Rec’d from Ray Ellis…
Dear Councilmember Sherri Lightner,
Two weeks ago my campaign team reached out to your campaign to request a series of twelve debates in front of District 1 voters. They were told that you would only consider it a few months from now. As such, I am reaching out directly to you.
We are at a pivotal moment in San Diego. The choices we make now will determine whether San Diego engages in meaningful reform to solve our fiscal problems and presents a vision for a greater city, or whether we continue to stagnate and miss powerful opportunities.
The upcoming June election is so important to the future of this city that I believe you would be doing a disservice to voters by not partnering with me in debates immediately. As we have seen with the Mayoral candidates, who have already come together for several debates, and who have committed to a dozen more, a thoughtful and thorough discussion is happening, and must include District 1 as well.
Please join me in presenting our priorities, and our vision for San Diego, starting this February.
Ray Ellis
Comments 11
Ray is the person for the council, I hope Lightner will accept at a few of the debates to show the public the differences.
Didn’t Ray vote to pay Judy Italiano’s pension?
The provision providing special pension status to labor union presidents
was approved by the SD City Council in 2002…. six years before Ray Ellis
was appointed to the Retirement Board.
Per this 2010 U-T story, the referenced former City worker Union president
sought $1.8 million in Pension benefits in a lawsuit. The SD Retirement
Board rejected that demand, settling the civil lawsuit instead for $0.7
million, or a 60% decrease.
http://www.4sd.signonsandiego.com/news/2010/dec/17/pensionxxxxxxxxx-xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/?ap
From the first paragraph of that December 2010 article:
“The San Diego city retirement board has awarded a $700,000 settlement to former labor leader Judie Italiano despite a judge’s ruling that she isn’t owed anything beyond her $5,700-a-year pension.”
Correct me if I am wrong, but I believe that Ray Ellis voted for that settlement even though the judge had ruled that Italiano wasn’t owed anything.
The same story says the Pension Board vote saving taxpayers $1.1 million
with that settlement came, “45 days BEFORE the Judge ruled against
Italiano.”
Repeat: BEFORE the ruling. Please see paragraph 8 of the U-T story.
If the Judge ruled the other way, they might have been on the hook for
the full $1.8 million sought by the plaintiff in the civil lawsuit.
So the time sequence of (A) the vote and (B) when the Judge’s ruling
occurred is rather important!
and a judge can always be reversed on appeal.
Jim,
Point taken and it is a very good point. However, read what the judge said further down in the article. Pay special emphasis to the last sentence:
“This court does not see this as a good faith settlement,” he wrote in a tentative ruling. “It is a settlement crafted to give judicial cover to an agreement based on prior illegal acts. This court is not inclined to grant that cover. If the parties choose, the settlement can go forward but without this court’s good faith determination.”
In light of the judges ruling, the Pension Board was not obligated to honor the settlement; they CHOSE to. Had this been a Democratic candidate for office that gave away $700,000 of taxpayer money to a Union leader, I expect you would have (correctly) written a post excoriating that person.
I love when we play russian roulette with judges.
Since you think a post excoriating that settlement would be correct I’ll patiently await your article for submission to me, that I’ll post unedited here for you, lambasting Sherri Lightner for voting for a retiree healthcare giveaway that, while lower than the original proposed, still cost taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars, a giveaway that a judge said was not necessary BEFORE the initial deal.
Sunshine,
Please post a link to the judge’s comment that claimed the City had no obligation for any retiree healthcare coverage. Thank you.
http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2011/apr/29/judge-retiree-health-coverage-not-mandatory-curren/
Sunshine,
Thanks.
Now do you need me to explain the difference between an OPTIONAL BENEFIT (retiree healthcare) that was negotiated in good faith for all employees and an ILLEGAL BENEFIT (counting union salary toward a city pension) that was given to less than a handful of people?