Citation 47 Cal. 4th 1050, 222 P.3d 214, 103 Cal. Rptr. 3d 767
Lexin v. Super. Ct.
Filed 1/25/10
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA
CATHY LEXIN et al.,
Petitioners,
S157341
v.
Ct.App. 4/1 D049251
THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN
DIEGO COUNTY,
San Diego County
Super. Ct. No. SCD190930
Respondent;
THE PEOPLE,
Real Party in Interest.
This case is a residuum of the fiscal crisis that swept the City of San Diego
(City) over the last decade. That crisis, arising from the City‟s failure to fund its
employee retirement system adequately, led to federal investigations of the City‟s
bond disclosures, suspension of the City‟s credit rating, class action lawsuits
against the City for underfunding, the mayor‟s resignation, and amendments of the
City‟s charter to change the composition of the board overseeing the retirement
system.
The six defendants below, Cathy Lexin, Mary Elizabeth Vattimo, Teresa
Aja Webster, Sharon Kay Wilkinson, John Anthony Torres, and Ronald Lee
Saathoff (collectively the Lexin defendants), were trustees of the board
administering the City‟s retirement system. They have been charged with felony
1
violations of state conflict of interest statutes (Gov. Code, § 1090 et seq.)1 for
allegedly voting to authorize an agreement allowing the City to limit funding of its
retirement system in exchange for the City‟s agreeing to provide increased pension
benefits to City employees, including the Lexin defendants.
The Lexin defendants brought a Penal Code section 995 motion to set aside
the information against them because, they argued, Government Code section
10902 and its exceptions were not intended to criminalize the making of contracts
by parties whose only financial stake was their interest in government pension
benefits. The trial court denied the motion because it concluded pension benefits
were not “salary” of the sort the Legislature intended to excuse when it created the
government salary exception to section 1090. (See § 1091.5, subd. (a)(9);
hereafter section 1091.5(a)(9).) The Court of Appeal rejected this reasoning, but
affirmed the denial because it found section 1091.5(a)(9) inapposite for other
reasons and because it further concluded the public services exception (§ 1091.5,
subd. (a)(3); hereafter section 1091.5(a)(3)) did not apply.
We reverse as to five of the six defendants. We conclude that, with one
exception, the defendant trustees‟ actions fall within statutory exceptions to
section 1090, and accordingly their motion to dismiss the information against them
should have been granted. This case turns on our conclusion that the trustees of
the City‟s retirement system board were not burdened by a conflict of the sort
section 1090 prohibits: a division in the loyalties of public servants between the
public interests of their constituents and private opportunities for their own
1
Government Code section 1090 prohibits public officials and employees
from having a financial interest in contracts they make in their official capacities.
2
All further statutory references are to the Government Code unless
otherwise specified.
2
personal financial gain. Rather, by intentional legislative design, many of the
board‟s trustees were members of the retirement system and thus had interests in
common with the membership as a whole. That the Lexin defendants were
financially interested in the agreement here — like thousands of their fellow
retirement system members — was a consequence of this fact. The public services
exception to section 1090 — section 1091.5(a)(3) — recognizes that financial
interests shared with one‟s constituency do not present the dangers the state‟s
conflict of interest laws were designed to eradicate. Accordingly, it excepts such
interests from section 1090‟s purview.
As applied here, the provision covers the actions of five of the six
defendants. The sixth, Ronald Saathoff, could on the preliminary hearing record
reasonably be suspected of having obtained a unique, personalized pension benefit
as a result of voting to approve the retirement board‟s contract with the City. Such
individually tailored benefits pose genuine conflict problems and do not fall under
any statutory exception. Accordingly, we affirm as to Saathoff, reverse as to all
other defendants, and remand for further proceedings.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
I. THE SAN DIEGO CITY EMPLOYEES‟ RETIREMENT SYSTEM
San Diego is a charter city. It maintains a pension plan for its employees,
the San Diego City Employees‟ Retirement System (SDCERS). (San Diego City
Charter, art. IX, § 141; San Diego Mun. Code, § 24.0101.) SDCERS is a defined
benefit plan in which benefits are based upon salary, length of service, and age.
(San Diego Mun. Code, §§ 24.0402-24.0405.) The plan is funded by contributions
from both the City and its employees. (San Diego City Charter, art. IX, § 143; San
Diego Mun. Code, § 24.0402.) Membership is compulsory. (San Diego Mun.
3
Code, § 24.0104, subd. (a).) As of June 2008, the plan had nearly 20,000
members. (SDCERS Comprehensive Annual Financial Rep. (2008) p. 29.)
The pension fund is overseen by a 13-member Board of Administration
(SDCERS Board or Board). (San Diego City Charter, art. IX, § 144.) Although
established by the City, the Board is a separate entity. (Ibid.; Bianchi v. City of
San Diego (1989) 214 Cal.App.3d 563, 571.) The SDCERS Board is a fiduciary
charged with administering the City‟s pension fund in a fashion that preserves its
long-term solvency; it must ensure that through actuarially sound contribution
rates and prudent investment, principal is conserved, income is generated, and the
fund is able to meet its ongoing disbursement obligations. (Cal. Const., art. XVI,
§ 17; San Diego City Charter, art. IX, § 144.) Consistent with that central mission,
the SDCERS Board has a range of ancillary obligations, including but not limited
to providing for actuarial services, determining member eligibility for and
ensuring receipt of benefits, and minimizing employer contributions. (Cal. Const.,
art. XVI, § 17, subds. (b), (e); San Diego City Charter, art. IX, §§ 142, 144; San
Diego Mun. Code, § 24.0901.) To carry out these duties, the Board is granted the
power to make such rules and regulations as it deems necessary. (San Diego City
Charter, art. IX, § 144; San Diego Mun. Code, §§ 24.0401, 24.0901; see generally
Bianchi, at p. 571; Grimm v. City of San Diego (1979) 94 Cal.App.3d 33, 39-40.)3
The composition of the Board is fixed by San Diego‟s charter; as of 2002,
the charter provided for three ex officio positions (the city manager, treasurer, and
3
SDCERS and the SDCERS Board are not unique. Other charter cities have
established similar pension funds and retirement boards (e.g., L.A. Charter, art.
XI, § 1104); counties throughout California have done likewise under the County
Employees Retirement Law of 1937 (§ 31450 et seq.); and the state has an
analogous pension fund, the California Public Employees‟ Retirement System
(CalPERS), and retirement board, the Board of Administration (§ 20000 et seq.).
4
auditor), one trustee elected by fire safety members, one elected by police safety
members, one elected by retired members, three elected by the active membership,
and four appointed by the city council. (San Diego City Charter, art. IX, former
§ 144.)4 All six Lexin defendants were trustees of the SDCERS Board. Cathy
Lexin, Mary Elizabeth Vattimo, and Teresa Aja Webster were the ex officio
designees; Sharon Kay Wilkinson and John Anthony Torres were elected from the
active membership; and Ronald Lee Saathoff was the fire safety representative.
The six were also City employees: Lexin was the City‟s human resources director,
Vattimo was the City treasurer, Webster was the City‟s assistant auditor and
comptroller, Wilkinson was a City management analyst, Torres was a fingerprint
examiner for the City police department crime lab, and Saathoff was a City fire
captain.
II. CONTRACT NEGOTIATIONS
A. City Manager’s Proposal 1
Until 1996, the City made contributions to the SDCERS pension fund
according to an actuary‟s annual determination of the rate. In 1996, the City
proposed, and the Board approved, an agreement modifying the method of
calculating the City‟s contribution. Under this agreement, commonly known as
the City Manager‟s Proposal 1 (MP1), the City contributed at a set rate, which was
less than an actuarially determined rate, under an agreed-upon schedule. The
schedule required the City‟s contribution rate to increase by 0.5 percent per year as
a percentage of payroll until the City‟s annual contribution rate equaled the
4
In the wake of the events that spawned the instant litigation, the City
Charter was amended to provide for seven mayoral appointees, one police safety
member, one fire safety member, two general members, one retiree member, and
one City management member. (San Diego City Charter, art. IX, § 144.)
5
actuarial rate. At the time the MP1 was adopted, the retirement system was 92.3
percent funded.5 As part of the MP1, there was a safety valve provision, known as
the “trigger,” that called for a balloon payment if the funded ratio of the system
dropped below 82.3 percent.
In 2001, in part because of the “dot-com” stock market crash, SDCERS
earnings began falling significantly. (See Perry, Fall from Frugality Puts San
Diego on Fiscal Brink, L.A. Times (Sept. 1, 2004) p. 1.) By October 31, 2001, the
fund had earned only $14.1 million dollars, a decrease of 87 percent from the
previous year. In February 2002,6 SDCERS actuary Rick Roeder completed a
draft actuarial report showing the funded ratio had dropped from 97 percent to 90
percent in one year. The City was concerned the 82.3 percent trigger would be
met, which would have required it to make an additional contribution to the
pension fund of approximately $25 million within one year.
B. Union Negotiations
At the same time, the City entered meet-and-confer negotiations with its
municipal unions over new labor agreements (memoranda of understanding or
MOU‟s), with defendant Lexin, the City‟s Director of Human Resources, acting as
lead negotiator. The County of San Diego had agreed in February to increase the
retirement multipliers for its employees.7 The City‟s four municipal unions, the
San Diego Municipal Employees Association (MEA), San Diego Police Officers
5
A retirement system‟s funding ratio is calculated by comparing the present
value of the system‟s assets against the present value of its future liabilities.
6
All further dates refer to the year 2002 unless otherwise specified.
7
In defined benefit pension plans like SDCERS, retirement benefits typically
are calculated by multiplying years of service, peak salary, and a multiplier that
varies according to retirement age. (See San Diego Mun. Code, § 24.0402, subd.
(d) & table 1.)
6
Association (POA), San Diego City Firefighters IAFF Local 145 (Firefighters),
and American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees Local 127
(AFSCME), sought comparable improvements in the City‟s retirement benefits.
According to Assistant City Manager Lamont Ewell, if the SDCERS
funded ratio had continued to fall and the trigger had been reached, the resulting
balloon payment would have seriously hampered the City‟s ability to deliver
services and would have led to layoffs. Consequently, the City elected to
condition any increase in pension benefits on its obtaining relief from the
SDCERS Board from the effect of hitting the trigger. In May, it reached
agreements with the MEA, the Firefighters, and AFSCME that included enhanced
retirement benefits, but each agreement was expressly conditioned on the
SDCERS Board‟s granting the City contribution relief by lowering the MP1‟s
trigger to 75 percent. The City was ultimately unable to agree on a contract with
its fourth municipal union, the POA, and so declared an impasse and imposed its
last, best, and final offer; like the agreements with the other unions, that offer
included an SDCERS Board contingency.
Negotiations with the Firefighters and its president and lead negotiator,
defendant Ronald Saathoff, involved a unique issue. Union presidents received a
salary from the City and were also paid by the unions for serving as their
presidents. Beginning in approximately 1989, the POA president began
contributing to his pension based on both the president‟s salary paid him by his
union and his salary as a police officer, in exchange for having his pension
calculated based on his combined salary. In 1997, the MEA president secured the
same right.
During the 2002 negotiations, Saathoff sought the same treatment.
Concerned about potentially higher pension payments for union presidents, the
City considered discontinuing the existing program. However, the city attorney
7
advised that the unions would sue and might prevail based upon their presidents‟
detrimental reliance on years of informal agreements. Ultimately, the city council,
acting on the advice of the city attorney, decided to provide equivalent rights to
the union presidents of POA, MEA, and Firefighters, but only as to those presently
holding that title and certain former POA presidents; future presidents would not
be eligible.
Michael McGhee, a principal negotiator for the City with the Firefighters,
testified that he understood at the time that this incumbent union president benefit
was contingent on the Board‟s lowering the trigger. On cross-examination,
however, he indicated he had never heard anyone say that the incumbent union
president benefit was contingent on anything the SDCERS Board did, nor was
there a document that so stated.
C. Initial Discussions with SDCERS
On May 29, 2002, City Manager Michael Uberuaga presented the SDCERS
Board with the City‟s proposal to modify the MP1 to (1) lower the trigger to 75
percent and (2) add a five-year phase-in period for the payment of increased
contributions to reach the full actuarial rate if the trigger was hit. Uberuaga told
the Board a reduction in the trigger was a contingency of the tentative labor
agreements with three of the four municipal unions in the City.
The proposal ran into opposition. After the meeting, Board President
Frederick Pierce requested a meeting with Deputy City Manager Bruce Herring.
On June 7, Pierce, Herring, defendant Lexin, and SDCERS administrator
Lawrence Grissom met, at which time Pierce objected to the linkage between the
Board‟s actions and union benefits. Herring indicated he thought the city council
would refuse to drop the linkage. The Board‟s fiduciary counsel, Robert Blum,
also criticized the City‟s proposal, warning the Board in a draft letter dated
8
June 12 that adoption of the proposal would pose a “material risk that a court
would find that approval by the Retirement Board of the proposed amendment[,]
including the reduction in the ‘floor’ in [MP1] to 75 [percent] was not a prudent
exercise of the Board‟s fiduciary responsibilities, particularly if insufficient
mitigating actions were taken by the Board.”
In response to criticisms of the City‟s proposal, the City modified the
proposal so as to accelerate the presumptive rate at which it would increase its
contribution in the event the trigger was not hit, offering a 1 percent of payroll
annual increase in lieu of the 0.5 percent the MP1 called for. Deputy City
Manager Herring presented this modified proposal to the Board on June 21.
Following a lengthy discussion of the City‟s proposal, the Board elected to defer a
vote and to seek more information and analysis. A decision on the proposal was
trailed for a future special meeting.
In advance of that special meeting, the City was aware that a Board trustee
might offer a counterproposal to the City‟s proposal. Lexin and Deputy City
Attorney Elmer Heap wrote the mayor and city council, explaining that they
“anticipate[d] a motion from a Board member which would further modify the
proposal before the Board, by eliminating the request to lower the funded ratio
floor [the trigger], and including the five year phase-in if the trigger (82.3%
funded ratio) is effectuated.” Lexin and Heap sought and obtained authorization
to agree to this counterproposal.
D. The July 11 SDCERS Board Meeting
At the July 11 special SDCERS Board meeting, the Board discussed in
detail the merits of the existing MP1, the City‟s proposal to reduce the trigger to
75 percent, and an alternative funding mechanism presented by the Board‟s
actuary, Rick Roeder. Roeder was concerned, as he had been at the June 21
9
meeting, about the effects of the City‟s request for contribution relief. Fiduciary
Counsel Blum was of the opinion that if the Board accepted the City‟s proposal,
there was a “material risk” that a court would find the Board had not properly
exercised its fiduciary responsibility. Others spoke in support of the City‟s
proposal.
Lexin made a motion to accept the City‟s proposal to lower the trigger to
75 percent, and Webster seconded it. Several Board trustees, including Saathoff,
expressed an intent to vote against the City‟s proposal. As Saathoff put it: “[T]his
proposal as it[’]s currently written doesn‟t appear to pass muster in terms of
fiduciary counsel‟s opinion and[,] frankly, the actuary‟s.” He told the Board that
the City‟s proposal was not within what he considered a “fiduciarily prudent
guideline and should the motion not be successful, I will have another motion to
make that hopefully will address the [C]ity‟s concerns and give us comfort that the
actions we are taking are fiduciarily prudent as members of this Board.”
Trustee Diann Shipione made a formal motion to continue the matter.
Saathoff opposed the motion, indicating he thought it important to move forward.
Shipione‟s motion was not seconded.
Saathoff then made his substitute proposal, which, with some changes,
ultimately came to be known as City Manager‟s Proposal 2 (MP2). Saathoff
moved that (1) the 82.3 percent trigger be kept in place; (2) if the trigger was not
hit, the City would increase its contribution rate at 1 percent per year until it
reached the full actuarial rate; and (3) if the trigger was hit, the City would have
until 2009 to increase its contributions to reach the actuarial rate, in lieu of a
balloon payment of $25 million or more. The substitute proposal would be subject
to the fiduciary counsel‟s and the actuary‟s approval, as well as to negotiation of a
formal written contract with the City.
10
After substantial further discussion, the motion to adopt the City‟s proposal
was withdrawn and the Board adopted Saathoff‟s proposal by a vote of eight to
two. Board President Pierce, John Casey, and the six Lexin defendants — Lexin,
Vattimo, Webster, Wilkinson, Torres, and Saathoff— voted in favor of the
proposal. Thomas Rhodes and David Crow opposed the motion. Ray Garnica
abstained. Trustees Shipione and Richard Vortmann left the meeting before the
vote.
E. Final Approval of Benefit Enhancements
From July 11 to November 15, Fiduciary Counsel Blum negotiated with the
City to memorialize Saathoff‟s counterproposal as a written agreement. During
this time period, according to Deputy City Attorney Heap, there were “sticking
points,” and an agreement, though likely, was not absolutely certain. For example,
Blum and Heap debated a nullification clause Blum wanted inserted that would
allow the Board to unilaterally rescind the agreement in the future, with Blum
ultimately prevailing.
On October 7, the POA, the Firefighters, and the MEA signed finalized
MOU’s with the City, each effective retroactively to July 1. These final MOU‟s
eliminated any contingency requiring action by the SDCERS Board for benefit
increases to take effect. On October 21, the city council voted unanimously to
adopt and approve the MOU‟s.
The city council also enacted the incumbent union president benefit without
any reference to contingencies or action by the SDCERS Board. The City agreed
to base retirement benefits for incumbent union presidents on their highest one-
year combined City and union salary. In contrast, pension contributions for future
union presidents would be based solely on their City salary.
11
Under the MOU‟s, defendants Wilkinson and Torres, who were classified
general City employees,8 received the same benefits as all other classified general
employees, including an increase in their age-55 pension multipliers from 2.25
percent to 2.50 percent, with corresponding 0.25 percent adjustments of the
multiplier for each year above age 55. Defendants Lexin, Vattimo, and Webster
were unclassified general employees but received the same increased retirement
benefits under a City policy that afforded unclassified employees the same
benefits as classified employees. Defendant Saathoff, as a classified safety
employee, did not receive an increased multiplier but did receive the pension
increase accorded incumbent union presidents.
F. Final Approval of the MP2
On November 15, the SDCERS Board was presented with a draft of the
MP2, which, with some minor changes, essentially reflected the terms of
defendant Saathoff‟s counterproposal.
Fiduciary Counsel Blum gave a presentation to the Board emphasizing the
MP2‟s advantages over the MP1, including an acceleration of increases in the
contribution rate and a date certain by which the City had to accomplish full
actuarial funding. The finalized MP2 also granted the Board the right to nullify
the agreement “to the extent required by its duties established under the California
Constitution” and required the City to pay any costs incurred to secure
enforcement of the agreement‟s terms. Blum had tried, but failed, to get the City
to agree to language precluding it from “bargain[ing] additional benefits
8
A classified employee is governed by civil service rules; an unclassified
employee serves at will. A general member of the retirement system is any
nonsafety member, i.e., everyone other than firefighters, police officers, and
lifeguards.
12
conditioned on some approval of . . . funding relief” going forward. Blum opined
that the MP2 represented a “proper exercise” of the Board‟s fiduciary duties.
Actuary Roeder offered a series of opinions about the positive and negative
aspects of the proposal but no bottom line conclusion.
A vote on the MP2 was taken, and the Board approved it, 10 to 2.
Defendants Vattimo, Webster, Wilkinson, Torres, and Saathoff, as well as trustees
Casey, Crow, Garnica, Pierce, and Vortmann, voted for the contract. Trustees
Rhodes and Shipione voted against it. Defendant Lexin was absent. The final
MP2 agreement was approved by the City and signed by the Board on December
3, 2002, and by the City on December 11. Under its terms, the 82.3 percent
trigger would be kept in place, but in the event the trigger was hit, the City would
be given until 2009 to reach the actuarial rate, rather than having to pay a $25
million balloon payment within one year.9
III. PROCEDURAL HISTORY
In May 2005, the Lexin defendants were charged with felony violations of
section 1090. After a preliminary hearing, a magistrate found probable cause to
suspect the Lexin defendants had violated the conflict of interest laws.
9
We note that the MP2 did not survive for long. In 2003, a series of class
action lawsuits were filed alleging (1) the City had violated both the City charter
and its municipal code by underfunding the City pension fund, and (2) the
SDCERS Board had violated section 1090 and breached its fiduciary duties by
agreeing to the MP1 and MP2. (Gleason v. San Diego City Employees’
Retirement System (Super. Ct. San Diego, 2003, No. GIC 803779); Gleason v. San
Diego City Employees’ Retirement System (Super. Ct. San Diego, 2003, No. GIC
810837); Wiseman v. Board of Administration of the San Diego City Employees’
Retirement System (Super. Ct. San Diego, 2003, No. GIC 811756).) In 2004, the
City and SDCERS Board settled these actions. Under the settlement, the City
agreed to resume actuarially based contributions in lieu of following the schedule
provided for by the MP2.
13
The magistrate concluded the Lexin defendants had participated in the
making of the MP2. He also found sufficient evidence had been presented to
support a reasonable suspicion that the Lexin defendants were financially
interested in the MP2 because pension benefit increases were contingent on its
approval. As to defendant Saathoff, the magistrate specifically found that whether
Saathoff‟s individual union president benefit was also contingent on the Board‟s
granting the City contribution relief was a question of fact, and at least one line of
evidence supported the conclusion that it was contingent. Finally, the magistrate
rejected the Lexin defendants‟ defense that a statutory exception to section 1090,
the government salary exception (§ 1091.5(a)(9)), applied because he concluded
pension benefits were not “salary” within the meaning of the statute. Each Lexin
defendant was bound over for trial.
After an information was filed, the Lexin defendants moved to set it aside
(Pen. Code, § 995), alleging inter alia that (1) section 1090 did not apply to their
actions, and (2) even if it did, their interest in the contract, i.e., pension benefits,
constituted government salary and was permitted under section 1091.5(a)(9).
The trial court denied the motion. In holding there was probable cause to
believe the Lexin defendants had violated section 1090, the trial court explained
that, in its view, by participating in discussions concerning MP1 modification at a
time when the City‟s tentative MOU‟s made enhanced pension benefits contingent
on rate relief, and by approving a counterproposal modifying the MP1 trigger, the
Lexin defendants had made a contract in which they had a financial interest. The
trial court also rejected the Lexin defendants‟ section 1091.5(a)(9) defense,
concluding that the defense applied only to a financial interest in government
“salary, per diem, or reimbursement for expenses” (§ 1091.5(a)(9)), categories not
intended to include pension benefits.
14
The Lexin defendants filed a petition for a writ of prohibition with the
Court of Appeal, seeking the issuance of a writ ordering the trial court to grant
their motion to set aside the information. The Court of Appeal summarily denied
the petition. We granted review and transferred the matter to the Court of Appeal
for issuance of an order to show cause. On remand, the Court of Appeal again
denied review, this time in a published opinion. Recognizing that retirement
benefits are just a deferred form of employment compensation, the appellate court
disagreed with the trial court‟s conclusion that under section 1091.5(a)(9) pensions
were not salary. It nevertheless rejected application of section 1091.5(a)(9)
because, it concluded, the benefits of the contracts at issue flowed to the respective
individual departments of the Lexin defendants, and section 1091.5(a)(9) was
inapposite when one‟s own department was directly involved in a contract. It
further rejected the Lexin defendants‟ alternate statutory ground for relief, the
public services exception (§ 1091.5(a)(3)), primarily because it concluded the
provision of pension benefits was not a “public service[] generally provided”
(ibid.) within the meaning of that provision.
We granted review to resolve the significant questions of first impression
this case raises concerning the application of the state‟s conflict of interest laws.
DISCUSSION
Penal Code section 995 allows a defendant to challenge an information
based on the sufficiency of the record made before the magistrate at the
preliminary hearing. (People v. Crudgington (1979) 88 Cal.App.3d 295, 299.) In
reviewing the denial of a Penal Code section 995 motion to set aside an
information, we “in effect disregard[] the ruling of the superior court and directly
review[] the determination of the magistrate holding the defendant to answer.”
(People v. Laiwa (1983) 34 Cal.3d 711, 718; accord, People v. San Nicolas (2004)
34 Cal.4th 614, 654.) Insofar as the Penal Code section 995 motion rests on issues
15
of statutory interpretation, our review is de novo. (People v. Superior Court
(Ferguson) (2005) 132 Cal.App.4th 1525, 1529.) Insofar as it rests on
consideration of the evidence adduced, we must draw all reasonable inferences in
favor of the information (Rideout v. Superior Court (1967) 67 Cal.2d 471, 474;
People v. Gnass (2002) 101 Cal.App.4th 1271, 1288-1289) and decide whether
there is probable cause to hold the defendants to answer, i.e., whether the evidence
is such that “a reasonable person could harbor a strong suspicion of the
defendant‟s guilt” (Cooley v. Superior Court (2002) 29 Cal.4th 228, 251; accord,
People v. Slaughter (1984) 35 Cal.3d 629, 636; People v. Uhlemann (1973) 9
Cal.3d 662, 667).
I. SECTION 1090 AND PROHIBITED CONFLICTS OF INTEREST
Section 1090 provides in relevant part: “Members of the Legislature, state,
county, district, judicial district, and city officers or employees shall not be
financially interested in any contract made by them in their official capacity, or by
any body or board of which they are members.” It codifies the long-standing
common law rule that barred public officials from being personally financially
interested in the contracts they formed in their official capacities. (Brandenburg v.
Eureka Redevelopment Agency (2007) 152 Cal.App.4th 1350, 1361; People v.
Honig (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 289, 317 [“Section 1090, it has been said, is an
embodiment of the common law with respect to conflicts of interest.”].)10
10
As early as 1851, the Legislature acted to bar any government official or
legislator from being “interested in any Contract made by such Officer or
Legislature of which he is a member; or be[ing] a purchaser, or be[ing] interested
in any purchase at any sale made by such Officer, or a seller at any purchase made
by such Officer in the discharge of his official duties.” (Stats. 1851, ch. 136, § 2,
p. 522; see Brandenburg v. Eureka Redevelopment Agency, supra, 152
Cal.App.4th at p. 1362.) The prohibition was later codified in former section 920
of the Political Code and, in 1943, moved with only minor changes to the
(footnote continued on next page)
16
The common law rule and section 1090 recognize “[t]he truism that a
person cannot serve two masters simultaneously . . . .” (Thomson v. Call (1985)
38 Cal.3d 633, 637; see Stockton P. & S. Co. v. Wheeler (1924) 68 Cal.App. 592,
601 [the bar against being financially interested in the contracts one makes in an
official capacity “is evolved from the self-evident truth, as trite and impregnable
as the law of gravitation, that no person can, at one and the same time, faithfully
serve two masters representing diverse or inconsistent interests with respect to the
service to be performed”].) “The evil to be thwarted by section 1090 is easily
identified: If a public official is pulled in one direction by his financial interest
and in another direction by his official duties, his judgment cannot and should not
be trusted, even if he attempts impartiality.” (Carson Redevelopment Agency v.
Padilla (2006) 140 Cal.App.4th 1323, 1330.) Where public and private interests
diverge, the full and fair representation of the public interest is jeopardized.
Accordingly, section 1090 is concerned with ferreting out any financial
conflicts of interest, other than remote or minimal ones, that might impair public
officials from discharging their fiduciary duties with undivided loyalty and
allegiance to the public entities they are obligated to serve. (Stigall v. City of Taft
(1962) 58 Cal.2d 565, 569.) Where a prohibited interest is found, the affected
contract is void from its inception (Thomson v. Call, supra, 38 Cal.3d at p. 646 &
fn. 15) and the official who engaged in its making is subject to a host of civil and
(if the violation was willful) criminal penalties, including imprisonment and
disqualification from holding public office in perpetuity (§ 1097; see People v.
Honig, supra, 48 Cal.App.4th at pp. 333-338).
(footnote continued from previous page)
Government Code. (Former Pol. Code, § 920, enacted 1872, repealed by Stats.
1943, ch. 134, § 1, p. 956; see now Gov. Code, § 1090.)
17
The Legislature has ameliorated the harsh consequences of section 1090 by
creating two categories of interests subject to lesser or no restrictions. First,
section 1091 defines a series of “ „remote interest[s].‟ ” Where an interest is
remote, a board member may comply with section 1090 by making full disclosure
of the interest, noted in the entity‟s official records, and abstaining from voting on
the affected contract or influencing other board members in any way. (§ 1091;
People v. Honig, supra, 48 Cal.App.4th at p. 317; 89 Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen. 121, 123
(2006), hereafter Fellows.)
Second, section 1091.5 defines a series of noninterests (also occasionally
referred to as “minimal interests,” e.g., People v. Honig, supra, 48 Cal.App.4th at
p. 318), interests that, while technically within the scope of the financial interests
covered by section 1090, as a practical matter do not raise the sorts of conflict of
interest problems with which section 1090 is concerned and thus are statutorily
excluded from its purview. (83 Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen. 246, 247 (2000), hereafter
Cardoza [§ 1091.5 identifies instances where “the Legislature has determined that
the particular interest is insufficient to merit application of the prohibition”].)
While a section 1091 remote interest requires disclosure and abstention, a section
1091.5 noninterest generally is no bar at all to participation in the making of a
contract, though in some instances the definition of the noninterest includes
specific disclosure requirements. (E.g., § 1091.5, subd. (a)(7) [requiring
disclosure of nonsalaried membership in a nonprofit corporation]; § 1091.5(a)(9)
[requiring disclosure of government salary interest]; see 89 Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen.
217, 220 (2006), hereafter Strickland.)
To determine whether section 1090 has been violated, a court must identify
(1) whether the defendant government officials or employees participated in the
making of a contract in their official capacities, (2) whether the defendants had a
cognizable financial interest in that contract, and (3) (if raised as an affirmative
18
defense) whether the cognizable interest falls within any one of section 1091‟s or
section 1091.5‟s exceptions for remote or minimal interests.11 (§§ 1090, 1091,
1091.5; People v. Gnass, supra, 101 Cal.App.4th at p. 1288, fn. 6; People v.
Honig, supra, 48 Cal.App.4th at p. 322.) Proof of a violation of section 1097, the
provision criminalizing violations of section 1090, requires a further showing that
the section 1090 violation was knowing and willful. (§ 1097; Gnass, at p. 1305;
Honig, at pp. 333-338.)
II. APPLICABILITY OF SECTION 1090
What differentiates section 1090 from other conflict of interest statutes such
as the Political Reform Act of 1974 (Political Reform Act) (§ 87100 et seq.) is its
focus on the making of a contract in which one has an impermissible interest.
(People v. Honig, supra, 48 Cal.App.4th at p. 333.)12 The information alleges the
Lexin defendants illegally made the MP2 contract. The evidence supports, indeed
is undisputed, that the Lexin defendants participated in the making of the MP2
contract.13 Furthermore, the evidence is such that a reasonable person could
conclude the Lexin defendants had two separate financial interests in that contract.
11
Other affirmative defenses, such as the rule of necessity, may also apply.
(See Finnegan v. Schrader (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 572, 581; Eldridge v. Sierra
View Local Hospital Dist. (1990) 224 Cal.App.3d 311, 321-322; 65
Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen. 305, 309-310 (1982).)
12
For example, while section 1090 is confined to the making of contracts, the
Political Reform Act applies more broadly to cover participation in any
“governmental decision” in which one has a financial interest. (See § 87100.)
13
In this court, the People argue for the first time that the Lexin defendants
also illegally participated in making each of three 2002 MOU‟s between the City
and its various unions, and that a section 1090 violation can be predicated on their
involvement in these MOU‟s. While these allegations were not included in the
information, the People are free to seek, or a court may order sua sponte,
amendment to add additional claims, so long as those claims are supported by
(footnote continued on next page)
19
“[T]he term „financially interested‟ in section 1090 cannot be interpreted in
a restricted and technical manner.” (People v. Honig, supra, 48 Cal.App.4th at
p. 315.) The defining characteristic of a prohibited financial interest is whether it
has the potential to divide an official‟s loyalties and compromise the undivided
representation of the public interests the official is charged with protecting. (See
Stigall v. City of Taft, supra, 58 Cal.2d at p. 569.) Thus, that the interest “might be
small or indirect is immaterial so long as it is such as deprives the [people] of his
overriding fidelity to [them] and places him in the compromising situation where,
in the exercise of his official judgment or discretion, he may be influenced by
personal considerations rather than the public good.” (Terry v. Bender (1956) 143
Cal.App.2d 198, 208; see also Thomson v. Call, supra, 38 Cal.3d at p. 645 [direct
and indirect interests are equally prohibited].)
The Lexin defendants participated in making a contract between the
SDCERS, on whose Board they served, and the City, for which they each worked
and from which they would receive present and future employment compensation.
Under section 1090, this is a potential conflict of interest; indeed, it is a
paradigmatic conflict of interest. We and the Courts of Appeal have long
recognized that where public officials on behalf of a public entity participate in
making a contract with a second entity for which they work, the scenario poses at
(footnote continued from previous page)
evidence taken at the preliminary hearing. (Pen. Code, § 1009; People v. Graham
(1974) 38 Cal.App.3d 251, 255.) However, we need not decide whether the Lexin
defendants also made each MOU. As the People correctly note, irrespective of
whether the Lexin defendants can be treated as having made any of the MOU‟s,
we can still consider any financial benefits to the Lexin defendants arising from
the MOU‟s to the extent their execution was linked to approval of the MP2.
Accordingly, on the facts as presented at the preliminary hearing, the issue
whether the Lexin defendants made any of the MOU‟s is not dispositive.
20
least the risk that the officials will be compromised by serving “two masters.”
(Thomson v. Call, supra, 38 Cal.3d at p. 645 & fn. 14; People v. Gnass, supra, 101
Cal.App.4th at p. 1303; Miller v. City of Martinez (1938) 28 Cal.App.2d 364, 370
[contract with the petroleum company for which a city council member works is
void]; see also 86 Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen. 138, 139-140 (2003) [contract with a city
council member‟s law firm is not permitted].)
The People focus on a second set of alleged interests: the Lexin
defendants‟ interest in enhanced pension benefits arising from the various City
MOU‟s and from defendant Saathoff‟s incumbent union president benefit. The
Lexin defendants, the People argue, considered whether to pass the MP2 proposal
at a time when approving it would have satisfied a condition inserted in the
MOU‟s and enhanced the likelihood of future benefits for them. Engaging in such
deliberations at a time when they stood to benefit financially from approval of the
MP2, and ultimately approving it, constitutes the making of a contract in which
they had a prohibited financial interest.
The record offers substantial evidence such that a reasonable person could
believe as much. SDCERS Board approval of a contribution rate reduction was
inserted as a condition precedent in each of the City‟s MOU‟s with the MEA, the
Firefighters, the POA, and AFSCME in May 2002. Also in May, the City
tentatively approved an incumbent union president benefit for defendant Saathoff.
With the contingency in place, the City presented, and the SDCERS Board
considered, a rate reduction agreement at meetings in June and July. On July 11,
the SDCERS Board preliminarily approved the MP2, which granted the City relief
from having to make an immediate $25 million payment if pension funding fell
below the 82.3 percent trigger. Each of the Lexin defendants participated in these
deliberations and the July 11 vote.
21
Evidence in the record further supports the conclusion that the City viewed
the preliminary approval of the MP2 as sufficient to satisfy the MOU
contingencies and, in reliance on it, thereafter agreed to remove the contingencies
and award the additional pension benefits. In October 2002, MOU‟s were signed
that dropped the condition precedent and the City separately passed a resolution
formally approving Saathoff‟s benefit. In November, the MP2 was finalized, and
in December it was signed.
In response, the Lexin defendants argue they had no conflict of interest
because any linkage between the MOU‟s and the MP2 contract had been severed
by the time the SDCERS Board finally approved the MP2 contract in November
2002. However, that all MOU contingencies technically were first removed is, for
purposes of section 1090, not dispositive. If the record is otherwise sufficient to
support an inference that the Lexin defendants participated in making a contract in
which they were financially interested, evidence of severance will not at this stage
rebut it.
The essence of this point we established nearly half a century ago. In
Stigall v. City of Taft, supra, 58 Cal.2d 565, we considered whether the following
scenario violated section 1090: A city council member owned shares in a
plumbing company and also was head of the city‟s building committee. The city
solicited bids for plumbing work, with the council member‟s company submitting
the low bid. In short order, the city council member resigned from the city council
and, after accepting his resignation, the city council voted to award the contract to
his company. We concluded such a scenario could in fact violate section 1090,
notwithstanding that the council member technically had removed himself from
the city council before a final, formal contract was approved. As we there
explained, an interpretation of section 1090 that focused only on contract
formalities might permit the following subterfuge: “A council member could
22
participate in all negotiations giving a contract its substance and meaning, be
instrumental in establishing specifications and schedules most advantageous to his
or his firm‟s particular mode of operation, participate in the selection of his or his
firm‟s offer, resign just prior to formal acceptance of that offer and execute the
contract as the other party thereto.” (Stigall, at p. 570.)
Similarly, in Thomson v. Call, supra, 38 Cal.3d 633, a city council
approved rezoning that would allow a private developer to construct a high-rise
complex and in a separate action also agreed to have the developer acquire certain
private lands for conveyance to the city for creation of a city park. Thereafter, the
developer purchased the private land from, inter alia, one of the city council‟s
members. No purchase contract existed at the time the city council gave its zoning
approval, and the contract had neither an express term nor a condition that the
developer purchase any land from the affected council member. Nevertheless, all
parties contemplated that the subsequent land purchase would occur. That, we
concluded, was enough to establish a financial interest in the actions taken earlier
and ultimately to violate section 1090. (Thomson v. Call, at pp. 644-646; see also
People v. Gnass, supra, 101 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1299-1301 [financial interest
extends to expected or foreseeable future benefits]; People v. Vallerga (1977) 67
Cal.App.3d 847, 866-867 [same].)
Here too, it matters not that any contingencies linking the MOU‟s and the
MP2 were removed before formal, final execution of the MP2. From the
preliminary hearing record, a reasonable person could conclude the Lexin
defendants considered and preliminarily approved the MP2 when they stood to
benefit financially from its execution. From that same record a reasonable person
could also conclude that the contingencies were removed only because all
concerned believed the preliminary approval the Lexin defendants and the
SDCERS Board gave for the MP2 would ripen into signed, contractually binding
23
rate relief for the City. Thus, the evidence supports the People‟s argument that the
Lexin defendants were financially interested in the making of the MP2.
The financial interest for defendant Saathoff is slightly different; it
allegedly arose from the incumbent union president benefit, rather than from a
pension formula multiplier increase. The Lexin defendants argue there is no proof
this benefit was conditioned on any specific action by Saathoff or the SDCERS
Board and it thus was not a financial interest in the MP2. At this stage of the
proceedings, however, the only question we may ask is whether a reasonable
person could harbor a “strong suspicion” of a connection between the benefit and
the SDCERS Board approving the MP2. (People v. Uhlemann, supra, 9 Cal.3d at
p. 667.) The magistrate concluded it was at least a question of fact whether one
could infer from the sequence of events in the negotiations an implicit message
that the incumbent union president benefit would be looked on more favorably if
the SDCERS provided rate relief. We agree.
While the evidence is disputed, for purposes of a Penal Code section 995
motion we focus on the evidence supporting an inference that Saathoff‟s benefit
was contingent on the Board‟s granting the City rate relief. Circumstantially, in
April 2002, City negotiators recommended refusing to extend the incumbent union
president benefit to Saathoff. In May, the city council met and, against that
recommendation, favored extending the benefit to Saathoff. However, final
approval of the benefit was withheld until October, after Saathoff had presented
the counterproposal that became the MP2.
More directly, in a May 21 e-mail from defendant Webster to Michael
McGhee, a lead City negotiator on the Firefighters contract, Webster asked: “The
[Firefighters] write up you sent out did not state that their increased offset was
contingent on the Board [re]laxing the trigger . . . . I thought ALL retirement
improvements (including the preside[n]tial leave (?)) were contingent on the
24
trigger . . . . [E]specially need Ron [Saathoff] behind releasing the trigger since he
runs the show at [SD]CERS . . . .” In an e-mail reply, McGhee confirmed the
retirement benefits were contingent. At the preliminary hearing, McGhee testified
that he understood Saathoff‟s incumbent union president benefit was contingent on
the SDCERS Board providing relief.
“[P]rohibited financial interests are not limited to express agreements for
benefit and need not be proven by direct evidence. Rather, forbidden interests
extend to expectations of benefit by express or implied agreement and may be
inferred from the circumstances.” (People v. Honig, supra, 48 Cal.App.4th at
p. 315; accord, People v. Gnass, supra, 101 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1298-1299.) At the
stage of a motion to set aside the information, the People‟s evidence is, under this
standard, strong enough to proceed.
We turn to the question whether any exception applies that categorically
excludes the Lexin defendants‟ interests from the scope of section 1090. As we
shall explain, each financial interest the Lexin defendants arguably had is (at least
as to five of the six Lexin defendants) covered by an exception. First, any
financial interest the Lexin defendants had arising from the formal fact of their
employment with the City falls within section 1091.5(a)(9). Second, while any
financial interest arising from linkage between the MP2 and the MOU‟s falls
outside section 1091.5(a)(9), it is nevertheless covered by section 1091.5(a)(3).
Finally, as to defendant Saathoff, we conclude no exception covers his alleged
interest in an incumbent union president benefit and accordingly the prosecution
of Saathoff may proceed.
25
III. THE “GOVERNMENT SALARY” EXCEPTION (SECTION 1091.5(a)(9))
A. Interpretation of Section 1091.5(a)(9)
Like the parties, we focus first on section 1091.5(a)(9), the government
salary exception. Under that exception, “[a]n officer or employee shall not be
deemed to be interested in a contract if his or her interest is any of the following:
[¶] . . . [¶] (9) That of a person receiving salary, per diem, or reimbursement for
expenses from a government entity, unless the contract directly involves the
department of the government entity that employs the officer or employee,
provided that the interest is disclosed to the body or board at the time of
consideration of the contract, and provided further that the interest is noted in its
official record.” (§ 1091.5(a)(9).)
In analyzing the exception‟s scope, we will, as in every case of statutory
interpretation, begin with its language. (Microsoft Corp. v. Franchise Tax Bd.
(2006) 39 Cal.4th 750, 758.) If the language is clear, our search for meaning is at
an end; if it is ambiguous, we may then turn to other tools to divine the
Legislature‟s intent. (Ibid.)
The language of the government salary exception suggests it was intended
to apply to situations where the body or board of which an official is a member is
contemplating a contract with — or on behalf of — a government entity for which
the official also works. “Body or board” is used in section 1090, and again in
section 1091.5(a)(9), to reference the entity of which the official is a member and
which he or she is serving “in [his or her] official capacity.” (§ 1090.)
“Government entity” is used in section 1091.5(a)(9) to reference the party to the
prospective contract with whom the official has an employment relationship.
Nothing in the language of the statute compels a reading that the “government
entity” need be distinct from the “body or board.” Thus, the provision may apply
26
both to contracts made with one‟s employer and contracts made on behalf of one‟s
employer.
The text suggests a second point. Section 1091.5(a)(9) creates an exception
to the government salary exception for situations where the contract “directly
involves the department of the government entity that employs the officer or
employee . . . .” (Italics added.) Thus, section 1091.5(a)(9) assumes the covered
interest is an interest in an existing employment relationship.
The exception to the exception, for contracts that “directly involve[]” the
official‟s or employee‟s own department, limits this provision slightly. We infer
that while the subdivision was intended to excuse an existing government
employment relationship as itself insufficient to give rise to a conflict, where a
particular contract involved the official‟s own department, the risk that it might
have personal impacts, generating additional income or other benefits for the
employed official, was in the Legislature‟s eyes too great a risk to permit. Thus,
while section 1091.5(a)(9) excludes from section 1090 an existing interest in
government salary, it does not permit contracts — those with or directly involving
one‟s own department — that pose a risk of potentially changing the official‟s
salary or other employment financial interests. Prophylactically, contracts directly
affecting the official‟s department are excluded.
We recognize, however, that section 1091.5(a)(9) is no model of clarity; its
text alone is insufficiently clear to establish definitively its meaning. (See People
v. Gnass, supra, 101 Cal.App.4th at p. 1302 [“We are at somewhat of a loss to
figure out what section 1091.5, subdivision (a)(9) means from its language
alone.”]; 78 Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen. 362, 369 (1995), hereafter Aguiar [“The scope of
subdivision (a)(9) is not readily apparent.”].) We thus turn to other sources such
as legislative history to supplement our understanding. (See Microsoft Corp. v.
Franchise Tax Bd., supra, 39 Cal.4th at p. 758.)
27
Here, the legislative history strongly supports the reading suggested by the
text. Under the statutory scheme prior to 1991, it had been a conflict of interest
for an individual who was separately employed by a public entity to participate in
the making of contracts involving that public entity. Thus, it would have been
illegal for an individual who worked as a city police officer, in his simultaneous
capacity as a city council member, to also vote on any contracts the city made,
because he had a financial interest (his salary) in one of the parties to all such
contracts (the city for whom he worked). (See Assem. Com. on Elections,
Reapportionment, and Const. Amends., 3d reading analysis of Assem. Bill No.
1402 (1991-1992 Reg. Sess.) as amended May 15, 1991, p. 1; Sen. Com. on
Governmental Organization, background information request for Assem. Bill No.
1402 (1991-1992 Reg. Sess.) as introduced Mar. 7, 1991, p. 1.)
The Legislature added section 1091.5(a)(9) to reduce the number of such
conflicts by limiting section 1090‟s prohibition to a public employee‟s
participation in contracts affecting the specific department for which the employee
works. (See Assem. Com. on Elections, Reapportionment, and Const. Amends.,
3d reading analysis of Assem. Bill No. 1402 (1991-1992 Reg. Sess.) as amended
May 15, 1991, p. 1.) Thus, the aforementioned city council member/police officer
could not make contracts relating to the police department, but would now be
permitted to participate in making other city contracts, as those would not directly
affect or benefit his own employment status. (Ibid.; see Assem. Com. on
Elections, Reapportionment, and Const. Amends., Republican Analysis of Assem.
Bill No. 1402 (1991-1992 Reg. Sess.) as introduced Mar. 7, 1991, p. 1 [bill
“simply clarifies the practice of participating in decisions that do not directly
benefit the city councilmember”].)
The 1991 legislation, as noted, still treated as a conflict of interest a public
employee‟s participation in any contract dealing with the specific department for
28
which that employee worked. (Assem. Com. on Elections, Reapportionment, and
Const. Amends., 3d reading analysis of Assem. Bill No. 1402 (1991-1992 Reg.
Sess.) as amended May 15, 1991, p. 1; Aguiar, supra, 78 Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen. at pp.
370-372.) In 1999, the Legislature clarified that in this circumstance, absent any
personal financial gain, the interest involved would be only a remote interest under
section 1091, so a board with an affected member could still act provided the
affected member recused himself or herself. (§ 1091, subd. (b)(13), added by
Stats. 1999, ch. 349, § 1.) The intent of the amendment was to “define as a
„remote interest‟ a situation where the contract is with the specific unit that
employs the official which does not result in any direct financial gain to that
official.” (Assem. Com. on Local Government, Analysis of Sen. Bill No. 689
(1999-2000 Reg. Sess.) as amended June 30, 1999, p. 2, italics added.)
Thus, while the 1999 amendment adding section 1091, subdivision (b)(13)
relaxed the prohibition against contracting in a way that affected one‟s own
department, it did so only so long as the contract in question would not result in
personal financial gain. By inference, that same restriction is implied in section
1091.5(a)(9). If a contract with an employee‟s own department qualifies as a
remote interest, so long as it involves no direct financial gain to the employee,
then a contract with one‟s government employer not directly affecting one‟s own
department may qualify as a noninterest, provided it too does not involve direct
financial gain. Section 1091.5(a)(9) excuses conflicts that arise from the identity
of the party with or on whose behalf one is contracting (one‟s employer, other than
one‟s own specific department), but not conflicts that arise from the actual terms
of the contract.
The result is a logical statutory scheme. If a contract an official considers
in his or her official capacity is with the official‟s government employer and
involves direct financial gain, the official is prohibited from participating under
29
section 1090. If the contract involves no direct financial gain, but is with or
affects the official‟s own department, the official‟s interest is a remote interest
under section 1091, subdivision (b)(13) and subject to the disclosure and recusal
requirements of section 1091. Finally, if the contract involves no direct financial
gain, does not directly affect the official‟s employing department, and is only with
the general government entity for which the official works, the interest is a
minimal or noninterest under section 1091.5(a)(9) and no conflict of interest
prohibition applies.
Court of Appeal and Attorney General opinions interpreting section
1091.5(a)(9) are consistent with this understanding. For example, in Strickland,
supra, 89 Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen. 217, the Attorney General considered whether a
community college district board member could participate in collective
bargaining negotiations when his own personal health benefits, as a retired faculty
member, were directly tied to those of the faculty with whom the district board
would be negotiating. The Attorney General correctly concluded that,
notwithstanding section 1091, subdivision (b)(13) and section 1091.5(a)(9), the
board member could not. (Strickland, at p. 221 & fn. 6.) While the retirement
health benefits qualified as government salary for purposes of the two provisions,
the contract nevertheless created a personal financial interest — the board
member‟s health benefits would rise or fall according to the results of the
negotiations. The board member thus faced a “two masters” problem: as a board
member he was obligated to conserve the district‟s resources, while personally he
stood to benefit if the board was lavish in increasing faculty benefits.
In People v. Gnass, supra, 101 Cal.App.4th 1271, the leading Court of
Appeal treatment of section 1091.5(a)(9), the court likewise recognized that the
provision was not intended to insulate all participation in contracts that carry the
prospect of changes in one‟s own government salary. In Gnass, a city attorney
30
was criminally prosecuted for (1) representing his city‟s public financing authority
in forming a series of joint powers agencies and then (2) being hired by the
resulting joint powers agencies to serve as bond disclosure counsel for the
subsequent floating of public bonds. Defendant Gnass moved to set aside the
indictment on, inter alia, the ground that the grand jury should have been
instructed on section 1091.5(a)(9) as a potential defense. The Court of Appeal
correctly concluded the provision did not apply. It reasoned that the provision
should be “understood to apply to contracts under consideration between two
public agencies, one of which employs the interested person. Where, for example,
the person is an employee of public agency A and a board member of public
agency B (or is otherwise in a position to influence agency B‟s decision), a
conflict of interest might arise if agency B were considering making a contract
with agency A.” (Gnass, at p. 1303.) In such a scenario, a court would then be
called upon to decide whether the requisites of section 1091.5(a)(9) had been
satisfied. In contrast, the case before the Gnass court involved no such contract
between two existing government entities, with an employment relationship with
the second entity already extant; rather, it involved participation in a contract that
carried with it the prospect of future new government employment. (Gnass, at
p. 1303 [“Gnass‟s conflict of interest, if any, existed before the [new joint powers
agencies] were created, on the chance that, if they were, he might be hired as
disclosure counsel.”].) As Gnass and Strickland, supra, 89 Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen.
217, demonstrate, that a financial interest involves only government salary is a
necessary, but not sufficient, condition for section 1091.5(a)(9) to apply; contracts
that may result in future changes to one‟s government compensation are still
excluded from the exception.
In contrast, where the financial interest is only in an existing government
salary, and the proposed contract is generally with one‟s employer but carries no
31
prospect of personal financial benefit, the section 1091, subdivision (b)(13) and
section 1091.5(a)(9) exceptions may apply. Thus, a deputy county counsel can
serve on a city council and participate in making a contract for law enforcement
services between the city and county that does not involve the county counsel‟s
office and thus qualifies for an exception under section 1091.5(a)(9) (85
Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen. 115, 117-119 (2002), hereafter Battersby); a city council
member can participate in approving a contract for law enforcement services with
another city for which the council member once worked, and from which he
receives benefits, because those benefits will be unaffected by the contract (85
Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen. 6, 7 (2002)); and a deputy sheriff can serve on a city council
and, provided he recuses himself under section 1091, subdivision (b)(13), the rest
of the council may negotiate with the county sheriff for the provision of police
services (Cardoza, supra, 83 Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen. at pp. 248-250).
To summarize: section 1091.5(a)(9), the government salary exception,
applies to at least two archetypal scenarios. The first, the scenario the Legislature
expressly contemplated, involves a first party contract: an official has an existing
employment relationship with government entity A and also, in a separate
capacity, has the power to make or influence contracts made by A (other than
those sought by his or her own specific department), as with the city police
officer/city council member. (Assem. Com. on Elections, Reapportionment, and
Const. Amends., 3d reading analysis of Assem. Bill No. 1402 (1991-1992 Reg.
Sess.) as amended May 15, 1991, p. 1; Sen. Com. on Governmental Organization,
background information request for Assem. Bill No. 1402 (1991-1992 Reg. Sess.)
as introduced Mar. 7, 1991, p. 1.)14 The second involves a second party contract:
14
Relying on Strickland, supra, 89 Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen. 217, and People v.
Gnass, supra, 101 Cal.App.4th 1271, the People argue section 1091.5(a)(9)
(footnote continued on next page)
32
an official who makes or influences contracts on behalf of government entity A is
put in a position of considering a contract with government entity B, for which he
or she also works. (See, e.g., Battersby, supra, 85 Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen. 115.) In
each of these scenarios, section 1091.5(a)(9) is a defense if one‟s financial interest
in a proposed contract is only the present interest in an existing employment
relationship with a first or second party to the proposed contract, and thus an
interest in whatever indirect or incidental benefits might arise from the simple fact
of contracting with or on behalf of one‟s employer. It does not extend further to
contracts that more directly affect one‟s interests by involving one‟s own
department, or most directly affect one‟s interests by actually altering the terms of
one‟s employment; such interests directly implicate the “two masters” problems
section 1090 was designed to eliminate.15
(footnote continued from previous page)
applies only to contracts between two separate public agencies, and the contracts
here do not qualify. We disagree. The legislative history surrounding section
1091.5(a)(9)‟s adoption expressly contemplates application of the subdivision
where, for instance, a city employee is also a city council member of the same
city. Every city contract would arguably impact the employee, who draws a salary
from the city coffers — even contracts with private entities and thus involving
only a single public agency. Nevertheless, the Legislature apparently intended
section 1091.5(a)(9) to apply to such contracts to the extent they otherwise meet
the provision‟s requirements. (See Assem. Com. on Elections, Reapportionment,
and Const. Amends., 3d reading analysis of Assem. Bill No. 1402 (1991-1992
Reg. Sess.) as amended May 15, 1991, p. 1; Sen. Com. on Governmental
Organization, background information request for Assem. Bill No. 1402 (1991-
1992 Reg. Sess.) as introduced Mar. 7, 1991, p. 1.)
15
The Lexin defendants‟ position — that section 1091.5(a)(9) insulates any
interest, so long as it is an interest in government salary — is thus considerably too
broad. It would permit board members to freely select and hire themselves out for
any number of new government positions, or to act in their official capacities to
modify their own individual salaries without resort to the rule of necessity. This is
not now, nor has it ever been, the law. (See, e.g., Finnegan v. Schrader, supra, 91
Cal.App.4th 572 [§ 1090 prohibits a district board from hiring one of the board‟s
(footnote continued on next page)
33
B. Application of Section 1091.5(a)(9)
We consider section 1091.5(a)(9)‟s application to the two financial interests
we have identified: the Lexin defendants‟ interests arising from their ongoing
employment with the City and their interests arising from 2002 changes to their
pension benefits.
The application of the provision to the first set of interests is undisputed;
indeed, the People have never identified these interests as illicit. We nevertheless
address them briefly by way of illustration of the sorts of interests section
1091.5(a)(9) was intended to encompass.
The Lexin defendants are City employees. In their official capacities, they
participated in formation of a contract between the SDCERS Board, on which they
serve, and the City. Their interests fall squarely within section 1090; they had an
employment contract with the entity with which they were negotiating. In the
abstract, there is a concern that public officials negotiating with another entity for
which they work will have divided loyalties and fail to ensure that the agency they
represent (here, SDCERS) obtains the best deal from the entity that employs them
(here, the City).
However, these interests also fall squarely within the bounds of section
1091.5(a)(9). The Lexin defendants‟ interests in their existing employment
contracts consisted of government salary, disclosed to all as a matter of public
record (given especially that their City employment was a necessary condition of
(footnote continued from previous page)
own members to be the district manager]; cf. Thorpe v. Long Beach Community
College Dist. (2000) 83 Cal.App.4th 655, 664-665 [interpreting § 1091.5, subd.
(a)(6) as permitting contracts that maintain the “status quo” of a spouse‟s
government employment but not extending to contracts that would involve a
promotion and pay increase].)
34
their service on the Board). The MP2 contract was with the City as a whole.
Section 1091.5(a)(9) allowed the Lexin defendants, as a general matter, to contract
with the City notwithstanding that the City also employed them; the Legislature
has deemed such an interest sufficiently inconsequential as to not raise concerns of
divided loyalty.
However, section 1091.5(a)(9) is not a complete defense because of the
existence of a second set of interests, the pension changes, to which the
provision‟s application is equally clear: to wit, it does not apply. As we have
explained, this provision was never intended to permit government officials to
negotiate prospective changes in their own government compensation. The
preliminary hearing evidence would allow a reasonable person to conclude the
Lexin defendants did so here; they participated in discussions of the MP2 when it
was linked to pension increases in various City MOU‟s, pension increases that
would apply to each of the Lexin defendants other than Saathoff. Additionally, as
the trial court found, the evidence was sufficient to at least raise a factual issue
whether Saathoff‟s incumbent union president benefit was a quid pro quo for
actions he took in connection with the MP2.
The Lexin defendants contend the Court of Appeal erred in concluding
section 1091.5(a)(9) did not apply because of the “department” proviso, the
exception to the exception for contracts “directly involv[ing]” one‟s own
department. (§ 1091.5(a)(9).) We need not reach this issue because the benefits at
issue here, direct changes to personal compensation, do not come within the
exception for existing interests in government salary in the first instance. This
obviates the question whether, if they did, the department proviso might then
exclude them from the exception.
In concluding section 1091.5(a)(9) does not apply here, we do not mean to
suggest there are not any number of other bases that may in particular well-defined
35
circumstances permit officials to negotiate contracts affecting their personal
salaries, as when the rule of necessity applies, when an official or employee is not
acting in an official capacity but on behalf of, for example, a collective bargaining
unit, or when some other exception to section 1090 applies. We next consider
another such exception pressed by the Lexin defendants — section 1091.5(a)(3).
IV. THE “PUBLIC SERVICES” EXCEPTION (SECTION 1091.5(a)(3))
A. Interpretation of Section 1091.5(a)(3)
1. Text and Existing Interpretations
As with section 1091.5(a)(9), we begin with the text. As of 2002, section
1091.5, subdivision (a) provided that “[a]n officer or employee shall not be
deemed to be interested in a contract if his or her interest is any of the following:
[¶] . . . [¶] (3) That of a recipient of public services generally provided by the
public body or board of which he or she is a member, on the same terms and
conditions as if he or she were not a member of the board.”16 Thus, so long as the
benefit an official receives from a contract is in the nature of a “public service[]
generally provided” by the official‟s agency, and so long as the benefit is received
without special or differential consideration — “on the same terms and
conditions” as if the official were not a member of the entity he or she serves — it
creates no conflict of interest.
The phrase “public service[] generally provided” is not self-defining, nor is
there any useful legislative history that might shed light on the Legislature‟s
intent. Sailing in largely uncharted waters, we find some useful illumination in the
16
The provision has since been amended to substitute “body or board” for
“board” at the end of section 1091.5(a)(3). (Stats. 2005, ch. 348, § 2.) The
amendment does not materially alter the provision‟s meaning.
36
few interpretations by the Courts of Appeal and the Attorney General. In City of
Vernon v. Central Basin Mun. Water Dist. (1999) 69 Cal.App.4th 508 (City of
Vernon), the lone prior published case to address the provision, a member of the
board of directors of a municipal water district participated in setting the uniform
rates at which the district would sell reclaimed water to wholesalers. He was also
the president and owner of one such wholesaler. The Court of Appeal concluded
section 1091.5(a)(3) permitted the board member‟s company to contract to buy
water, at rates the board member had participated in setting, without violating
section 1090‟s prohibitions. (City of Vernon, at pp. 514-515.)
In arriving at this conclusion, the Court of Appeal specifically rejected the
argument that the delivery of reclaimed water to wholesalers for resale could not
be a service generally provided by the agency because only a limited universe
(there, just 23 wholesalers) partook of the service. It explained that “ „public
services generally provided‟ ” was not synonymous with “ „services provided to
the general public‟ ” or to the “ „public at large,‟ ” interpretations that in its view
would require a “rewrit[ing of] the words of the statute.” (City of Vernon, supra,
69 Cal.App.4th at pp. 514-515.) “Public agencies provide many kinds of „public
services‟ that only a limited portion of the public needs or can use. This does not
derogate from their characterization as „public services‟ according to the ordinary
meaning of those words.” (Id. at p. 515.) Instead, it was enough that the service
was provided on uniform terms to an agency‟s customers. Members of the public
could avail themselves of the same terms if they joined that customer base (there,
the class of reclaimed water wholesalers).
37
The Attorney General has reached the same conclusion.17 In 88
Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen. 122 (2005), hereafter Spitzer, the Attorney General considered
whether the sale of advertising space in a 75-page city brochure could qualify as a
public service generally provided. To be sure, only a few members of the public
might seek to place advertising in the city‟s brochure. But the opinion correctly
recognized that while some public services may have a limited audience, this
alone does not disqualify them as public services generally provided under section
1091.5(a)(3). (See Spitzer, at p. 128 [quoting with approval both City of Vernon‟s
acknowledgement that “[p]ublic agencies provide many kinds of „public services‟
that only a limited portion of the public needs or can use” (City of Vernon, supra,
69 Cal.App.4th at p. 515) and the Massachusetts Supreme Court‟s recognition that
for many public services, “circumstances may be such that the [public] use or
service intended to be secured will practically affect only a small portion of the
inhabitants or lands of the Commonwealth. The essential point is, that it affects
them as a community, and not merely as individuals . . . .” (Lowell v. City of
Boston (1873) 111 Mass. 454, 470)].)
While it does not matter that the public constituency for a particular service
may be small, it does matter whether the service has been specifically designed to
17
Attorney General opinions are entitled to considerable weight. (California
Assn. of Psychology Providers v. Rank (1990) 51 Cal.3d 1, 17.) This is
particularly true when construing section 1090 and its related provisions because
“the Attorney General regularly advises local agencies about conflicts of interest
and publishes a manual designated to assist local governmental agencies in
complying with the conflict of interest statutes.” (Thorpe v. Long Beach
Community College Dist., supra, 83 Cal.App.4th at p. 662; see Freedom
Newspapers, Inc. v. Orange County Employees Retirement System (1993) 6
Cal.4th 821, 829 [extra weight should be accorded Attorney General opinions in
areas of special expertise].)
38
benefit only a select few: “Here, the particular „service‟ provided by the city is not
specially tailored or conditioned to meet the individualized needs or circumstances
of any city council member. [Citation.] We are not presented with discretionary
or highly customized services benefitting one or more council members.”
(Spitzer, supra, 88 Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen. at p. 128.) Accordingly, under the aegis of
section 1091.5(a)(3), a city council member lawfully could purchase advertising
space, at rates set by the city council, to publicize his private business.
Similarly, in Fellows, supra, 89 Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen. 121, the Attorney
General considered the application of section 1090 to airport commissioners who
rented airport hangar space from a city. Concluding such rentals were permitted,
the Attorney General “reject[ed] the suggestion that due to the limited number of
airport hangars and would-be renters (i.e., owners of airplanes), these particular
„public services‟ would not be „generally provided‟ within the meaning of section
1091.5, subdivision (a)(3).” (Fellows, at p. 124.)
We conclude these authorities correctly apprehend the scope of the services
covered by section 1091.5(a)(3). What matters is not the breadth of the actual
recipient class, but that the service has not been intentionally designed to limit that
class and is broadly available to all those potentially within it. Reclaimed water
sold to any wholesaler who chooses to buy it; advertising space made available to
any business that chooses to purchase it; hangar space any citizen-pilot may rent
on a first-come, first-served basis — all these are public services generally
provided and may be offered to public officials as well without violating the
conflict of interest laws.
Application of section 1091.5(a)(3) depends as well on a second key
phrase: “on the same terms and conditions as if he or she were not a member of
the body or board.” The phrase codifies a critical nondiscrimination principle.
The Court of Appeal in City of Vernon, supra, 69 Cal.App.4th 508, and the
39
Attorney General in Spitzer, supra, 88 Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen. 122 and Fellows, supra,
89 Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen. 121, concluded section 1091.5(a)(3) applied only because in
each instance one could determine the officials were being treated the same as any
other member of their agencies‟ constituencies. (See City of Vernon, at p. 515
[“There is no special rate for” the official‟s company]; Spitzer, at p. 128 [“Anyone
may pay for advertising space in the brochure at a predetermined rate . . .” and the
council member “would not receive a special rate or discount . . .”]; Fellows, at
p. 124 [“Airport commissioners receive no priority to the hangar space and receive
no preferential rental rate.”].)
Problems arise, however, when it is not possible to establish that an
official‟s contract was untainted by favoritism arising from the official‟s insider
status. In 80 Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen. 335 (1997), hereafter Herring, the Attorney
General considered the validity of a proposed transaction between an irrigation
district and one of its directors. In exchange for easements to build a canal
through private property, the district built bridges over the canal to preserve
property access and agreed to maintain them for individual affected private
landowners. It also routinely provided construction services to landowners on a
first-come, first-served basis at established rates. The director proposed to forgive
the district its future bridge maintenance obligation for a bridge servicing only his
property, in exchange for road construction services valued at considerably less
than the repair work his bridge then needed. (Id. at pp. 335-336.)
The Attorney General recognized section 1091.5(a)(3) was inapposite to
this sort of “unique exchange.” (Herring, supra, 80 Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen. at p. 338.)
The bridge maintenance termination element of the transaction was singular. For
purposes of section 1091.5(a)(3)‟s nondiscrimination requirement, it mattered not
whether experts might testify that this transaction, considered in a vacuum, was
fair. What mattered instead was that there was no way to compare the terms
40
offered the director to those offered others because the proposed exchange was
“not available to the other customers of the district at all.” (Herring, at p. 338.)
The Attorney General addressed a similar problem in 81 Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen.
317 (1998), hereafter Thomson. A city council member helped establish a
municipal small business loan program and, after leaving office, sought to avail
himself of the program by obtaining a loan. Problems of incommensurability
again barred the transaction. Unlike contracts involving standard goods or
services at set rates, “[o]btaining a government loan involves more complex
considerations. The loan applicant must qualify, and the public official approving
the loan must exercise some degree of discretion and judgment.” (Id. at p. 320.)
In such circumstances, it is impossible to demonstrate conclusively that other
nonofficials would have received similar terms. Accordingly, section 1091.5(a)(3)
would not shield the proposed loan from conflict of interest prohibitions.
These opinions establish, correctly, the principle that for any transaction to
pass muster under section 1091.5(a)(3) it must be provable that no preferential
treatment was involved. It was “the „apparent intent of this provision . . . to
exempt a board member‟s receipt of public services that are given under “the same
terms and conditions” to the other customers of the public agency.‟ ” (City of
Vernon, supra, 69 Cal.App.4th at p. 515, quoting Herring, supra, 80
Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen. at p. 338.) Thus, a party asserting section 1091.5(a)(3) as a
defense must establish that other constituents of an agency received, or would
have received, similar terms.18 There can be no special tailoring of a contract‟s
18
Term variations that hinge on neutral factors wholly independent of an
official‟s status, such as, e.g., price variations based on the size, duration, and
location of an advertisement (Spitzer, supra, 88 Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen. at p. 128 &
fn. 2) or residency considerations (Fellows, supra, 89 Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen. at p. 124,
fn. 2), do not affect the section 1091.5(a)(3) analysis.
41
terms, no discretion in determining what consideration a particular official must
relinquish or may receive.
We are mindful as well that when interpreting statutes “we must consider
the human problems the Legislature sought to address in adopting [the statute]
. . . .” (Burris v. Superior Court (2005) 34 Cal.4th 1012, 1018.) One of the
corollaries of a republican form of government is that in a “government of the
people, by the people, for the people,”19 public officials will often be part of their
own constituencies, at once representatives and members of the class they
represent, at once governors and the governed. In a government drawn from the
people as a whole, it is inevitable that government benefits may flow to citizen-
senators as well as everyday citizens. Public officials often may have a stake in
the decisions they make, albeit one undifferentiated from that of their fellow
constituents. They must be entrusted to enact laws, adopt rules, and make
decisions that affect both their constituency and themselves as members of that
constituency.
Such is an unavoidable consequence of representative democracy, but it is a
feature, not a bug.20 So long as the stakes are equal — so long as public officials
and their constituents have access to benefits “on the same terms and conditions,”
without respect to the public officials‟ status (§ 1091.5(a)(3)) — there is no
conflict of interest because the interests of the officials and their constituency
align, rather than diverge. Section 1091.5(a)(3), as we read it, alleviates the
19
President Abraham Lincoln, Gettysburg Address (Nov. 19, 1863).
20
See, e.g., Raymond, The Hacker‟s Dictionary (3d ed. 1996) p. 97; The
Jargon File, version 4.4.7 (Dec. 2009) <catb.org/jargon/html/F/feature.html>
[as of Jan. 25, 2010].
42
paralysis that would ensue if section 1090 prohibited even those contracts where
the public officials‟ financial interests mirrored those of any other constituents.
This conclusion is consistent as well with the long-standing recognition that
section 1090‟s concern is with personal interests, interests that may diverge from
those of the constituents the public official represents and place the official in the
position of responding to “two masters.” “The purpose of [section 1090] is to
prohibit self-dealing, not representation of the interests of others.” (BreakZone
Billiards v. City of Torrance (2000) 81 Cal.App.4th 1205, 1230; cf. People v.
Vallerga, supra, 67 Cal.App.3d at p. 870 [upholding conviction where the
defendant‟s interest in the contract was “purely personal” and did not involve (as
the defendant argued) representation of “dual public interests”].) The conflict of
interest laws are designed to address conflicts “arising between a public position
and personal interests.” (61 Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen. 396, 399 (1978).) In effect,
section 1091.5(a)(3) recognizes that an interest is not personal, and poses no “two
masters” problem, if it is shared with, and undifferentiated from the interest of, the
members of the broad class of constituents a public official represents.
2. Comparison with the Political Reform Act of 1974
As a further point supporting this interpretation of section 1091.5(a)(3), we
note the interpretation harmonizes section 1090 and its related provisions with the
Political Reform Act of 1974 (§ 87100 et seq.).
It is a basic canon of statutory construction that statutes in pari materia
should be construed together so that all parts of the statutory scheme are given
effect. (People v. Lamas (2007) 42 Cal.4th 516, 525; American Airlines, Inc. v.
County of San Mateo (1996) 12 Cal.4th 1110, 1129; City of Huntington Beach v.
Board of Administration (1992) 4 Cal.4th 462, 468.) Two “ „[s]tatutes are
considered to be in pari materia when they relate to the same person or thing, to
43
the same class of person[s or] things, or have the same purpose or object.‟ ”
(Walker v. Superior Court (1988) 47 Cal.3d 112, 124, fn. 4, quoting 2A
Sutherland, Statutory Construction (Sands, 4th ed. 1984) § 51.03, p. 467; see also
Altaville Drug Store v. Employment Development Department (1988) 44 Cal.3d
231, 236, fn. 4 [in pari materia means “ „[o]f the same matter‟ ” or “ „on the same
subject,‟ ” quoting Black‟s Law Dict. (5th ed. 1981) p. 1004].)
Section 1090 is the principal California statute governing conflicts of
interest in the making of government contracts. In turn, the Political Reform Act
is the principal California law governing conflicts of interest in the making of all
government decisions. It is well established that these two acts are in pari materia:
“Section 1090 and section 87100 of the [Political Reform Act] are two of the most
important statutes in California addressing the problem of conflict of interest by
public officials and employees. They both deal with a relatively small class of
people, public officers and employees, and share the same purpose or objective,
the prevention of conflicts of interests, and hence can fairly be said to be in pari
materia.” (People v. Honig, supra, 48 Cal.App.4th at p. 327; see also 65
Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen. 41, 57 (1982) [interpretation of what constitutes a financial
interest under § 1090 and the Political Reform Act should be consistent].)
Accordingly, to the extent their language permits, we will read section 1090 et seq.
and the Political Reform Act as consistent.
Pertinent here is the Political Reform Act‟s “public generally” rule. The act
prohibits participation in a decision in which one has a “financial interest”
(§ 87100); in turn, a financial interest is in part defined as a “material financial
effect, distinguishable from [the decision‟s] effect on the public generally . . .”
(§ 87103). Detailed Fair Political Practices Commission regulations further define
when a decision‟s effect may be considered indistinguishable as between the
official and the public generally. (See Cal. Code Regs., tit. 2, §§ 18707-18707.9.)
44
Two conditions apply: the decision must affect a “significant segment” of the
population in the jurisdiction of the official‟s agency (id., § 18707.1, subd. (b)(1)),
and it must “affect a public official‟s economic interest in substantially the same
manner as it will affect the significant segment” previously identified (id., subd.
(b)(2)). Notably, however, the effect “need not be identical.” (Ibid.)
Our interpretation of section 1091.5(a)(3) affirms for government contracts
principles akin to those the Legislature has adopted for government decisions. In a
democracy, government decision makers will inevitably make decisions that affect
themselves as well. Insofar as the impact they experience is substantially the same
as that experienced by a significant segment of their constituency, the concerns
that animate conflict of interest law are not implicated; the financial impact is not
personal to the official. By reading section 1091.5(a)(3) as incorporating
congruent principles, we render the laws governing government contracts
consistent with those governing government decisions more generally.
Having thus considered the text of the statute, judicial and Attorney
General interpretations, and the surrounding statutory scheme, we conclude
section 1091.5(a)(3) should be read as establishing the following rule: If the
financial interest arises in the context of the affected official‟s or employee‟s role
as a constituent of his or her public agency and recipient of its services, there is no
conflict so long as the services are broadly available to all others similarly
situated, rather than narrowly tailored to specially favor any official or group of
officials, and are provided on substantially the same terms as for any other
constituent.
45
B. Public Service Generally Provided
1. Application to the Provision of Pension Benefits
We turn to application of these principles to the SDCERS Board. What
constitutes a public service generally provided by it?
The SDCERS Board‟s role is to manage and administer the City‟s
retirement system. It is responsible for determining who may receive retirement
benefits, as well as ensuring that benefits are adequately funded through the sound
investment of City- and employee-provided contributions. (San Diego City
Charter, art. IX, § 144; San Diego Mun. Code, §§ 24.0401, 24.0901.) The state
Constitution obligates retirement board trustees to “administer the system in a
manner that will assure prompt delivery of benefits and related services to the
participants and their beneficiaries.” (Cal. Const., art. XVI, § 17, subd. (a).) The
SDCERS Board‟s trustees are fiduciaries, charged with acting in the best interests
of participants and beneficiaries of the plan. (Id., subds. (a)-(b).) In short, the
Board‟s purpose and function are to ensure long term that fully funded retirement
benefits are available and delivered to those it deems eligible. The ongoing
provision of these benefits to public employees — ensuring that an income stream
is available to provide for future pensions, so the promise of future compensation
becomes a reality — is the service public retirement boards have been established
to provide.
The City argues the provision of pension benefits is not a service “provided
by” the SDCERS Board, but rather one provided by the City itself. We are not
persuaded. The retirement system is funded by the City and its employees. (San
Diego City Charter, art. IX, § 143.) The system is “an independent entity; all
funds for the system are required to be segregated from [C]ity funds, placed in a
separate trust fund under the exclusive control of the [SDCERS] Board, and may
only be used for retirement system purposes.” (Bianchi v. City of San Diego,
46
supra, 214 Cal.App.3d at p. 571.) It is the SDCERS Board that is charged with
establishing contribution rates that will ensure the promise of a pension becomes a
reality. (San Diego City Charter, art. IX, § 143.)21 The Board is then responsible
for investing and managing those contributions, determining the conditions under
which individuals may receive benefits, and authorizing payments from the trust
fund it administers. (San Diego City Charter, art. IX, § 144; San Diego Mun.
Code, § 24.0901.) The Board, not the City, is granted “sole and exclusive
fiduciary responsibility over the assets of the public pension or retirement system.”
(Cal. Const., art. XVI, § 17, subd. (a).) The Board, not the City, is constitutionally
charged with ensuring “prompt delivery of benefits and related services to the
[system] participants and their beneficiaries.” (Ibid.)22 In every meaningful sense
of the words, then, pension payments are “provided by” the SDCERS Board.
We also conclude the administration of public employee pensions is a
service “generally provided” within the meaning of section 1091.5(a)(3). As the
Court of Appeal recognized in City of Vernon, supra, 69 Cal.App.4th at pages
514-515, services need not be provided to every member of the public at large to
qualify. There, only 23 companies availed themselves of the public water sales at
21
In passing, we note that the charter authorization for the SDCERS Board to
set contribution rates refutes the City‟s argument that the Board‟s actions in
approving the MP2 were ultra vires. In approving the MP2, the Board was setting
future contribution rates, as it was authorized, and indeed obligated, to do. That
the City had made various other legal consequences contingent on Board action
was a matter beyond the Board‟s control, as Fiduciary Counsel Blum‟s inability to
extract from the City an agreement to renounce such tactics in the future amply
illustrates.
22
Indeed, this duty to ensure delivery of benefits and services to participants
and their beneficiaries “shall take precedence over any other duty.” (Cal. Const.,
art. XVI, § 17, subd. (b).)
47
issue; in Fellows, supra, 89 Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen. 121, only a handful of individuals
presumably could take advantage of public airplane hangar space; and the
advertising space available in a 75-page brochure in Spitzer, supra, 88
Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen. 122, necessarily could be filled by only a few.23 What matters
is not the raw numbers, but whether the service in question is made available by a
public agency to a broad class of its constituents, the people on whose behalf and
for whose benefit it acts, rather than being targeted or tailored to a select few.
(See Spitzer, at p. 128 [Is the service “specially tailored or conditioned to meet the
individualized needs or circumstances” of any government official? Is it a
“discretionary or highly customized service[] benefitting one or more”
government officials?].) Sometimes that universe is the public at large.
Sometimes it is a small group of water buyers or a few local pilots and airplane
owners. Sometimes it is thousands, or millions, of public employees. The central
point recognized by section 1091.5(a)(3) is the same — that the widespread
provision of services and benefits across a public agency‟s constituency avoids
problems of conflict of interest.
Under these guidelines, the pension services the SDCERS Board provides
qualify as generally provided. Its pension benefits are broadly available to the
agency‟s constituents, its past, present, and future public employees as well as
23
To be sure, many, many more individuals are recipients of the services at
issue here. According to the most recent available figures, SDCERS has just
under 20,000 members (SDCERS Comprehensive Annual Financial Rep., supra,
p. 29); it had more than 18,000 as of June 2002 (SDCERS Comprehensive Annual
Financial Rep. (2002) p. 34). As well, thousands more family members are
affected by the administration of the City‟s retirement system. A retirement
system like CalPERS provides benefits and services to more than 1.6 million
Californians. (See <www.calpers.ca.gov/eip-docs/about/facts/general.pdf> [as of
Jan. 25, 2010].)
48
their family members, a class that may potentially include anyone who chooses to
seek, and obtains, public employment.
The Court of Appeal rejected application of section 1091.5(a)(3) in part
because it read the provision as effectively including only public utilities,
extending only to “services provided by the agency to the public, such as water,
gas and electricity. ([Thomson, supra,] 81 Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen. [] at p. 320.) Here,
pension benefits are part of a compensation package that is conferred only on City
employees, as opposed to the public, through a contract with the City.” The
People press the same argument on appeal. This reading involves several errors.
First, contrary to City of Vernon, supra, 69 Cal.App.4th 508, and the
language of the statute, the Court of Appeal limited section 1091.5(a)(3) to
services provided to the public at large, rather than to a broad class of the public
agency‟s constituency, a constituency that in many cases may involve a smaller
subset of the public. As we have discussed, providing a benefit equally to a broad
segment of an agency‟s constituency, no less than the public as a whole, may
ameliorate conflict of interest concerns, and we see no reason to adopt the Court of
Appeal‟s more limited reading.
Second, the Court of Appeal read Attorney General opinions identifying
gas, water, and electricity as public services qualifying under section 1091.5(a)(3)
as providing an exclusive, rather than inclusive, list of the sorts of services that can
qualify as “generally provided.” In fact, the Attorney General has concluded only
that qualifying services include — but are not limited to — services of that sort.
(See Thomson, supra, 81 Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen. at p. 320 [“ „public services‟ would
include public utilities such as water, gas, and electricity, and the renting of hangar
space in a municipal airport on a first come, first served basis,” italics added].)
Before us here, the Attorney General takes precisely this position, reviewing in
detail its own opinions and arguing on behalf of amicus curiae CalPERS that “the
49
public services exception has never been viewed as applying solely to utilities
provided to the general public. Instead, it has been consistently extended to any
services generally provided by a public agency to the constituency served by that
agency, as long as those services were provided to the recipients, including public
officials and employees, on the same terms and conditions.” With this, we agree.
The provision of utilities is one kind of generally provided public service, but only
one kind. So long as a service is provided on the same terms and conditions to a
broad class of an agency‟s constituency, it may qualify under section 1091.5(a)(3).
Third, while it is true public employment is not available to every citizen
who may desire it, and it is also true that neither City of Vernon, supra, 69
Cal.App.4th 508, nor any of the previous Attorney General opinions deals with a
situation such as this where there are entry barriers wholly beyond the control of
people who may desire to join a particular constituency, this circumstance does
not preclude application of section 1091.5(a)(3). The text of the statute does not
define to whom a public service must be provided, and we see no reason to engraft
on it a limitation based on the broad, narrow, open, or closed nature of a public
agency‟s constituency. For purposes of the conflict of interest concerns that
animate section 1091.5(a)(3), it does not matter that external factors might limit
who may join an agency‟s constituency. It matters only whether the financial
interest in question is not personal to an employee or official because it is shared
with like members of the public agency‟s constituency.
2. Retirement Board Structural Considerations
Our conclusion that section 1091.5(a)(3) permits retirement boards to enter
contracts that affect board trustee pension benefits, at least insofar as the effect is
the same upon constituents who are not board trustees, is bolstered by a
consideration of the nature and composition of these boards. When interpreting a
50
statute, we endeavor to harmonize it with other enactments to the extent possible.
(Marathon Entertainment, Inc. v. Blasi (2008) 42 Cal.4th 974, 991; see
Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control v. Alcoholic Beverage Control Appeals
Bd. (2006) 40 Cal.4th 1, 15, fn. 11.) As we shall discuss, our interpretation avoids
a host of statutory and even constitutional problems that would arise if we were to
conclude, as the Court of Appeal did, that no exception to section 1090 permits
such contracts.
The Legislature has long embraced the principle of retirement system
member representation on public retirement boards. When it authorized the
formation of county retirement associations in 1937, the Legislature required that
each retirement board consist entirely of association members — one ex officio
trustee, one elected trustee, and one appointed trustee, all of whom were, under the
original version of the law, compulsory members. (Stats. 1937, ch. 677, §§ 42, 55,
pp. 1901-1903; see §§ 31520, 31520.1 [mandating member representation on
county boards].) The board for CalPERS, the state retirement system, has since
1945 followed the same plan; at present, six of the 13 trustees are elected from its
membership. (California State Employees’ Assn. v. Board of Administration
(2003) 113 Cal.App.4th 137, 139; § 20090.) The City has likewise adopted this
model; since at least 1931 its charter has provided for plan members to serve on
the SDCERS Board. (San Diego City Charter, art. IX, former § 144, as approved
by the Legislature, Apr. 15, 1931.) The state Constitution now includes special
protections for all retirement boards that contain employee representation, limiting
the extent to which the Legislature may alter their composition. (Cal. Const., art.
XVI, § 17, subd. (f).)
It is thus quite clear the Legislature intended for retirement board trustees to
share interests with their memberships. This is an understandable choice: as the
Court of Appeal has said in discussing the City‟s charter provision dictating ex
51
officio, employee, and retiree representation, “[t]he evident purpose of this latter
provision is to secure a board as objective, fair and competent as possible through
the representation of all those interests necessarily involved within a public service
retirement system.” (Grimm v. City of San Diego, supra, 94 Cal.App.3d at p. 39.)
Under the disinterested model of decisionmaking, one might seek fairness and
competence through a decisional body composed entirely of individuals cleansed
of any direct stake in the outcome — blue ribbon panels like the Warren
Commission, most outside boards of directors, the United States Supreme Court.
Alternatively, under the interested model of decisionmaking, one might seek the
same ends through a blend of individuals, each with a clear stake in many
decisions, with the belief that through the representation of all stakeholders, fair
and wise decisions will again emerge. The Legislature and the City have each
plainly chosen the latter model in composing public retirement boards.24
Having necessarily interested trustees on a governing board poses a
dilemma as to how to reconcile that potentially beneficial arrangement with
24
They are not alone. Member trustees have long been a standard feature of
the composition of most public retirement system boards. (See 49
Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen. 91, 94 (1967) [“It is customary in public retirement programs
to provide for employee representation on the board managing the plan.”].) A
recent study of a national public retirement system database suggests that, on
average, slightly over one-third of all public retirement board trustees are elected
from the membership. (Hess, Protecting and Politicizing Public Pension Fund
Assets: Empirical Evidence on the Effects of Governance Structures and
Practices (2005) 39 U.C. Davis L.Rev. 187, 195.) Professor Hess argues that this
arrangement may have significant financial benefits: member trustees‟ interests
are aligned with the performance of the funds they oversee, and thus “board
members who are also plan members may improve the performance of the fund
due to their direct financial interest in the plan‟s performance.” (Id. at p. 198.) At
least one regression analysis confirms a positive impact on pension fund
performance arising from having at least some elected member trustees on a public
retirement system‟s board. (Id. at p. 214.)
52
conflict of interest prohibitions. Every decision a retirement board makes and
every contract it enters into is likely to affect the financial interests of its
employee/retiree members. As in this case, such contracts fall under section
1090‟s prohibitions. Unless an exception applies, a conflicted board can only
contract pursuant to the rule of necessity. (See Finnegan v. Schrader, supra, 91
Cal.App.4th at p. 581; Strickland, supra, 89 Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen. at p. 221.) The
rule of necessity permits a government body to act to carry out its essential
functions if no other entity is competent to do so (Eldridge v. Sierra View Local
Hospital Dist., supra, 224 Cal.App.3d at pp. 321-322; see Olson v. Cory (1980) 27
Cal.3d 532, 537), but it requires all conflicted members to refrain from any
participation. If a quorum is no longer available, the minimum necessary number
of conflicted members may participate, with drawing lots or some other impartial
method employed to select them. (Eldridge, at pp. 322-323.)
We think it clear the Legislature cannot have intended, in mandating
inclusion of employees on retirement boards, simultaneously to require under
section 1090 that these same employee trustees absent themselves from
participation in every contract into which the board enters. As the Attorney
General and numerous amici curiae argue, for retirement boards to make findings
of necessity and then either exclude all employee and retiree trustees or draw lots
before considering most contracts would fundamentally alter the way they operate
and substantially impair the effective representation of employee and retiree
interests.25 Such a result would be all the more unusual in light of the
25
Several amici curiae note a further consequence that would arise in the
absence of any section 1091.5 exception: retirement boards would be unable to
obtain any advice from their (now conflicted) staffs, who would share the same
interest in any contracts affecting the pension fund. In a drafting oddity, the
remote interest exceptions of section 1091 apply only to “officer[s]” (§ 1091,
(footnote continued on next page)
53
constitutional guarantees in place to ensure that the composition of retirement
boards with employee representation is insulated from unilateral legislative
tampering (see Cal. Const., art. XVI, § 17, subd. (f)); by effectively shifting the de
facto composition of such boards, it would accomplish indirectly what the
Legislature is constitutionally prohibited from accomplishing directly.26
Under our reading and application of section 1091.5(a)(3), such difficulties
are avoided. Section 1090 and the various legislative enactments mandating
employee participation on retirement boards must be harmonized if at all possible.
The Legislature and the City both clearly see having retirement board
representatives who share the interests of their constituents as beneficial. A
legislative body with this view cannot have intended simultaneously to establish a
set of conflict of interest rules that would expose to criminal liability every
employee trustee who fulfilled his or her board‟s duties to enter contracts of
general benefit to the retirement system membership as a whole. By reading
(footnote continued from previous page)
subd. (a)), not to “officer[s] or employee[s]” (§ 1091.5, subd. (a)), so pension fund
board members can obtain staff advice concerning contracts affecting the pension
fund only if some section 1091.5 minimal interest exception applies.
26
Proposition 162, the constitutional provision precluding legislative
tampering with public retirement board composition for those boards with
employee trustees, was passed to allow “retirement board trustees [to] be free from
political meddling and intimidation.” (Prop. 162, § 2, subd. (f), text reprinted at
Stats. 1992, p. A-230.) The apparent concern was that legislative alteration of a
public retirement board‟s composition could result in a board dominated by
trustees appointed by, and loyal to, the plan sponsor at the expense of the
membership. (See id., § 2, subd. (g) [safeguards needed “to prevent political
„packing‟ of retirement boards”]; see generally Hess, Protecting and Politicizing
Public Pension Fund Assets: Empirical Evidence on the Effects of Governance
Structures and Practices, supra, 39 U.C. Davis L.Rev. at pp. 195-199 [discussing
dynamics of various retirement board compositions].)
54
section 1091.5(a)(3) to permit employee trustee participation in instances where
the trustee‟s financial interest mirrors that of the board‟s constituency as a whole,
we harmonize the rules governing conflicts of interest and those governing
pension fund management. Employee representation in decisionmaking and
contracting is preserved to the extent possible; contracts that actually involve
unique personal financial interests not shared by the board‟s constituency remain
prohibited. Section 1090 was adopted to curtail the “two masters” problem that
arises when an official‟s personal interests are at odds with those of the public
constituency he or she is duty-bound to represent; when those interests are in
alignment, no policy or statute compels us to disturb the composition of the boards
the legislative branch and the cities of this state saw fit to establish.27
C. Same Terms and Conditions
We further consider application of section 1091.5(a)(3) to the two distinct
pension-related financial interests disclosed in the record: (1) a 0.25 percent
increase in the basic pension formula multiplier at age 55, provided to five of the
six Lexin defendants but not defendant Ronald Saathoff, and (2) an incumbent
union president benefit, provided to Saathoff and apparently no one else. Other
than for Saathoff, the record here discloses no customized, specially tailored
27
As well, this interpretation alleviates the potential retirement board
paralysis that could result if section 1091.5(a)(3) were inapposite. The People
argue before us that the setting of contribution rates alone, when a contract
offering benefits is contingent on what rates are set, can constitute a prohibited
making of a contract under section 1090 and that no exception would apply. But
this raises the prospect that whenever a plan sponsor enters such contingent
agreements with its unions — a practice the SDCERS Board‟s fiduciary counsel
was unable to get the City to renounce — a retirement board would be precluded
from taking any action that might satisfy the contingencies, even if contribution
rates satisfying the contingencies were those deemed actuarially most sound and
most consistent with the board‟s fiduciary duties.
55
benefits. We thus conclude section 1091.5(a)(3) covers the actions of each of the
Lexin defendants except Saathoff.
1. Lexin, Vattimo, Webster, Wilkinson, and Torres
Defendants Cathy Lexin, Mary Vattimo, Teresa Webster, Sharon
Wilkinson, and John Torres each had the age-55 percentage multiplier that would
be used in their pension calculations increased from 2.25 percent to 2.50 percent.
This is the same increase that applied to every nonsafety City employee. These
defendants‟ interests thus mirrored those of their constituents; they received a
pension benefit on the same terms and conditions as did a broad segment of their
constituents, without regard to their board membership, and with no special
tailoring or individualized consideration. Similarly, the MP2 affected each of the
Lexin defendants and their members equally — they had the same financial
interest as their members in ensuring a stable pension fund. For public officials to
have a conflict of interest, there must be some differentiation between their
financial interests and the financial interests of those they represent. Here, there
was none.
The Court of Appeal nevertheless concluded section 1091.5(a)(3) could not
apply because the SDCERS Board was faced with an exercise of discretion in
deciding whether to approve modified contribution levels in exchange for
increased pension benefits. Relying on Thomson, supra, 81 Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen. at
page 320, the Court of Appeal reasoned that where an element of discretion is
involved, section 1091.5(a)(3) necessarily does not apply. The People echo this
argument.
The Court of Appeal, and the People, misapprehend when and where
discretion is problematic for purposes of section 1091.5(a)(3). As we have
explained, because section 1091.5(a)(3) requires Board members to receive any
56
benefit from a public service on the “same terms and conditions” as if they were
not Board members, discretion in the allocation of a benefit is problematic.
Discretion in either (1) who receives a benefit or (2) how much of a benefit one
should receive renders any benefit incomparable; one cannot determine whether
the board members have in fact received the benefit on the same terms and
conditions as would have been the case for other, nonboard members. Special
tailoring is forbidden; discretion in the allocation of a benefit raises the specter
that such special tailoring might have occurred. It is for this reason the Attorney
General correctly concluded the former council member in Thomson, supra, 81
Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen. 317, could not avail himself of a city loan program: receipt of,
and the amount of, a loan depended on a discretionary decision concerning the
individual business‟s creditworthiness. In contrast, benefits available on a
nondiscretionary basis — e.g., use of the hangar spaces on a first-come, first-
served basis in Fellows, supra, 89 Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen. 121 — pose no special
tailoring problems.
While discretion in the availability of the financial interest may bar
application of section 1091.5(a)(3), nothing in the language of that section or in
any case or opinion interpreting it suggests discretion in the establishment of
benefits that will then be available to a broad group of constituents is problematic.
Surely there was an element of discretion in the setting of reclaimed water rates,
advertising rates, and hangar rates (see City of Vernon, supra, 69 Cal.App.4th 508;
Spitzer, supra, 88 Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen. 122; Fellows, supra, 89 Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen.
121); once set, though, these rates applied equally to all. The SDCERS Board had
discretion over whether to enter into a contract that established a particular
contribution rate, but nothing about the allocation of benefits that might flow from
such a contract was discretionary; instead, future pension benefits are to be
distributed to all constituents, in accordance with strict formulas factoring in
57
salary, length of service, and age. (San Diego Mun. Code, § 24.0402.) Similarly,
retirement boards have discretion in negotiating with third party health care
providers for the provision of health benefits for their constituents, but that
discretion does not disable them from doing so notwithstanding that some board
trustees may be among the class who will receive health care — on a
nondiscriminatory basis according to uniformly applicable rates. The presence of
discretion in the formation of a contract that section 1091.5(a)(3) purportedly
permits is not fatal, unless the discretion can be exercised to permit the special
tailoring of benefits to advantage one or more board members over their
constituency as a whole. Absent such a risk of favoritism, discretion is
unproblematic.28
On appeal, the City raises an additional argument for finding the section
1091.5(a)(3) exception inapposite: the pension multiplier increase applied to
current employees but not to retirees. We conclude this fact does not foreclose
application of the exception.
As noted, the language of the subdivision specifies that the service a board
member receives must come “on the same terms and conditions as if he or she
were not a member of the body or board.” (§ 1091.5(a)(3).) There must be no
special treatment for the board member, either express or implied, as a
28
We note that the Attorney General, appearing on behalf of amicus curiae
CalPERS, agrees the Court of Appeal misread Thomson, supra, 81
Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen. 317. The Attorney General argues discretion per se is not fatal;
as we have previously recognized, “discretion” is a nebulous term because “almost
all acts involve some choice among alternatives . . . .” (Caldwell v. Montoya
(1995) 10 Cal.4th 972, 981.) Rather, the Attorney General explains, the discretion
it had in mind in Thomson that would render section 1091.5(a)(3) inapplicable was
the sort of discretion involved in crafting an “individually tailored contract.” We
agree with this view of section 1091.5(a)(3).
58
consequence of board membership. Where, however, the board member receives
benefits on the same terms and conditions as similarly situated constituents who
are not board members, section 1091.5(a)(3) may apply.
Here, active Board trustees received the same benefits as active nontrustees;
retired Board trustees received the same benefits as retired nontrustees. Saathoff
aside, the remaining Lexin defendants received the same pension benefit as the
more than 6,000 other active nonsafety City employees. Their interest was not
personal, but was shared with their constituents; they had the same interest every
other current nonsafety City employee had.29
2. Saathoff
We turn to the separate question of Ronald Saathoff‟s financial interests.
The record discloses that in 2002, the San Diego City Council approved a pension
benefit that uniquely applied to him as the incumbent president of the Firefighters:
Saathoff would be permitted to make pension contributions based on his union
salary and his City salary, and would have his eventual pension calculated based
on his combined salary. At the same time, the city council voted that no future
union president would receive this benefit; henceforth, union presidents‟ pension
29
A similar scenario arises when, for instance, a legislative body votes on tax
proposals. Such proposals will affect different members of the polity differently.
As every member of the legislative body is a citizen and constituent as well, the
proposals will inevitably affect members of the legislature differently too.
Ordinarily, however, every legislator will be affected the same as any and all
similarly situated nonlegislators. Such differences, generally speaking, are not
tailored to afford special benefits to the legislators themselves. This is an
unavoidable feature of a republic — representatives drawn from the polity as a
whole to represent the interests of a constituency will in some instances
necessarily be affected by the measures they must approve. (Cf. §§ 87102.5-
87103 [excluding from the purview of the conflict of interest laws legislators‟
decisions that affect a financial interest they share with the public generally].)
59
benefits would be calculated based only on their City salary. As the Lexin
defendants note, this benefit had previously been extended to the presidents of the
POA and the MEA, but this only underlines the point that the benefit voted
Saathoff in 2002, and denied prospectively to all future union presidents, was
unique to Saathoff. As such, it was an individually tailored benefit that raised the
prospect of favoritism or more nefariously — under the People‟s theory here —
buying off a key vote, the person who “runs the show” at SDCERS.
Section 1091.5(a)(3) does not insulate such unique benefits from
prosecution. A unique benefit cannot be said to have been provided “on the same
terms and conditions,” wholly independent of the recipient‟s board status; at a
minimum, as with the business loan at issue in Thomson, supra, 81
Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen. 317, on the record before us there is simply no way to know
whether favoritism played a role. Accordingly, Saathoff has failed to demonstrate
as a matter of law that section 1091.5(a)(3) applies. Because section 1091.5(a)(9)
likewise does not apply, the trial court was correct to deny the Penal Code section
995 motion as to him.30
30
The Lexin defendants raise due process concerns and argue the rule of
lenity should be applied to grant them relief. We need consider these arguments
only as they relate to Saathoff. We have explained that the rule of lenity is a tie-
breaking principle, of relevance when “ „two reasonable interpretations of the
same provision stand in relative equipoise . . . .‟ ” (Burris v. Superior Court,
supra, 34 Cal.4th at pp. 1022-1023, quoting People v. Jones (1988) 46 Cal.3d 585,
599.) It has no application where, “as here, a court „can fairly discern a contrary
legislative intent.‟ ” (Burris, at p. 1023, quoting People v. Avery (2002) 27 Cal.4th
49, 58.) Neither section 1091.5(a)(3) nor section 1091.5(a)(9) presents an
interpretive problem so close that we must resort to the rule.
Nor do due process considerations prevent the case against Saathoff from
proceeding. The Lexin defendants‟ argument rests on concern that the Court of
Appeal‟s interpretation of the “department” exception to the salary exception in
section 1091.5(a)(9) unforeseeably constricted that provision. As we do not rely
(footnote continued on next page)
60
* * *
In closing, we note that, the applicability of section 1090 aside, a wealth of
other legal remedies exists to ensure municipalities and retirement boards do not
abuse the public trust. Both groups are subject to actions for declaratory relief or
mandamus challenging their decisions (see, e.g., Bandt v. Board of Retirement
(2006) 136 Cal.App.4th 140; Board of Administration v. Wilson (1997) 52
Cal.App.4th 1109), as the City and SDCERS Board were sued here. Retirement
board trustees are fiduciaries (Cal. Const., art. XVI, § 17) and as such are subject
to suit for breach of fiduciary duty when their decisions fall short of the standard
the law demands. We express no opinion as to whether the Lexin defendants
breached their fiduciary duties here, nor whether they might otherwise have been
subject to civil liability for their actions. We hold only that, where retirement
board trustees approve contracts in which their only financial interest is an interest
in benefits shared generally with their constituency at large, section 1091.5(a)(3)
excludes such actions from the purview of section 1090.
(footnote continued from previous page)
on the Court of Appeal‟s interpretation, the argument has no force. Nor does
anything in our own interpretation of section 1091.5(a)(9) unforeseeably narrow
its scope — no existing precedent suggests the conduct the People allege Saathoff
engaged in was permissible. (See People v. Chacon (2007) 40 Cal.4th 558, 570.)
61
DISPOSITION
For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the Court of Appeal‟s judgment as it
relates to defendant Ronald Lee Saathoff, reverse it in all other respects, and
remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
WERDEGAR, J.
WE CONCUR:
GEORGE, C. J.
KENNARD, J.
BAXTER, J.
CHIN, J.
MORENO, J.
CORRIGAN, J.
62
See last page for addresses and telephone numbers for counsel who argued in Supreme Court.
Name of Opinion Lexin v. Superior Court
__________________________________________________________________________________
Unpublished Opinion
Original Appeal
Original Proceeding
Review Granted XXX 154 Cal.App.4th 1425
Rehearing Granted
__________________________________________________________________________________
Opinion No. S157341
Date Filed: January 25, 2010
__________________________________________________________________________________
Court: Superior
County: San Diego
Judge: Frederic L. Link and Roger W. Krauel
__________________________________________________________________________________
Attorneys for Appellant:
Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher and Theodore J. Boutrous, Jr., for Petitioners.
Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher and Nicola T. Hanna for Petitioner Cathy Lexin.
Coughlan, Semmer & Lipman, R. J. Coughlan, Jr., and Earll M. Pott for Petitioner Ronald Lee Saathoff.
Steven J. Carroll, Public Defender, and Greg S. Maizlish, Deputy Public Defender, for Petitioner John
Anthony Torres.
Hahn & Adema and David A. Hahn for Petitioner Mary Elizabeth Vattimo.
Law Office of Frank T. Vecchione and Frank T. Vecchione for Petitioner Teresa Aja Webster.
Damiani Law Group and Lisa J. Damiani for Petitioner Sharon Kay Wilkinson.
Jennifer B. Henning, upon request of the Court of Appeal, and Daniel S. Hentschke for California State
Association of Counties, League of California Cities and Association of California Water Agencies as
Amici Curiae on behalf of Petitioners.
Klausner & Kaufman, Robert D. Klausner and Adam P. Levinson for National Conference on Public
Employee Retirement Systems as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Petitioners.
Schwartz, Steinsapir, Dohrmann & Sommers, Robert M. Dohrmann and Henry M. Willis for Local 18,
International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Petitioners.
Reed Smith, Harvey L. Leiderman and Jeffrey R. Rieger for Board of Retirement of the Contra Costa
County Employees‟ Retirement Association and Board of Retirement of the Orange County Employees‟
Retirement System as Amici Curiae on behalf of Petitioners.
Page Two – counsel continued – S157341
Attorneys for Appellant:
Steefel, Levitt & Weiss, Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, Ashley K. Dunning, Amy B. Briggs and Kelly R.
Knudson for Los Angeles County Employees‟ Retirement Association, Los Angeles City Employees;
Retirement System, Los Angeles Fire and Police Pension System, Los Angeles Water and Power
Employees Retirement Plan, Alameda County Employees‟ Retirement Association, Kern County
Employees‟ Retirement Association, Marin County Employees‟ Retirement Association, Merced County
Employees‟ Retirement Association, Sacramento County Employees‟ Retirement Association, San
Bernardino County Employees‟ Retirement Association, San Mateo County Employees‟ Retirement
Association, Sonoma County Employees‟ Retirement Association, Stanislaus County Employees‟
Retirement Association, Ventura County Employees‟ Retirement Association, California Public
Employees‟ Retirement System and California State Teachers‟ Retirement System as Amici Curiae on
behalf of Petitioners.
Tosdal, Smith, Steiner & Wax, Ann M. Smith and Fern M. Steiner for San Diego Municipal Employees
Association, Deputy Sheriffs‟ Association of San Diego County, SEIU Local 221, Teamsters Local 542 and
Teamsters Local 952 as Amici Curiae on behalf of Petitioners.
Robert E. Lindquist, Alice O‟Brien, Rosalind D. Wolf, Michael D. Hersh, John F. Kohn and Brenda
Sutton-Wills for California Teachers Association as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Petitioners.
Edmund G. Brown, Jr., Attorney General, Christopher E. Krueger, Assistant Attorney General, Stephen P.
Acquisto and Mark R. Beckington, Deputy Attorneys General, for California Public Employees‟
Retirement System as Amici Curiae on behalf of Petitioners.
_________________________________________________________________________________
Attorneys for Respondent:
No appearance for Respondent
Bonnie M. Dumanis, District Attorney, Stephen R. Robinson, Craig E. Fisher and William J. La Fond,
Deputy District Attorneys, for Real Party in Interest.
Counsel who argued in Supreme Court (not intended for publication with opinion):
Theodore J. Boutrous
Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher
3161 Michelson Drive
Irvine, CA 92612-4412
(949) 451-3800
Ashley K. Dunning
Manatt, Phelps & Phillips
One Embarcadero Center, 30th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94111
(415) 291-7400
William J. La Fond
Deputy District Attorney
330 W. Broadway, Suite 860
San Diego, CA 92101
(619) 531-3657
Petition for review after the Court of Appeal denied a petition for peremptory writ of mandate. This case presents the following issue: Did petitioners' service on the Board of the San Diego Retirement System, as it related to an increase in pension benefits for members of the system, violate the conflict of interest provisions of Government Code section 1090, and subject them to criminal prosecution, or did the non-interest exemption of Government Code section 1091.5, subdivision (a)(9) apply?
Opinion Information
| Date: | Citation: | Docket Number: | Category: | Status: |
| Mon, 01/25/2010 | 47 Cal. 4th 1050, 222 P.3d 214, 103 Cal. Rptr. 3d 767 | S157341 | Review - Criminal Original (non-H.C.) | submitted/opinion due |
Parties
| 1 | Lexin, Cathy (Petitioner) Represented by Theodore J. Boutrous Gibson Dunn & Crutcher, LLP 333 S. Grand Avenue Los Angeles, CA |
| 2 | Lexin, Cathy (Petitioner) Represented by Nicola T. Hanna Gibson Dunn & Crutcher, LLP 3161 Michelson Drive, Suite 1200 Irvine, CA |
| 3 | Saathoff, Ronald Lee (Petitioner) Represented by Raymond J. Coughlan Coughlan Semmer & Lipman 501 W. Broadway, Suite 400 San Diego, CA |
| 4 | Torres, John (Petitioner) Represented by Greg S. Maizlish Office of the Primary Public Defender 233 "A" Street, Suite 300 San Diego, CA |
| 5 | Vattimo, Mary (Petitioner) Represented by David Alan Hahn Attorney at Law 501 W. Broadway, Suite 1600 San Diego, CA |
| 6 | Webster, Teresa Aja (Petitioner) Represented by Frank Vecchione Attorney at Law 105 West "F" Street, Suite 215 San Diego, CA |
| 7 | Wilkinson, Sharon Ray (Petitioner) Represented by Lisa Jean Damiani Damiani Law Group 701 "B" Street, Suite 1110 San Diego, CA |
| 8 | Superior Court of San Diego County (Respondent) 330 West Broadway San Diego, CA 92101 |
| 9 | The People (Real Party in Interest) Represented by Attorney General - San Diego Office P.O. Box 85266 P.O. Box 85266 110 West "A" Street, Suite 1100 San Diego, CA |
| 10 | The People (Real Party in Interest) Represented by William James LaFond Office of the San Diego County District Attorney 330 W. Broadway, Suite 750 San Diego, CA |
| 11 | The People (Real Party in Interest) Represented by Stephen Riley Robinson Office of the District Attorney P.O. Box 121011 San Diego, CA |
| 12 | Alameda County Employees' Retirement Association (Amicus curiae) Represented by Ashley Kathleen Dunning Steefel Levitt & Weiss 1 Embarcadero Center, 30th Floor San Francisco, CA |
| 13 | Association of California Water Agencies (Amicus curiae) Represented by Daniel S. Hentschke San Diego County Water Authority 4677 Overland Avenue San Diego, CA |
| 14 | California State Association of Counties (Amicus curiae) Represented by Daniel S. Hentschke San Diego County Water Authority 4677 Overland Avenue San Diego, CA |
| 15 | California Teachers Association (Amicus curiae) Represented by Michael D. Hersh California Teachers Assn 11745 E. Telegraph Road Santa Fe Springs, CA |
| 16 | Contra Costa County Employees' Retirement Association (Amicus curiae) Represented by Harvey L. Leiderman Reed & Smith, LLP 101 Second Street, Suite 1800 San Francisco, CA |
| 17 | Kern County Employees' Retirement Association (Amicus curiae) Represented by Ashley Kathleen Dunning Steefel Levitt & Weiss 1 Embarcadero Center, 30th Floor San Francisco, CA |
| 18 | League of California Cities (Amicus curiae) Represented by Daniel S. Hentschke San Diego County Water Authority 4677 Overland Avenue San Diego, CA |
| 19 | Local 18, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (Amicus curiae) Represented by Robert M. Dohrmann Schwartz et al., LLP 6300 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 2000 Los Angeles, CA |
| 20 | Los Angeles City Employees Retirement Association (Amicus curiae) Represented by Ashley Kathleen Dunning Steefel Levitt & Weiss 1 Embarcadero Center, 30th Floor San Francisco, CA |
| 21 | Los Angeles County Employee Retirement Association (Amicus curiae) Represented by Ashley Kathleen Dunning Steefel Levitt & Weiss 1 Embarcadero Center, 30th Floor San Francisco, CA |
| 22 | Los Angeles Fire & Police Pension System (Amicus curiae) Represented by Ashley Kathleen Dunning Steefel Levitt & Weiss 1 Embarcadero Center, 30th Floor San Francisco, CA |
| 23 | Los Angeles Water & Power Employees Retirement Plan (Amicus curiae) Represented by Ashley Kathleen Dunning Steefel Levitt & Weiss 1 Embarcadero Center, 30th Floor San Francisco, CA |
| 24 | Marin County Employees' Retirement Association (Amicus curiae) Represented by Ashley Kathleen Dunning Steefel Levitt & Weiss 1 Embarcadero Center, 30th Floor San Francisco, CA |
| 25 | Merced County Employees' Retirement Association (Amicus curiae) Represented by Ashley Kathleen Dunning Steefel Levitt & Weiss 1 Embarcadero Center, 30th Floor San Francisco, CA |
| 26 | National Conference on Public Employees Retirement Systems (Amicus curiae) Represented by Robert D. Klausner Klausner & Kaufman, P.A. 10059 N.W. First Court Plantation, Fl |
| 27 | National Conference on Public Employees Retirement Systems (Amicus curiae) Represented by Adam P. Levinson Klausner & Kaufman 10059 N.W. First Court Plantation, FL |
| 28 | Orange County Employee's Retirement System (Amicus curiae) Represented by Harvey L. Leiderman Reed & Smith, LLP 101 Second Street, Suite 1800 San Francisco, CA |
| 29 | Public Employees Retirement System (Amicus curiae) Represented by Mark R. Beckington Office of the Attorney General 300 S. Spring Street, Suite 1702 Los Angeles, CA |
| 30 | Public Sector Unions (Amicus curiae) Represented by Ann M. Smith Tosdal Smith et al. 401 West "A" Street, Suite 320 San Diego, CA |
| 31 | Sacramento County Employees' Retirement System (Amicus curiae) Represented by Ashley Kathleen Dunning Steefel Levitt & Weiss 1 Embarcadero Center, 30th Floor San Francisco, CA |
| 32 | San Bernardino County Employees' Retirement Association (Amicus curiae) Represented by Ashley Kathleen Dunning Steefel Levitt & Weiss 1 Embarcadero Center, 30th Floor San Francisco, CA |
| 33 | San Mateo County Employees' Retirement Association (Amicus curiae) Represented by Ashley Kathleen Dunning Steefel Levitt & Weiss 1 Embarcadero Center, 30th Floor San Francisco, CA |
| 34 | Sonoma County Employees' Retirement Association (Amicus curiae) Represented by Ashley Kathleen Dunning Steefel Levitt & Weiss 1 Embarcadero Center, 30th Floor San Francisco, CA |
| 35 | Stanislaus County Employees' Retirement Association (Amicus curiae) Represented by Ashley Kathleen Dunning Steefel Levitt & Weiss 1 Embarcadero Center, 30th Floor San Francisco, CA |
| 36 | Ventura County Employees' Retirement Association (Amicus curiae) Represented by Ashley Kathleen Dunning Steefel Levitt & Weiss 1 Embarcadero Center, 30th Floor San Francisco, CA |
| Dockets | |
| Oct 17 2007 | Petition for review filed John Anthony Torres, petnr. Greg S. Maizlish, counesl/Pub. Defender. |
| Oct 19 2007 | Received Court of Appeal record 1 volume |
| Nov 6 2007 | Answer to petition for review filed counsel for People, RPI |
| Nov 6 2007 | 2nd record request 2 boxes Overnight Mail |
| Nov 8 2007 | Received Court of Appeal record one file jacket and 2 boxes |
| Nov 16 2007 | Reply to answer to petition filed counsel for petnr. (Torres) |
| Nov 28 2007 | Petition for review granted (criminal case) Votes: George, C.J., Kennard, Baxter, Werdegar, Chin, Moreno, and Corrigan, JJ. |
| Dec 11 2007 | Request for extension of time filed Counsels for petnrs. jointly request an extension of time to 1-28-08 to file the opening briefs on the merits. |
| Dec 13 2007 | Extension of time granted On application of counsel for petitioners and good cause appearing, it is ordered that the time to serve and file the opening brief on the merits is extended to and including January 28, 2008. |
| Dec 18 2007 | Filed: counsel for petnr. (M. Vattimo) Notice of change of Law Frim. |
| Jan 28 2008 | Received: from counsel for petnr. over-sized brief on the merits |
| Jan 28 2008 | Application to file over-length brief filed counsel for petnr. John Torres |
| Jan 30 2008 | Opening brief on the merits filed counsel for petnr. w/permission |
| Feb 25 2008 | Request for extension of time filed counsel for real party in interest requests extension of time to March 28, 2008, to file the answer brief on the merits. |
| Mar 3 2008 | Extension of time granted On application of real party in interest and good cause appearing, it is ordered that the time to serve and file the answer brief on the merits is extended to and including March 28, 2008. |
| Mar 28 2008 | Received: from counsel for RPI over-sized answer brief on the merits. |
| Mar 28 2008 | Application to file over-length brief filed counsel for RPI |
| Apr 8 2008 | Answer brief on the merits filed counsel for RPI, w/permission |
| Apr 23 2008 | Request for extension of time filed Counsels for petitioners request extension of time to July 28, 2008, to file the reply brief on the merits. |
| Apr 28 2008 | Extension of time granted On application of counsel for petitioners and good cause appearing, it is ordered that the time to serve and file the reply brief on the merits is extended to and including July 28, 2008. No further extensions will be granted. |
| Jul 28 2008 | Received: Oversized Reply Brief on the Merits from John Anthony Torres, petitioner, by Greg S. Maizlish, deputy public defender |
| Jul 28 2008 | Application to file over-length brief filed for John Athony Torres, Petitioner, by Greg S. Maizlish, Counsel |
| Jul 31 2008 | Application to file over-length brief granted The application of petitioners John Anthony Torres, et al., for permission to file the reply brief on the merits in excess of the 4200-word limit is hereby granted. |
| Jul 31 2008 | Reply brief filed (case fully briefed) John Anthony Torres et al., Petitioners by Greg S. Maizlish, et al., counsel |
| Jul 31 2008 | Request for judicial notice filed (granted case) John A. Torres et al., Petitioners by Greg S. Maizlish et al., counsel |
| Jul 31 2008 | Exhibit(s) lodged One volume (Volume 32 - exhibits J-M) |
| Aug 4 2008 | Opposition filed counsel for RPI, People, partial opposition to Request for Judicial Notice |
| Aug 7 2008 | Received: Corrected Partial Opposition to Request for Judicial Notice, from the People, real party in interest, by Craig E. Fisher, deputy district attorney, county of San Diego |
| Aug 7 2008 | Received: Proof of service for corrected opposition to request for judicial notice, Craig E. Fisher, Deputy District Attorney, County of San Diego |
| Aug 19 2008 | Received application to file Amicus Curiae Brief California State Association of Counties, League of California Cities and Association of California Water Agencies (non-party) |
| Aug 21 2008 | Permission to file amicus curiae brief granted California State Association of Counties et al. |
| Aug 21 2008 | Amicus curiae brief filed The application of California State Association of Counties et al., for permission to file an amicus curiae is hereby granted. An answer thereto may be served and filed by any party within 20 days of the filing of the brief. |
| Aug 25 2008 | Request for judicial notice filed (granted case) Nat'l Conference on Public Employee Retirement Systems |
| Aug 25 2008 | Received application to file Amicus Curiae Brief National Conference on Public Employee Retirement Systems (non-party) |
| Aug 25 2008 | Application to appear as counsel pro hac vice (granted case) Robert D. Klausner to be permitted to appear in this matter on behalf of amicus, the Nat'l Conference on Public Employee Retirement Systems. |
| Aug 26 2008 | Received application to file Amicus Curiae Brief Boards of Retirement of LACERA, et al., in support of petnrs. |
| Aug 26 2008 | Request for judicial notice filed (granted case) Boards of Retirement of LACERA, et al., |
| Aug 28 2008 | Received application to file Amicus Curiae Brief Local 18, et al., requests permission to file a joinder in amicus curiae brief of the Public Sector Unions, et al. *** granted *** order being prepared. |
| Aug 28 2008 | Received application to file Amicus Curiae Brief Public Sector Unions, et al. to file a joint a/c brief. (non-party) |
| Aug 28 2008 | Permission to file amicus curiae brief granted National Conference on Public Employee Retirement Systems for permission to file an amicus curiae brief in support of petitioners is hereby granted. An answer thereto may be served and filed by any party within twenty days of the filing of the brief. |
| Aug 28 2008 | Amicus curiae brief filed National Conference on Public Employee Retirement Systems in support of petitioners. |
| Aug 29 2008 | Received application to file Amicus Curiae Brief California Teachers Association (non-party) |
| Sep 2 2008 | Received application to file Amicus Curiae Brief Board of Retirement of the Contra Costa County Enployees' Retirement Assoc. and Board of Retirement of the Orange County Employee's Retirement System. (8.25(b)) |
| Sep 3 2008 | Received application to file Amicus Curiae Brief California Public Employees' Retirement System (8.25(b)) |
| Sep 3 2008 | Permission to file amicus curiae brief granted The application of Boards of Retirement of LACERA et al. for permission to file an amicus curiae brief in support of petitioners is hereby granted. An answer thereto may be served and filed by any party within twenty days of the filing of the brief. |
| Sep 3 2008 | Amicus curiae brief filed Boards of Retirement of LACERA et al. |
| Sep 4 2008 | Received: Amended proof of service, a/c Calif. Public Employees' Retirement System, |
| Sep 5 2008 | Change of contact information filed for: Harvey L. Leiderman, counsel for Board of Retirement Contra Costa County, Amici Curiae |
| Sep 8 2008 | Permission to file amicus curiae brief granted The application of California Teachers' Association for permission to file an amicus curiae brief is hereby granted. An answer thereto may be served and filed by any party within 20 days of the filing of the brief. |
| Sep 8 2008 | Amicus curiae brief filed California Teachers' Association |
| Sep 8 2008 | Permission to file amicus curiae brief granted The application of Public Sectors Unions, et al. for permission to file a joint amicus curiae brief in support of petitioners is hereby granted. |
| Sep 8 2008 | Amicus curiae brief filed Public Sectors Unions, et al. |
| Sep 9 2008 | Request for extension of time filed counsel for RPI, requests extension of time to October 10, 2008, to file a single response to amicus curiae briefs. |
| Sep 10 2008 | Amicus curiae brief filed Board of Retirement of the Contra Costa County Employees' Retirement Association, et al. |
| Sep 10 2008 | Permission to file amicus curiae brief granted The application of Board of Retirement of the Contra Costa County Employees' Retirement Association et al. for permission to file an amicus curiae brief is hereby granted. An answer thereto may be served and filed by any party within 20 days of the filing of the brief. |
| Sep 10 2008 | Amicus curiae brief filed California Public Employees' Retirement System. |
| Sep 10 2008 | Permission to file amicus curiae brief granted The application of California Public Employees' Retirement System for permission to file an amicus curiae brief is hereby granted. An answer thereto may be served and filed by any party within 20 days of the filing of the brief. |
| Sep 10 2008 | Amicus curiae brief filed Local 18, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, et al. |
| Sep 10 2008 | Permission to file amicus curiae brief granted The application of Local 18, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers et al., for permission to file a joinder in amicus curiae brief of Public Sector Unions is hereby granted. An answer thereto may be served and filed by any party within 20 days of the filing of the brief. |
| Sep 17 2008 | Extension of time granted The application of real party in interest and good cause appearing, it is ordered that the time to serve and file the single response to amicus curiae briefs is extended and including October 10, 2008. |
| Sep 17 2008 | Change of contact information filed for: counsel for petnr. (Vattimo) change of law firm name. |
| Aug 31 2009 | Change of contact information filed for: counsel for amicus curiae Brd. of Retirement of Contra Costa Co. Employees' Retirement Asso. and Brd. of Retirement of Orange Co. Employee's Retirement System. |
| Sep 2 2009 | Case ordered on calendar To be argued Tuesday, October 6, 2009, 9:00 a.m., Los Angeles, California |
| Sep 9 2009 | Filed: Letter from theodore J. Bourtrous, Jr., counsel for petitioners Lexin et al., requesting that oral argument be delayed until November. |
| Sep 10 2009 | Argument rescheduled This case, set for argument on Tuesday, October 6, 2009, at 9:00 a.m., in Los Angeles, will be called and continued to the court's November 2009 calendar. |
| Oct 1 2009 | Case ordered on calendar to be argued Wednesday, November 4, 2009, at 9:00 a.m., in San Francisco |
| Oct 6 2009 | Cause called and continued (already set by the court to argument on Wednesday, November 4, 2009, at 9:00 a.m., in San Francisco) |
| Oct 13 2009 | Filed: Letter from Theodore J. Boutrous, jr., counsel for petitioners Lexin et al., requesting to divide oral argument time. |
| Oct 14 2009 | Change of contact information filed for: Greg S. Maizlish, counsel for petition Torres, informing the court of the retirement of Steven J. Carroll and the reorganization of the San Diego County Department of the Public Defender. That office has been renamed the "Office of the Primary Public Defender". |
| Oct 19 2009 | Filed: Letter from Theodore J. Broutrous, Jr., counsel for petitioners Lexin et al., revising request to divide oral argument time. Now requesting to share 10 minutes of time with amici curiae Los Angeles Count Employees Retirement Association et al. |
| Oct 20 2009 | Order filed The request of counsel for petitioners in the above-referenced cause to allow two counsel to argue on behalf of petitioners at oral argument is hereby granted. The request of petitioners to allocate to amici curiae Los Angeles County Employees Retirement Association et al. 10 minutes of petitioners' 30-minute allotted time for oral argument is granted. |
| Oct 29 2009 | Order filed Petitioners' request for judicial notice, filed July 31, 2008, is granted in part as to Exhibits J, K, and L, and denied in part as to Exhibit M. Amicus curia National Conference on Public Employee Retirement Systems' request for judicial notice, filed August 25, 2008, is denied. Amicus curiae the Boards of Retirement of LACERA et al.'s request for judicial notice, filed August 26, 2008, is granted. Robert Klausner's application to appear as counsel pro hac vice, filed August 25, 2008, is granted. |
| Oct 29 2009 | Note: Copy of order 10/29/2009 Faxed to T. Boutrous, lead counsel for petitioner. (C. Lexin) Faxed to SAC/Atty. General & SDG/Atty. General. lead counsel for real party in interest. (People) |
| Nov 4 2009 | Cause argued and submitted |
| Jan 22 2010 | Notice of forthcoming opinion posted To be filed on Monday, January 25, 2010 at 10 am. |
| Briefs | |
| Jan 30 2008 | Opening brief on the merits filed |
| Apr 8 2008 | Answer brief on the merits filed |
| Jul 31 2008 | Reply brief filed (case fully briefed) |
| Aug 21 2008 | Amicus curiae brief filed |
| Aug 28 2008 | Amicus curiae brief filed |
| Sep 3 2008 | Amicus curiae brief filed |
| Sep 8 2008 | Amicus curiae brief filed |
| Sep 8 2008 | Amicus curiae brief filed |
| Sep 10 2008 | Amicus curiae brief filed |
| Sep 10 2008 | Amicus curiae brief filed |
| Sep 10 2008 | Amicus curiae brief filed |
| Brief Downloads | |
 | |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| May 3, 2010 Annotated by lconniff | The defendants in this case, all trustees of the board administering San Diego’s retirement system, were accused of felony violations of state conflict of interest statutes, namely, Gov. Code § 1090, which prohibits public officials and employees from having a financial interest in contracts they make in their official capacities. The trustees are alleged to have voted to authorize an agreement allowing the City to limit funding of its retirement system in exchange for the City’s agreeing to provide increased pension benefits to City employees, which would, by virtue of their employment by the city, benefit them as well. They argued that section 1090 and its exceptions were not meant to criminalize the making of contracts by parties whose only financial stake was their interest in government pension benefits. The California Supreme Court agreed with the defendants, finding that, with one exception, the trustees’ actions fell within statutory exceptions to section 1090. The court determined that the defendants were not burdened by a conflict prohibited by section 1090. That section targets a conflict that results in a division in the loyalties of public servants between the public interests of their constituents and private opportunities for their own financial gain. Though they were financially interested in the agreement, they were no more financially interested than their fellow retirement system members. As such, the court concluded that their motion to dismiss the information against them should have been granted. One defendant, however, did have a unique pension benefit as a result of this agreement. Ronald Saathoff, the fire safety representative and president of the firefighters’ union, stood to profit from the agreement’s preservation of a unique pension calculation for union presidents. That calculation allowed Saatoff to contribute to his pension based on both the president’s salary paid him by his union and his salary as a police officer. This, the court concluded, constituted an individually tailored benefit that did not fall under any of section 1090’s statutory exceptions. |
