David Griffith writes, "The public believes that TASERs kill, and something must be done to change their minds." He continues:

"...The headline always reads like the Aug. 5 headline in the Chicago Tribune: "Man Dies After Police Use TASERs During Arrest."

Headlines like this have convinced the public that TASERs kill. The irony here is that TASERs have saved a lot of lives, both police lives and the lives of people who might have been killed by police if they hadn't been TASERed.

Demonizing such a beneficial tool is clearly part of the agenda of activists. And unfortunately their propaganda has convinced a lot of the public that TASERs are deadly.

Perhaps the only way to counter this propaganda is through citizen education. Unfortunately, unless you can convince the press to publish or broadcast a story praising the TASER as a life-saving device, then citizen education is going to be an uphill battle.

Still, that's a battle you must fight. Because the goal of your detractors is to deprive you of one of your most effective and benign weapons. Such a misguided decision could be deadly for you and the people you serve."

We've discussed these three bills before. It appears the Governor agreed that such legislation would endanger public safety. Below is his reasoning for veto.

Sent to AOCDS Thursday evening:

"We fully recognize the frustrations that you, your membership and your Board are experiencing around the stalled negotiations with the County and our Board of Supervisors.  However, we are beginning to walk a fine line of “work-to-rule” and its impact on our courts and the community we serve. 

While we know that you and our deputies and public safety personnel have been diligent in ensuring that no cases are dismissed and that public safety is not put in jeopardy, work-to-rule is having cataclysmic effects on court operations and may jeopardize cases pending in the criminal courts.  

At the same time we understand from conversations with you and Mark Nichols that the negotiations held this week did not go well.

We request that the “work-to-rule” policy be abated until Tuesday, October 16, after the Board of Supervisors concludes their closed session discussion on bargaining issues.  While we have no personal knowledge of a possible resolution, it is our hope that you all can return to the bargaining table to resolve this stalemate without future negative impacts on court operations and public safety. 

We both understand this is a tough request in light of the fact that our deputies and public safety personnel have been without a contract for a year; however, we believe the abatement of “work-to-rule” is necessary to ensure continue public safety and sent a good-will gesture to the county and the Board of Supervisors."

*Signed by Sheriff Michael Carona and D.A. Tony Rackauckas

Assemblyman Spitzer has been a popular target for the Register's Steven Greenhut. Actually, anyone who appears to support public safety, even remotely, is a possible target. Last Sunday, the Register published Assemblyman Spitzer's "Reader Rebuttal":

For nearly 20 years, I have dedicated my profession to law enforcement. I have been a street cop and a deputy district attorney and have become one of the Legislature's experts on law enforcement.  Appointed by Speaker Fabian Nuñez as chairman of the Select Committee on Prison Construction and Operations, I was one of the architects of Assembly Bill 900, the landmark legislation that re-focuses corrections on both punishment and intervention.

But your columnist Steve Greenhut, in "Disagree with Spitzer and you love criminals" [Commentary, Sept. 30], suggests that I "grandstand" on issues related to public safety, as if I have a newfound commitment to side with police against criminals or with victims against their perpetrators.

I guess he doesn't read his own newspaper. I formed Responsible Justice for Communities while a county supervisor, blocking the release of Cal State Fullerton killer Edward Allaway. I was the statewide chairman of both the DNA (Prop. 69) and the No on Prop. 66 (effort to stop Three Strikes) and Jessica's Law. I chaired the Governor's Task Force on sex offender policy. I am the author of Megan's Law on the Internet.

Greenhut believes he's an expert on three bills that were the subject of my floor speech he criticizes.  He fails to disclose that not one Republican Assembly member supported any of the three through their committees, or that all law enforcement and victims' rights groups were opposed. So why did we all vote no? 

Senate Bill 756 (Ridley-Thomas) deals with eyewitness identifications and establishes preferences for "double-blind" line-ups. This means that an officer not involved with the case and unaware of a suspect's identity must be the one to conduct the line-up. If a crime is in progress, and a suspect description is broadcast to other officers, they then become tainted.  We all know that the sooner a crime broadcast is transmitted, the greater the likelihood of suspect apprehension. By causing delay and multiagency coordination, SB756 gives those who are guilty time to escape detection.

Another bill, SB511 (Alquist), requires all suspect interviews in murder and serious felony cases to be video-recorded. Prosecutors, judges and juries benefit when they witness the defendant's interrogation demeanor. But what happens when a child is buried in the ground somewhere and time is of the essence before he/she runs out of air? Can the detectives interview the suspect at the crime scene? The bill opens the doors for huge technical violations that will benefit defendants despite their guilt and create more technical grounds for appeal.

AB609 (Romero) would throw out the use of jailhouse informant testimony unless independently corroborated. A defendant may confess to his cellmate that he killed his wife because she was cheating.  Why shouldn't the jury be able to hear the "snitch's" testimony and decide if it is credible despite a motive to lie in exchange for a more lenient sentence? Juries are already instructed to view this type of testimony with great caution.

Does Greenhut disclose that these bills are sponsored by a committee chaired by John Van de Kamp who was both attorney general and Los Angeles district attorney? Is Van de Kamp seeking judicial review of the thousands of cases he prosecuted where police line-ups were "tainted" or where confessions were not recorded? Hardly, despite the double standard.

I have been the first responder to a crime scene and witnessed a mother murdered in front of her two children. As an officer, I have had to use my baton to stop a man from beating his girlfriend. I have been the deputy district attorney in courtroom proceedings where a victim has been re-victimized and discredited because she consumed too much alcohol but still must have "wanted it" on a first date.

The difference between me and Greenhut is simple. I live it; Greenhut Monday-morning quarterbacks it.  What luxury.

The legislation cited by Assemblyman Spitzer as not being supported by any Republican through their committees is the same legislation that Sheriff Carona asked Governor Schwarzenegger to veto. In letters to the Governor, the Sheriff detailed problems and concerns with each bill. Below is a portion of each letter, highlighting public safety concerns:

SB 756:

As Sheriff of Orange County and a member of the California State Sheriffs' Association, I respectfully request you to veto SB 756, which declares a legislative intent that law enforcement officials study and consider adoption of new procedures recommended by the National Institute of Justice and the California Commission on the Fair Administration of Justice regulating eyewitness lineup identifications to ensure a decrease in the number of misidentifications.   

One of the recommendations is that an officer not involved in the investigation, and who is unaware of the suspect’s identify, conduct the lineup.  This presents a problem in that our  law enforcement agencies immediately put out a broadcast describing the suspect’s physical appearance and name if known, last known location or direction of travel and the vehicle (if applicable) description.  Every officer on duty will learn the suspect’s description and a brief synopsis of the crime that occurred.  This ensures swift capture of the alleged suspect.  We would have to call in an officer that was not on duty to conduct the lineup, and this would pose an overtime issue, which can be costly.  Also, it would delay securing witness information while we’re trying to determine if we caught the right person.  This is disruptive to the witnesses and very inefficient in most jurisdictions.  In the event of multiple suspects, there would be a need for multiple “unaware” investigators to conduct the lineups. 

Another recommendation by the Commission addresses the situation where two or more witnesses are available for an in-field lineup (where an alleged suspect in a recent crime is detained in the field for prompt identification or elimination by drive-by viewing).   

The Commission’s recommendations is that once a single witness has made a lineup identification, that the other witnesses may not view the suspect, but must await a lineup at a later time.  This procedure increases the chances that an innocent person might be wrongly arrested, because a mistaken identification by the first witness was not allowed to be promptly disclaimed by the other witnesses.  In this case, a wrong person may be taken into custody while the actual suspect got away.  It is very important to secure witness information as soon as possible and to ensure their availability to testify in court. 

The current procedures that law enforcement uses for lineups are time-tested and court approved.  All of our criminal investigative reports are seriously scrutinized by the District Attorney’s office prior to formally charging a defendant.  It is not necessary to change the investigative procedures for identifying an alleged suspect.  It is for these reasons that I must oppose this bill.

As Sheriff of Orange County and a member of the California State Sheriffs' Association, I write to inform you of my opposition to SB 511 regarding custodial interrogations and recordings, and request your veto of the bill.

SB 511 would provide the appellate court the opportunity to interpret the complexity of the law and create new case law that could affect credible case law, and the current evidence code. In most cases, agencies use interview rooms located at their headquarters for interrogations.  However, there are times that a suspect needs to be interviewed immediately at or near the crime scene where there may not be an interview room with video and audio capabilities.   

Currently, the scope of recording is limited to audio record. Attempting to video tape a suspect at the crime scene may cause a subject/suspect to be reluctant to talk to investigators; therefore, interrogations are routinely conducted at a station.  If the state does not provide counties and cities with funds for all law enforcement agencies to retrofit their facilities, the burden of funding will be costly for the construction and hardware placement. Additionally, if a suspect is in custody on an unrelated charge in one of the state prisons and needs to be interviewed or interrogated, prison authorities do not allow video taping/recording equipment into their facilities.  Special permission must be obtained in order to allow for a tape recorder to be taken into a prison. 

We also have concerns regarding the measure’s restrictive language.  The bill suggests that all homicides and serious felonies need to be recorded.  However, the word “shall” is too restrictive with regards to interviewing and /or interrogating a suspect in a homicide investigation.  We are concerned that the focus of a trial will be more on the procedures of law enforcement using proper recording devices than on the actions of the suspect.  “Cautionary jury instruction” in the event the officer’s recorded interrogation is deemed unlawful by the courts.  It is unclear what “unlawful” indicated.

SB 609:

As Sheriff of Orange County and a member of the California State Sheriffs' Association, I respectfully request you to veto SB 609 (Romero). 

This measure proposes to do away with the use of inmate witnesses in custody. This would severely hamper law enforcement’s ability to investigate serious felonies that occur in the jail and prison systems.   

As an example, if another inmate or correctional officer is murdered, inmate witnesses could not be used to help solve the crime and seek a successful conviction of the suspect(s) in the crime.  Quite often inmates brag about their criminal activity to other inmates while they are in custody.  These “jailhouse informants” are sometimes the only link to solving the crime. 

Shielding these confessed criminals may have a negative effect on public safety without reducing the risks that an innocent person will be wrongly convicted on the basis of unreliable informant testimony.   For these reasons I oppose SB 609 and ask for your veto of this measure.

From the law firm representing the Sheriff's Department:

Federal Court Dismisses Three of the Five ClaimsContained in William Hunt’s lawsuit against the County On October 1, 2007, the United States District Court, Central District of California granted the County and Sheriff Carona’s motion to dismiss the second, third and fifth claims for relief contained in William Hunt’s lawsuit filed against the County.  The Court granted the motion to dismiss without leave to amend and stated “dismissal without leave to amend is appropriate only when the Court is satisfied that the deficiencies of the complaint could not be possibly cured by amendment.” 

The Court denied the County and Sheriff Carona’s motion to dismiss the plaintiff’s first and fourth claims for relief based upon Mr. Hunt’s statement in his complaint that he was not,  while serving as Chief of Police Services of the City of San Clemente, a “policymaker or confidential employee” in the Sheriff’s office.  The Court stated that “the Court must accept as true all factual allegations in the complaint and draw all reasonable inferences from those allegations, construing the complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiff.”  The Court stated that “under this standard, plaintiff has alleged enough facts to survive the motion.” 

However, the Court noted that the claims which arose out of the disciplinary proceedings brought by the Orange County Sheriff’s Department against Mr. Hunt resulting in his demotion were barred by his failure to exhaust his administrative remedies.  The Court noted that he failed to take advantage of his right to appeal the Sheriff’s adverse action but rather chose to retire.  The Court noted that the plaintiff was entitled to seek and should have sought a hearing and that the County provided an administrative proceeding which qualified as a “quasi-judicial” proceeding which Mr. Hunt failed to utilize.  As such, his claims were dismissed “without leave to amend.” 

The suit will now proceed with discovery during which time evidence will be produced by the County and the Sheriff to show that the position of Chief of Police Services was, is and always has been a significant position within the Sheriff’s office and one which, by law, is considered a policymaking position.  Under rulings from the United States Supreme Court, the California Supreme Court and both Federal and State Courts of Appeal one who holds a policymaking position is subject to disciplinary action under circumstances similar to those present in the instant case.

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.

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.

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."

It's quite a stretch to conclude that the Board did not know what they were voting for on December 4, 2001, the day they unanimously approved the 3% @ 50 benefit for safety members of the Orange County Employee Retirement System.

In fact, it's clear that they were aware of what they were voting for when one reviews the documents provided to the board "on that quiet December day."

Well, it's clear to most people, but not to Supervisor Moorlach, who wrote in an email on August 16:

"The AOCDS, CEO/Office of Human Resources, CFO, OCERS, Sheriff's Department and District Attorney's Office have worked together in a collaborative that will ensure the county remains competitive in the diminishing market for qualified law enforcement.

The recommended actions before your Board are the result of this collective effort and provide for necessary and appropriate salary and benefit adjustments aimed at maintaining the County's competitiveness in the labor market. The recommendations are in keeping with the parameters set by your Board and the County's Strategic Financial Plan."

When the Board unanimously approved this benefit, they agreed that it was essential for the County to remain competitive in the recruitment of qualified public safety personnel.

Paying the tab: From the amendment of the Memorandum of Understanding stating, "Article XXI Retirement, shall be amended as follows":

Effective June 29, 2001, the County will pay any remaining employee retirement contributions normally required of general and safety members, pursuant to government code Section 31581.2.

When the Board unanimously approved this benefit, they agreed that the County would be paying the cost associated with the benefit.

What is the cost? From the Resolution of the Board of Supervisors of Orange County, California, December 4, 2001:

"WHEREAS, as required by Government Code section 7507, the County has provided an actuarial study showing the potential cost of the implementation of such benefits."

When the Board unanimously approved this benefit, they were made aware of the potential costs associated with the benefit.

While this vote may have taken place "on that quiet December day," the Board of Supervisors did not unanimously approve this benefit based simply on blind faith. The documentation is clear.

Here's a presentation from OCERS, which sheds more light on this benefit and why the Board unanimously approved this benefit for public safety employees.

Every once in awhile I read a line that I wish I would have come up with on my own. Here's one: Supervisor Moorlach is using headstones as stepping stones.

This particular line comes at the end of an especially informative blog post over at Tin Star blog. Here's an excerpt:

"In his bid to make a political name for himself, Supervisor John Moorlach uses bad data and misrepresents fact in his attack on deputy sheriff pensions.

Moorlach apparently feels that old retirees are a burden.

Moorlach represents that living to a projected 'life expectancy' of age 80 for a retired deputy sheriff is a detriment to the pension system because it creates a huge cost to the system which was made worse when the pension formula was changed to '3% @ 50.'"

Here's the entire post.

Sorry for the headline but last night I got an email from Undersheriff Galisky reminding me that I hadn't linked to Christian Berthelsen's article in the Los Angeles Times.  

So here it is, San Diego's pension problem offers a cautionary tale for O.C. The key graphs are near the bottom of the article:

"The legal challenges face an uphill battle: A large body of state and federal constitutional and other protections generally safeguard worker pensions from employers seeking to roll them back. Several labor lawyers said there has never been a case in which a judge allowed an employer to rescind benefits it had already granted.

At their core, the pension problems in San Diego and Orange County vary significantly, with different issues and different legal theories. San Diego's case has largely been based on fraud allegations; Orange County's is more focused on constitutional issues.

Moorlach, who has been leading his colleagues on the issue, said the troubles with the San Diego case did not concern him.

'We're going after constitutional issues,' Moorlach said. 'We think the issues we're raising are a little more weighty than the approach [Aguirre] took.'

But the cases also hold similarities. In each case, the employer is going to court seeking to invalidate benefits it has already granted, and each involves a claim that the debts created by the agreement are unconstitutional.

Orange County is planning to make one of the same arguments that Aguirre used in his case -- that the deal violated the state Constitution's prohibition on deficit spending.

On that point, a San Diego judge ruled against the city earlier this year, finding that violations of the debt limit were the city's own fault and not the fault of the pension fund.

A San Diego union representative said the city's tactics are doomed to fail.

'In addition to being a flawed legal theory and a poorly implemented legal strategy, from the inception it was morally and ethically wrong to attempt to undo a bargain that was made fairly and squarely,' said Ann M. Smith, a lawyer who represented the Municipal Employees Assn. in San Diego. Meanwhile, Peters, the council president, said the city has made progress on repairing its pension finances by making tough choices to put more money into the plan and through negotiations that have forced employees to put up more of their own money. He says the plan is now 80% funded. Aguirre disputes the success of the efforts..."

In other news, The Tin Star blog has a post up on the law firm hired by the Deputies' Union (AOCDS):

"Wayne Quint, President of the AOCDS, said 'We retained Morrison & Foerster because of their record of success in litigation, as well as their extensive experience in constitutional and pension-related issues. We would hate to see the Board of Supervisors renege on their agreement with us, but if they do, we have a duty to make sure that our members and their families, especially the widows and orphans of those who fallen in the line of duty, have the most qualified firm to represent them.'"

The Register's Martin Wisckol writes, "This law firm is a powerhouse and it will be a high-profile case if the county actually files. So you can bet MoFo will be throwing some of its top talent at Moorlach and the county."

And, in somewhat related news, it was reported this morning that "Top executives at major U.S. businesses last year made as much money in one day of work on the job as the average worker made over the entire year, according to a report released on Wednesday."

From the San Jose Mercury News: "Public anger [regarding CEO pay] is high. In a June poll by the Los Angeles Times and Bloomberg, more than eight of 10 Americans said CEOs are paid too much. Congress is seriously debating proposals to boost income taxes for money managers and corporate executives. And more shareholders are telling company boards that pay policies are out of control."

From an NPR report in June: "In a new Bloomberg/Los Angeles Times poll, most Americans say CEOs are unethical and overpaid."

Again, from the San Jose Mercury News:

Highlights from the report on executive pay released today by the Institute for Policy Studies and United for a Fair Economy:

Gaps in pensions: The average pension for CEOs at a large U.S. corporations grew by $1.3 million last year. By comparison, for the years between 2001 and 2004, the average U.S. household with some kind of retirement account saw an increase of $3,775 in value annually.  

Executive retirement funds: A CEO running an S&P 500 company retired on average with $10.1 million in a "supplemental executive retirement plans." Such accounts are limited to high-level executives. Only about one-third of U.S. households headed by someone over 65 even had a retirement account. On average, those accounts were worth $173,552.

Perks: The top 386 CEOs received perks averaging $438,342 in value last year. That would take someone earning the minimum wage 36 years to earn.

Pay for leadership: There's also a gap between pay for business executives and other leaders of U.S. society who do demanding, high-level jobs. According to the report, the top 20 best-paid people at public companies were paid an average of $36.4 million last year. That is 38 times the compensation of the top 20 best-paid leaders at non-profits and 204 times the top 20 generals in the U.S. military.

I've read and heard some remarkable stories about why The OC Sheriff's blog doesn't allow comments. Most of these stories involve sinister plots and evil motives about how "we don't want to hear negative comments." This opinion, of course, is funny to us.

Pick up an Orange County newspaper, read an Orange County blog, heck, listen to a couple of our county supervisors and you'll hear plenty of negative. We're quite used to it.

Since the blog debuted, there have been several inquiries as to why comments are closed.  The purpose of this blog is to allow the Sheriff and his staff to express their ideas and thoughts about the Department and items of interest that may involve or affect the Department.  There are several other blogs where the public may comment on issues affecting this Department.  

Because the Sheriff’s Department is a public agency and may not censor speech protected by the First Amendment, we do not want to be in the position of having to determine whether every comment posted is protected by the First Amendment, or whether it may be libelous or simply viewed by our readers as vulgar or in poor taste.  In contrast, privately operated blogs may censor or remove items as they see fit.  If we were to allow comments, we would run the risk of either opening up the comments to everything, including comments that even a private blogger would not permit, or else shutting down the blog.  Therefore, our only options are to allow everything or allow nothing. Given the legal risks involved in censoring speech, we have determined, upon the advice of counsel, to not allow comments be posted directly on the blog.

While it was necessary for us to make this decision, it doesn't mean that we don't want to hear from our readers. This is why we offer the Sheriff's email address in the top-left column. We want feedback - positive and negative - and we want to hear your ideas and opinions. Frankly, that's what makes the blog so interesting and fun to write.If you, as a sheriff's employee or a county resident or a reader from across the country, have an idea or a suggestion or a rant, send us an email. Who knows, you might just alert us to something we haven't thought about.

Los Angeles Times' Dana Parsons wrote a column for yesterday's paper on the issue of pensions:

"I wish I were more resolute for one side or the other. I can't be. Call it the Curse of the Libra.

That curse compels me to be fair, and I'd have a hard time reneging on a collective bargaining agreement. As Carre argues, what comes out in the end is a product of give-and-take. Nobody forced the county to agree.

Do I have misgivings, however, about a cushy retirement package that, if the supervisors are correct, will sink the rest of us? You bet. Life is tough and I don't know many people who can retire comfortably at 50, as deputies and DA investigators now can.

So, I'm torn. But unless a court rules against the deputies, my bottom line is that a deal is a deal. Even if I have to pay for it."

The Sheriff has argued a similar point, as he wrote to the department on July 20th, "As the Sheriff, I have always believed it is extremely important to honor our commitments to our employees."

This theme continued when the Sheriff spoke to the board on July 31:

"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." 

Got questions on the pension issue? We got answers.

Want to read more? Here's our Deputy Pension archive.

Last week we linked to this press release regarding the FPPC's investigation regarding The Friends of Mike Carona. Today, the FPPC released their report. 

 From the FPPC report, Exhibit 1:

In this matter, Respondents failed to properly report officeholder expenses made with Respondent Carona’s personal funds that were not reimbursed within the statutory period as nonmonetary contributions from Respondent Carona. Respondents further failed to properly report officeholder expenses as expenditures, instead mistakenly reporting them as loans from Respondent Carona. Although the dollar amounts misreported were not insignificant, there is no evidence to suggest that the violations were the result of intentional or deliberate conduct, or that they were the result of an improper effort to gain political advantage. Rather, the violations were attributable in large part to Respondent’s inexperience with the Act.

Read the report here.

Who created the 3% @ 50 pension benefit?

The State of California passed legislation that allowed the 3% @ 50 to be enacted in cities and counties.  Orange County was one of the last counties in California to adopt 3% at 50.  

Here’s the legislation: SB400 (1999), AB1937 (2000), and AB1696 (2000)

Why did counties and cities choose to offer this benefit? 

Well, it's the same reason you give pay raises and benefits to people. Orange County 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.  Our local government leaders looked all around us, and found competitive wages and benefits and realized we were falling behind.  We were losing people from the Sheriff's Department and the D.A.'s office – they were going to other counties and other municipalities.  Because we wanted to remain competitive, the Board of Supervisors, through the C.E.O., reopened negotiations with the Deputy Sheriffs, and they negotiated 3% @ 50. 

Here’s a comparison of current wages for Law Enforcement in Southern California.

The median price for a single-family home is approximately $700,000, with a monthly payment of nearly $4,200 (7% interest rate with 10% down). Additionally, Orange County’s cost of living was the 3^rd highest “among our peer regions,” according to a study conducted in 2006. Only San Francisco and Los Angeles/Long Beach ranked higher in cost of living.

You keep saying recruiting is a challenge. How can that be with the generous pay and pension we hear about from the media? 

Currently, the OCSD has approximately 350 vacancies -- a shortage of deputy sheriffs and special officers. According to the California Employment Development Department (EDD), from 2004 to 2014, the Orange County workforce will require 17.3% additional law enforcement officers.

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.  

It’s going to take more than designer desks and plasma televisions to recruit qualified public safety employees. We live in one of the most expensive areas of the country and must work within the constraints of a very tight labor market. Competition to fill law enforcement vacancies is fierce; therefore, pay and benefits must be attractive.

The agreement between AOCDS and the County authorizing 3% @ 50 is unconstitutional. You guys don’t have a leg to stand on. Why are you more interested in maintaining your benefits than following the “rule or law”? 

Although the media and those supporting the rescission of public safety pensions have taken Supervisor Moorlach’s untested legal theory as the infallible truth, the theory remains untested. Until such time as a judge, in a court – and most likely, many judges in many courts - makes a determination, this remains nothing more than an untested legal theory.

What about the retroactive portion of the benefit that everyone keeps singling out? Why should people who retired prior to 3% @ 50 get the benefit? 

Any person who retired prior to approval of 3% @ 50 did not receive any increase in their pension benefit. If an individual retired at 2% @ 50 they still receive 2% @ 50. Only those individuals who were employed at the time 3% was approved and implemented received the increased benefit.  

We repeat: The benefit was not retroactive. All retired personnel were subject to the pension benefit they received at the time of retirement. Nothing more.

Well, the 3% @ 50 is really nothing more than an “unintentional mistake” made by an uneducated Board of Supervisors back in 2001. Had they only known what they were voting for, they never would have voted to okay this public safety pension.  

You appear to be stating opinion more than asking a question, but we’ll answer anyway.

When questioned about his vote to approve the 3% @ 50 when he was an OC Supervisor, Assemblymen Todd Spitzer told Register editorial writer Steven Greenhut that he still zealously defends it.

There was nothing unintentional about the Board’s decision. Nor is there any question as to what the California legislature was intending to do when they passed the bill to allow counties to offer 3% @ 50. Furthermore, referring to this as a "mistake" is premature given the fact that at this point all we have is an untested legal theory with which to form such an opinion.  

The current pension, as agreed upon by the supervisors and AOCDS in 2001, was formed during collective bargaining and good faith negotiations, involving attorneys from County Counsel, OCERS, AOCDS, and outside law firms. Also involved in the crafting of 3% @ 50 were the County Auditor-Controller, county budget office, actuaries, and financial experts as well as department heads such as Sheriff Carona and District Attorney Tony Rackauckas.

If 3% @ 50 is illegal, what would you expect the Board of Supervisors to do? 

Let’s pretend you visit a doctor for your annual check-up. He checks your ears, nose and throat and your blood pressure and everything else. You even get some x-rays.

Five years later, your doctor notices something on one of the x-rays that he thinks might be a new form of cancer that has never before been diagnosed.

However, instead of telling you right away, he calls in a few so-called “independent” experts to provide “independent” analysis.

Eight months go by and, instead of calling you, he holds a press conference where he announces you are going to die. At the same time, he calls in a bunch of other people who aren’t doctors and can’t read x-rays and invites them to share their opinion and make their own diagnosis.

Then, after the press conference your doctor decides that there might be a treatment but, because this is now considered a preexisting condition, your insurance won’t cover the costs.

Does this sound like a guy who’s concerned about your health and wellbeing? We don’t think so.

We expect that when the County CEO and the Board of Supervisors sit down in good-faith with their employees and sign a contract that they will honor that contract. We expect that the Board of Supervisors would honor their commitments – especially those made under good-faith negotiations.

We expect that, when an issue arises, the county would reach out to their county executives and elected officials to find solutions that would do the least harm. We expect that the county would be more interested in working with their employees than creating controversy and garnering media attention for political grandstanding.

Looking back over the last few months, however, we might be expecting too much.

Click on Supervisor John Moorlach to view the video. 

At issue: Supervisor Moorlach's use of the term "retroactive," why Moorlach's plan targets public safety pensions, attracting qualified applicants, and what took place during the negotiation process when 3% @ 50 was agreed upon.

As we wrote yesterday:

The current pension, as agreed upon by the supervisors and AOCDS in 2001, was formed during collective bargaining and good faith negotiations. Listening to some supporters of the rescission, however, would lead one to believe that Sheriff’s deputies defrauded the county and taxpayers and stole the money under cover of darkness.

In reality, however, discussions and negotiations regarding 3% @ 50 involved attorneys from County Counsel, OCERS, AOCDS, and outside law firms. Also involved in the crafting of 3% @ 50 were the County Auditor-Controller, county budget office, then-County Treasurer John Moorlach, actuaries, financial experts as well as department heads such as Sheriff Carona.

Here's his response to my post below, including this point: I’m not sure how much danger Ryan faces on a day-to-day basis, but his post does seem typical of the responses I receive from law enforcement.

Actually, I've joked many times around our office that I face similar dangers to Greenhut: paper cuts, ink poisoning, etc. So this was not so much a cut directed solely at Steven Greenhut. While I support and defend this department, I don't do the hard work of our sworn men and women.

However, I have made it very clear that if anything should happen to me, I expect an Orange County Speech Writers’ Memorial. Or perhaps a PR Flak memorial...

Most striking at yesterday’s board hearing were the words and terms used by those who support the immediate rescission of the retroactive portion of deputy pensions. Supporters of the rescission called upon the Board to “undo the harm,” “right an unfortunate wrong,” and follow the “rule of law” -- a “rule” that will most likely take many lawyers, judges, courts and many years to clarify.

The current pension, as agreed upon by the supervisors and AOCDS in 2001, was formed during collective bargaining and good faith negotiations. Listening to some supporters of the rescission, however, would lead one to believe that Sheriff’s deputies defrauded the county and taxpayers and stole the money under cover of darkness.

In reality, however, discussions and negotiations regarding 3% @ 50 involved attorneys from County Counsel, OCERS, AOCDS, and outside law firms. Also involved in the crafting of 3% @ 50 were the County Auditor-Controller, county budget office, then-County Treasurer John Moorlach, actuaries, financial experts as well as department heads such as Sheriff Carona.

Since the hearing, a few individuals have commented on AOCDS President Wayne Quint’s presentation. Wayne’s presentation focused on the men and women killed or injured in the line of duty. Wayne reminded the Board members and the public that many families would be impacted by any immediate action taken against the pension they receive – any immediate action would have been impulsive and destructive, cutting these pensions by up to 35%.

Wayne has been accused of using “dead deputies” in a “widows and orphans approach.” Let’s be clear, however, there were two speakers from AOCDS: President Wayne Quint and Interim General Manager Mike Carre. Each focused on different aspects – Carre on the financial and technical details and Wayne on the personal/human impact – to ensure the Board and public were aware of the “global picture” in any decision they would render.

This wasn’t the worst description of Wayne, however.

Such foulness was left to the professional, Steven Greenhut, who labeled Wayne Quint’s presentation “shamelessness,” writing, “Wayne used the same shtick in Sacramento when he opposed a law that would have required public openness with regard to abusive police officers and Sheriff’s deputies.”  

Shtick, of course, can be defined as an entertainment routine or gimmick. For many years, Greenhut has spilt much ink attacking law enforcement and the men and women who choose this profession. Yesterday in a blog post Greenhut noted the courage and guts of the Board of Supervisors and “the constant whining and demands from the coddled public-employee unions.” 

Greenhut, had the opportunity yesterday to stand up and express his opinion to the Board and the public, but he chose instead to save it for the safe confines of his office. 

Such courage from a man who has to struggle daily with workplace dangers such as paper cuts, ink poisoning and accidental stabbings from the contents of one’s pocket protector.

UPDATE: Greenhut responds -Here's his response to my post below, including this point: I’m not sure how much danger Ryan faces on a day-to-day basis, but his post does seem typical of the responses I receive from law enforcement.

Actually, I've joked many times around our office that I face similar dangers to Greenhut: paper cuts, ink poisoning, etc. So this was not so much a cut directed solely at Steven Greenhut. While I support and defend this department, I don't do the hard work of our sworn men and women.

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.

The issue of who should control Harbor Patrol remains in the news. We should have video posted next week of this debate. In the meantime, here's a rundown of recent media articles:

The Log: here; the Daily Pilot: here; the OC Register: here

The Sheriff wrote briefly on this topic, using some points from the recent debate, in this week's employee bulletin:

Wednesday night I participated in a debate organized by Speak Up Newport on the issue of who should operate Newport Harbor Patrol. After Supervisor Moorlach cancelled his appearance at the event, Bruce Whitaker, Policy Director for Supervisor Chris Norby's office, was sent in his place.

This idea of privatizing Harbor Patrol services has been examined seven times in the past. In each instance, it was found that the level of service and the hours of operation were appropriate and necessary for providing law enforcement, fire fighting and other emergency services to the harbors. It was also recommended that no material changes in the current harbor patrol operations should be made.

So some of you may ask why we're discussing it again.

This issue is not about jurisdiction - we work very well with the Newport Beach Police Department and all Orange County and Federal law enforcement agencies.

This issue is not about poor quality of service - our community feedback showed an "exceptionally effective" approval rating for Harbor Patrol services.

This issue is not about local control either - Newport Beach has the option to patrol the harbors whenever they would like.

This is about politics. Politics rarely enhance public safety and in this case, more people, doing fragments of services would not equate to better or less expensive or more efficient harbor patrol services.

The debate was taped to air on television stations in Newport Beach. It is our intention to make the debate available on The OC Sheriff's blog in the next few days.

The debate was a great opportunity to enlighten and educate the residents we serve on the mostly complex and rarely seen work we do to protect and serve our communities.

Captain Deana Bergquist, who also holds the title of Harbormaster, and Lieutenant Erin Giudice as the Assistant Harbormaster, oversee the daily operations of the Harbor Patrol Division. The Station Commanders for the outlying harbors are Sergeant Fritz Von Rettberg at Sunset/Huntington Harbour and Sergeant John Whitman at Dana Point Harbor. The division provides law-enforcement, marine fire-fighting, open-water rescue, and vessel assistance for the three Orange County harbors of Sunset/Huntington Harbour, Newport Harbor, and Dana Point, as well as 48 miles of Orange County coastline. In addition to these functions, the deputies assigned to the Harbor Patrol Division are trained in environmental law and are qualified as "first-responders" to hazardous material spills.

After 9/11, in response to increased concerns for homeland security, Deputies are on heightened alert to any possibility of terrorist activity. The Harbor Patrol is training with local and federal government agencies and sharing information for the detection and prevention of suspected acts of terrorism.

The Sheriff's Harbor Patrol Division continues to set the standards in training, equipment and service by which harbor patrol operations are measured throughout the State of California. Harbor Patrol deputies are fully trained peace officers and have typically worked street patrol and other assignments prior to their selection for the Harbor Patrol Division. New Harbor Patrol deputies receive nearly 480 hours of additional training in navigation, marine fire-fighting, heavy weather rescue boat operations, boat-handling, and advanced first aid, including the administering of oxygen and the use of automated external defibrillators.

Deputies in the Harbor Patrol Division practice a "service-oriented" approach to their duties, and routinely participate in community events and activities in the harbors. Some of these activities include boating education classes for youth and adults, tours, safety inspections, and wildlife rescues.

The Newport Beach Harbor Patrol office serves as the headquarters for the Harbor Patrol division and also as an official reporting station for the National Weather Service as well as the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).

Included in the Harbor Patrol Division is the Sheriff's Dive Team. The Dive Team consists of eighteen divers including a Sergeant, who are trained in underwater search, rescue, and recovery operations along with swift water rescues. Three members of the team are also assigned to Sheriff’s Bomb and trained as underwater bomb experts.  The team often assists in investigations conducted by the Sheriff's Department and a variety of outside agencies. The Dive Team has logged over 4000 hours underwater since its inception in 1975. In 2006 the Team responded to 35 calls for service ranging from emergency repairs of Harbor Patrol boats to recoveries of weapons for local city police agencies. In addition, the Team logged a total of 223 dives for a total of 114 hours of dive time. The recent addition of dry suits and new sophisticated dive gear, including metal detection, underwater sonar equipment, and an ROV (Remote Operating Vehicle), has enabled the Team to safely respond to difficult or contaminated situations to any of the counties waters.

The Harbor Patrol rescue fleet consists of six twin-engine fireboats and seven single-engine patrol boats. The fleet is completely maintained "in-house" by the Harbor Patrol's highly skilled marine mechanics and craftsmen.

The 7,000 square foot Harbor Patrol Headquarters building contains the state-of-the-art 800 MHz dispatch area, emergency operations center, conference and training center, and maintenance facility.