2001 pension agreement. After receiving the memo drafted at their suggestion by an independent attorney, they decided instead to discuss the matter in a closed session Tuesday, possibly postponing a final decision."

Dozens are injured and one person is confirmed dead.   Of the injured, some suffer broken bones others have third degree burns. One woman has blood shooting out of her badly injured arm.  Hundreds of certified civilians and off-duty police officers and firefighters, nurses and EMTs are on the scene pulling people out from the wreckage and tending to the injured.  It’s an awful scene.  Thankfully, it’s all fake.  

This simulated disaster in the Sheriff’s Laser Village, is the first of it's kind here in Orange County and the largest mass disaster training drill in the Nation.  With volunteers providing make-up befitting of the big screen, the only thing that wasn’t simulated was the actual moving and shaking of the quake itself.