By Luke Thomas
August 30, 2010
A legal challenge to force the withdrawal of a controversial pension and healthcare reform measure from the November ballot has failed.
San Francisco Superior Court Judge Harold Kahn today approved Proposition B for the November ballot but stripped a “poison pill” provision from the measure, a provision Kahn ruled unconstitutional.
“This is a pretty big sledgehammer,” Judge Kahn said of the poison pill language. “This violates the First Amendment.”
The poison pill provision (in sub-section I) would have frozen city workers compensation packages for five years if a court ruled any provision in the measure unenforceable.
Elvira James, a secretary with the San Francisco Rent Board and a co-plaintiff in the lawsuit, said, “I’m glad the judge agreed that the initiative is flawed, but disappointed he left it on the ballot.”
Sponsored by Public Defender Jeff Adachi, the measure dubbed “SF Smart Reform” aims to rein in unsustainable pension and healthcare costs projected to exceed $1 billion by 2016.
“This is an important victory for the people of this City,” Adachi said in a statement. “Now the voters of San Francisco, not special interests, will finally have a choice on how their tax dollars are spent on pensions for city workers.”
Luke Thomas
Luke Thomas is a former software developer and computer consultant who proudly hails from London, England. In 2001, Thomas took a yearlong sabbatical to travel and develop a photographic portfolio. Upon his return to the US, Thomas studied photojournalism to pursue a career in journalism. In 2004, Thomas worked for several neighborhood newspapers in San Francisco before accepting a partnership agreement with the SanFranciscoSentinel.com, a news website formerly covering local, state and national politics. In September 2006, Thomas launched FogCityJournal.com. The BBC, CNN, ABC, NBC, CBS, Fox News, New York Times, Der Spiegel, San Francisco Chronicle, San Francisco Magazine, 7x7, San Francisco Examiner, San Francisco Bay Guardian and the San Francisco Weekly, among other publications and news outlets, have published his work. Thomas is a member of the Freelance Unit of the Pacific Media Workers Guild, TNG-CWA Local 39521 and is a member of the Society of Professional Journalists.
Follow Me:
The Hunger Site
August 31, 2010 at 2:21 pm
Marc,
Don’t think we see eye to eye on this thing but you make a fair point about pursuing a Prop H lawsuit…A private suit would have been very expensive and required excellent attorneys to withstand what would have been a vigorous defense- pro bono not an option. (Hell, just look at the ten page defense of Prop H Herrera wrote to the Grand Jury- half of which is nonsense.) The suit would have dragged on getting more costly and Adachi et al would have been on the hook for City/attorney expenses had they not prevailed…But my guess is Jeff also saw the entire benefit cost situation as a systemic problem not being addressed at the BOS/Mayor level…So I ask given we have rival hotel tax and sit-lie propositions on the ballot, where is the rival employee benefit reform measure on the ballot from the Mayor and/or Supes? Adachi’s proposal was online TEN WEEKS before the Supes/Mayor charter amendment deadlines for the November ballot. It’s a tough issue to tackle…
August 31, 2010 at 9:34 am
@seej, if Adachi’s concern is as stated, then why did he not go to court to save the City money where the money was bleeding instead of attacking all City workers and their dependent health care?
Jeff is not stupid. Jeff is an attorney. One would think that a non stupid attorney would have sussed out the options and implications. I’m sure he did. But instead of suing Herrera to get the cops and firefighters to pay their fair share, he attacked the unions.
Of course, the lucrative positions of the Special Assistants/MEA and Municipal Attorneys Association, the bulk of the $100K club, are also off the table. Last time I checked, three years ago, the $100K club comprised $500m in payroll. It is probably more now after Newsom reclassified most of them upwards.
Notice how Adachi is not challenging the divine right of his bevy of attorneys to salaries of $150K+, salaries that are probably not supportable under current economics.
Between “liberal” “progressive” Democrats like Adachi and Obama, the currency of left of center values has been inflated into meaninglessness. The FBI, COINTELPRO and the right wing could not have done more to mortally wound the progressive project.
Fuck ’em.
-marc
August 31, 2010 at 3:26 am
I admire Jeff because he has a sense of financial stability for the city. All politics’s aside. We have learned that the sweet heart deal that your non-functionary Mayor and prop H gave to the firefighters and police is not going to be jeopardized. So what is the hoopla all about? Politics’s, plain and simple.
marc what evidence to you have to support your comment? I could but I won’t counter it.
seej, this measure doesn’t reverse those MOU’s. What it does do is make those pol’s that decided to move to Fairfield pay a little more out of their pockets for their kids heath-care. Even though they get a retirement plan after 10 years of service equal to that of double.
August 30, 2010 at 5:18 pm
“Couldn’t Adachi have found a lawyer to sue the City to compel enforcement of Prop H if that was his concern?”
…not off the table. See recent police and fire MOU extensions.
August 30, 2010 at 4:45 pm
If the measure passes, then it will be struck down in court.
But Jeff Adachi will have a big pile of names and a bunch of new billionaire right wing friends.
Couldn’t Adachi have found a lawyer to sue the City to compel enforcement of Prop H if that was his concern?
-marc
August 30, 2010 at 4:26 pm
…”The SF Chronicle states that :”The judge also indicated that Prop. B may violate the vested rights of employees by forcing them to contribute more to their pensions, but Kahn said he hadn’t been presented with enough evidence to show a clear violation.”
But that’s Chron’s typically weak reporting (reporting is typically better/more detailed from other media resources. Bay Citizen etc. = far superior on this topic.) The judges ruling was more nuanced than that citing two reasons it may in fact be legal: 1) he cited a clause in the charter that states employee pension contributions can be increased up to 10% and 2) he cited the precedent of “commensurate advantage” where is it legal to raise pension contributions in a case where it strengthens the pension system…
August 30, 2010 at 3:58 pm
Draconian in that it tries to save the City money if the public employee unions challenge Prop. B as passed by a majority of San Franciscans in the courts …. Adachi’s language that the Judge called Draconian was just trying to make sure the savings desired by the will of the people (that’s if Prop. B passes) actually happened, and that’s by requiring TRANSPARENCY IN RAISES while any lawsuit by the unions held back Prop. B from going into effect.
August 30, 2010 at 3:18 pm
Isn’ there something wrong with the fact that our city’s public defender was found trying to violate the civil rights of it’s citizens?
So the judge said that Prop B was “one of the most draconian pieces of legal writing I have ever seen.”
And ruled that Prop B was a violation of city employees’ First Amendment rights.
The SF Chronicle states that :”The judge also indicated that Prop. B may violate the vested rights of employees by forcing them to contribute more to their pensions, but Kahn said he hadn’t been presented with enough evidence to show a clear violation.”
Looks like Adachi needs to go back to law school . . .
August 30, 2010 at 2:12 pm
Well done Adachi. Full steam ahead.