The City of San Diego Retired Employees Association hosted a City Attorney Candidate Debate on April 08, 2008. When asked if he would persue the pension litigation in light of Judge Bartons ruling Goldsmith specifically told the San Diego Municipal Employee Retirees: - No... The one year statute of limitations has run out... Three years does not equal one year... Basic math... - Goldsmith is solidifying Multi-Billions of Dollars in pension benefit without the taxpayers voting on going into massive debt, as is the law. A settlement with the MEA getting everything they sued the taxpayers for, and the citizens of San Diego left paying the Multi-Billion Dollar debt is not a coalition. Giving away the City's money is a sell out of Conservative principles and sound financial management, just for the City Employees Union votes.

Posted by La Playa Heritage | reply to this comment
July 9, 2008 10:11 pm

La Playa, when a claim is filed after the statute of limitations has run, there IS NO RELIEF that can be granted by a court. Therefore, why waste time and money in litigation? Aguirre's argument on appeal virtually ignores the statute of limitations hurdle. And, no matter how strong he presents his other arguments, his argument will fail without this key element. Scott, Goldsmith is clearly a different candidate than Peters, as I am sure you are aware. Peters has a history in the Council of siding with union issues. Goldsmith has been consistent from the start: the CA position is about the law. Why is Goldsmith's theme, "the law", not an attractive position for ANY group who wants to know they will be treated professionally by the CA office?

Posted by Some Clarity Please | reply to this comment
July 9, 2008 11:25 pm

You're just missing it..continuing to demonize City employees for the failings of republican leadership. To pay for the Republican National Convention, Golding asked for a holiday from paying the City's portion of retirement contribution while employee's continued to pay theirs. The City, opposed to giving salary increases, offers increased pension benefits to a competitive level with the understanding that the City would pay later. Well the City has failed to live up to that agreement on every level and now employees are demonized and the union leadership who is elected to work for higher pay and benefits. The benefits are only competitive for the average City worker yet the few who earned the highest pensions are pointed to as an example for all. The spin from the anti-union republican elite is deplorable and is harming thousands of middle class workers and their families...pitiful..

Posted by Come on La Playa Heritage... | reply to this comment
July 10, 2008 12:58 am

The City Council, the City Managers, with the help of the City Unions create the pension mess without a vote of the taxpayers. Nothing can be solved until everyone comes together and does what is fair not only to the 15,000 City Union members, but to the rest of the 1,000,000 Citizens of San Diego. The taxpayers have to guarantee a 8 percent annual increase on the Unions private investments, even in these tough financial times. The City Unions are not helping to solve the problem and the Unions sued the City to solidify their benefits.

Posted by La Playa Heritage | reply to this comment
July 10, 2008 7:10 am

Come on La Playa Heritage - FINALLY someone speaks the truth! Thank you, thank you, thank you. Isn't it funny how the public makes up the truth, with the assistance, of course, of politicians and the local media? Deplorable. The public officials simply stole from Peter (Pension) to pay for (Convention Center expanion, Repulican National Convention, Jack Murphy Stadium, Petco, etc.) Paul. Go Jan Go

Posted by North Park | reply to this comment
July 10, 2008 7:22 am

Scott, I think you're oversimplifying. Goldsmith's suggestion in the ad -- calling labor Peters' 'handler' -- is that Peters is overly beholden to the unions. That doesn't mean any association to the unions is bad; it means being in their back pocket is. If you build a broad enough coalition, you can't be overly beholden to one constituent, because if it's broad, you're going to have some contradictory influences. That's a very good thing. You can have lots of different forces behind you because they each think they'll get a fair shake from you.

Posted by Scott's oversimplifying | reply to this comment
July 10, 2008 9:09 am

No oversimplification here. Goldsmith clearly used negative sentiment about unions in his campaign. Now, he's flipflopping. Is it any wonder why the public is so cynical about politics?

Posted by Larry | reply to this comment
July 10, 2008 10:15 am

The City, its management officers AND duly elected representatives asked for a period of forgiveness to delay their pension payments. Then, when questions arose, the behavior changed. First they denied, they covered it up and the downright lied to discredit the whistle blower. Now the bill is due, those directly responsible for this mess cry foul. And of course, we're broke. Sorry folks we elected them, the UT failed one of it primary responsibilities and didn’t watch them, so they represented US by default, statute and Charter. We are stuck with this bill and we have a plan to resolve it over time. I believe this is exactly why the State Constitution forbids politician from tinkering with negotiated benefits. Prop. B fixed the loophole, and Mayor Sander’s newest initiative slows, and then stops, the bleeding over time like it or not.

Posted by Robert Davis | reply to this comment
July 10, 2008 10:35 am

Scott, graciously accepting an endorsement is a far cry from being a "pawn". Goldsmith's criticism of Peters was based on Peters' actions, statements, and votes, not his endorsements. Aguirre also trumpeted his union endorsements when he ran for CA; did that make him a pawn? Goldsmith has appropriately sidestepped Aguirre's desperate attempt to make this a partisan race. It isn't; the CA's office is for legal services, not policy. If Goldsmith's simple and polite acceptance of an endorsement is "a joke", you have a strange sense of humor.

Posted by tseuG | reply to this comment
July 10, 2008 12:52 pm

Nobody's mentioned perhaps the most significant reason that Aguirre is off-base on his pension benefits crusade: state and federal laws hold that public employee pensions cannot be undone. The statute of limitations is just one more nail in the coffin of Aguirre's argument.

Posted by Cobracat | reply to this comment
July 10, 2008 1:07 pm

La Playa you're assertion that the taxpayers have to cover the "unions" 8% return on investment is just plain false. For one, the unions do not administer the pension plan, SDCERS does. And the taxpayers are not on the hook to cover any shortfalls on investment returns for SDCERS. SDCERS investments over the long term earn slightly more than 8%, some years less, some more. I agree that we have to all work together to get the city back on track which means ending this long-running blame game.

Posted by Captain T | reply to this comment
July 10, 2008 8:15 pm

I knew I was a Democrat as a teenager about 50 years ago in a blue collar area of Boston-perhaps even earlier. A core value of the Democratic Party was support of labor; it still is. When Mr. Goldsmith made his choice to be a Republican, a core tenet was anti-labor, and still is. The vagaries of the SD pension conflict have made for strange bedfellows, money often does, but at a gut level, Mr. Goldsmith's embrace of a labor endorsement does not wash anymore than the MEA's endorsement of Mr. Goldsmith. The self-interested doublethink of both groups on the pension issue does not compute with the basic values. That is why I believe Mike Ahuirre is much more a friend of labor than Jan Goldsmith. Just follow the values (and the money).

Posted by Charlie Pratt | reply to this comment
July 11, 2008 7:00 am

The issues with the City Attorney's office go beyond being a friend of labor or not. The way the City Attorney runs his office is detrimental to labor, to City management, and to the public. It is that reason why Goldsmith gets the endorsement. Remember also that in theory, City politics are supposed to be nonpartisan. We shouldn't be picking a City attorney based on his/her party, as this person should not be political in nature when it comes to being a lawyer. We need a City attorney who will focus on the law and not on himself. Republican, democrat...it does not matter.

Posted by Ann | reply to this comment
July 11, 2008 9:03 am

Oh, Charlie, my boy, as someone of about the same age and a life-long Republican, I have to make a few corrections to your comment at #12. "A core value of the [Dumb]crat party was support of labor..." Nope. It was feeding off the least educated layer of society to gain and maintain power. How many "common folk" are in control in the Dumbcrat power structure? The Kennedys? Kerry? Pelosi? Edwards? Gore? ...etc. All just common working stiffs, hunh? A core tenet of the Republican party is anti-labor. No. It is anti-union. How many people nowdays even belong to a union? After a century of discredit, hardly anybody does and fewer even care about them. So, you and I can go to our respective graves as loyalists of our parties. The problem for me is the Republicans are turning Dumbcrat. I think we need a new party.

Posted by Edgar | reply to this comment
July 11, 2008 10:41 am

Did anyone think that the reason the Association is backing Goldsmith just might be because they are finally seeing that a stable, financially secure City able to pay their pensions is preferable to chaos ? Aguirre accomplished the task they needed done - he screwed up the cases for so long they are pretty well assured of keeping what some call their "ill gotten gains". NOW, they need a functional City government that can actually find the means to PAY that ongoing expense - Aguirre's continuing flights of fancy are simply not going to allow the City to deal with it..

Posted by SimplyCommonSense | reply to this comment
September 8, 2008 3:53 pm

• Users may post more than one comment, but should not pose as multiple users. Multiple posts from the same IP address but with a different user name on each will be reviewed to determine whether abuse has occurred.
• Posts with overly personal attacks or unsubstantiated allegations may be edited or deleted.
• Please be patient with the posts -- there may be a delay before they appear on the site -- and make sure to enter the code in the "image verification" box.