Commentary: City charter could lead to costly elections, lawsuits

We all agree that there is a major problem with the underfunded public pension obligations in Costa Mesa and that something needs to be done. We do not all agree on the solution, and some have sought to make corrections through the proposed charter, Measure O on the November ballot.

Though the charter cannot and will not address our current obligations, language was inserted to control future obligations. However, a recent investigation by Costa Mesa’s Pension Oversight Committee has indicated that the charter will not do that without adding excessive burdens to the city.

Paraphrasing just the key element of the pension provision (Section 600), the proposed charter requires an election and a two-thirds majority vote to allow the city to increase its future contribution to an employee’s retirement benefits for any reason.

According to the Sept. 17 meeting minutes, interim Finance Director Steve Dunivent asked the city attorney’s staff which conditions would trigger the need for an election based on Section 600.

This question was raised at the meeting: “If employee pension contributions were voluntarily increased, and the city’s contributions were reduced to match that amount, what would happen if the employees ever chose to go back to a little lower contribution in the future because this would increase the city’s contribution by a small amount?”

The city attorney staff’s opinion was that for that and other scenarios debated by the committee, an election and the approval of a two-thirds majority of the voters would be required. The city would have to add costly measures to the general elections to deal with this issue. It also means that employees are not likely to agree to increase their contributions if they can never go back to a lower level, because it is rare to get a two-thirds majority.

The committee considered, among other things, if elections would be required by any increase in pension contribution of absolute dollars. This could result from an employee’s salary increase even when pension contribution percentages remain the same.

Would an election be triggered if the California Public Employees Retirement System (CalPERS) asks for more money to address the underfunded pension obligation? The answers to these questions were uncertain and there were many opinions. It seems clear that if the charter is passed, the vague language in it will lead to more confusion, legal disputes and expensive legal fees.

The committee contemplated the charter’s effect on contract negotiations. Orange County Employee Assn. employees just agreed to a new two-year contract. When renewed, it will fall under the charter provision that would make it nearly impossible to negotiate pension contributions.

Could the employees sue because the charter negates their ability to bargain collectively? Again, will the proposed charter lead to even more legal fees and lawsuits?

Though guided by good intentions, the members of the charter committee were all inexperienced in these matters. Our best intentions could lead us down a path of costly elections, expensive legal fees and acrimony that the city does not need. Vote no on Measure O.

MARY ANN OCONNELL is a Costa Mesa resident and former charter committee member