Difference between revisions of "Pacific Grove Retirement Benefits for City Employees, Measure R (November 2010)"

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search
m (Text replace - ""," to ","")
 
(2 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{tnr}}A '''Pacific Grove Retirement Benefits for City Employees, Measure R''' ballot question was on the {{nov02ca2010}} for voters in Pacific Grove in {{monterey}}.<ref>[http://www.montereyherald.com/politics/ci_15766871 ''Monterey Herald'', "Voters' choices add up at election time", August 13, 2010]</ref> It was '''overwhelmingly approved.''' However, this measure was ruled unconstitutional by the Monterey County superior court in May of 2013.<ref name=CourtCase>[http://www.foxandhoundsdaily.com/2013/05/pension-measure-wave-crests-court-slog-remains/&utm_source=feedly Pension Measure Wave Crests, Court Slog Remains, May 20, 2013]</ref>.
+
{{tnr}}{{LocalPension}}A '''Pacific Grove Retirement Benefits for City Employees, Measure R''' ballot question was on the {{nov02ca2010}} for voters in Pacific Grove in {{monterey}}.<ref>[http://www.montereyherald.com/politics/ci_15766871 ''Monterey Herald'', "Voters' choices add up at election time," August 13, 2010]</ref> It was '''overwhelmingly approved.''' However, this measure was '''ruled unconstitutional''' by the Monterey County superior court in May of 2013.<ref name=CourtCase>[http://www.foxandhoundsdaily.com/2013/05/pension-measure-wave-crests-court-slog-remains/&utm_source=feedly Pension Measure Wave Crests, Court Slog Remains, May 20, 2013]</ref>.
  
 
Measure R amended Pacific Grove's city charter to conform to an ordinance limiting the ability of the City Council to pay into employee retirement.   
 
Measure R amended Pacific Grove's city charter to conform to an ordinance limiting the ability of the City Council to pay into employee retirement.   
  
The Pacific Grove city council voted on July 21, 2010 by 6-1 to enact the "Sustainable Retirement Benefit Reform Initiative", whose supporters had collected signatures to place that measure on the ballot. Under California law, cities can simply enact such initiated measures rather than place them on the ballot, and that is what the Pacific Grove city council chose to do in July 2010.<ref>[http://www.montereyherald.com/politics/ci_16308683 ''Monterey Herald'', "Pacific Grove weighs tax, pension measures", October 11, 2010]</ref>
+
The Pacific Grove city council voted on July 21, 2010 by 6-1 to enact the "Sustainable Retirement Benefit Reform Initiative," whose supporters had collected signatures to place that measure on the ballot. Under California law, cities can simply enact such initiated measures rather than place them on the ballot, and that is what the Pacific Grove city council chose to do in July 2010.<ref>[http://www.montereyherald.com/politics/ci_16308683 ''Monterey Herald'', "Pacific Grove weighs tax, pension measures," October 11, 2010]</ref>
  
The "Sustainable Retirement Benefit Reform Initiative", enacted as an ordinance, caps city contributions to employee pension benefits at 10% of workers' salaries. Employees must pay additional amounts toward their retirement themselves.
+
The "Sustainable Retirement Benefit Reform Initiative," enacted as an ordinance, caps city contributions to employee pension benefits at 10% of workers' salaries. Employees were required, under Measure R, to pay additional amounts toward their retirement themselves.
  
Pacific Grove's police union subsequently filed a complaint with the state's Public Employment Relations Board saying that by enacting the ordinance the city had acted illegally because the city is not allowed under the state's labor laws to act to limit the city's contribution to police pensions.
+
Pacific Grove's police union subsequently filed a complaint with the state's Public Employment Relations Board saying that by enacting the ordinance the city had acted illegally because the city was not allowed under the state's labor laws to act to limit the city's contribution to police pensions.
 +
 
 +
{{simplepast}}
  
 
==Election results==
 
==Election results==
Line 22: Line 24:
 
}}
 
}}
 
:''These final, certified results are from [http://www.montereycountyelections.us/statements/sov20101102.pdf Monterey County elections office]
 
:''These final, certified results are from [http://www.montereycountyelections.us/statements/sov20101102.pdf Monterey County elections office]
 
{{simplepast}}
 
  
 
==Text of measure==
 
==Text of measure==
Line 34: Line 34:
 
==Court Cases==
 
==Court Cases==
  
On May 17<sup>th</sup>, [http://judgepedia.org/index.php/Thomas_W._Wills Judge Thomas Wills], a judge in the Monterey County superior court ruled that Measure R, which approves an ordinance capping city contributions to employee pension benefits at 10% of workers' salaries, thus requiring employees to pay additional amounts toward their retirement themselves, is in conflict with the state constitution. Judge Wills expressed the position that pensions and benefits promised when an employee was hired are "vested rights" and cannot be reduced.<ref name=CourtCase/><ref name=CourtCase>[http://www.foxandhoundsdaily.com/2013/05/pension-measure-wave-crests-court-slog-remains/&utm_source=feedly Pension Measure Wave Crests, Court Slog Remains, May 20, 2013]</ref>
+
On May 17<sup>th</sup>, [http://judgepedia.org/index.php/Thomas_W._Wills Judge Thomas Wills], a judge in the Monterey County superior court ruled that Measure R, which approves an ordinance capping city contributions to employee pension benefits at 10% of workers' salaries, thus requiring employees to pay additional amounts toward their retirement themselves, was in conflict with the state constitution. Judge Wills expressed the position that pensions and benefits promised when an employee was hired are "vested rights" and cannot be reduced.<ref name=CourtCase/><ref name=CourtCase>[http://www.foxandhoundsdaily.com/2013/05/pension-measure-wave-crests-court-slog-remains/&utm_source=feedly Pension Measure Wave Crests, Court Slog Remains, May 20, 2013]</ref>
  
 
==External links==
 
==External links==
 
+
{{submit a link}}
 
* [http://montereycountyelections.us/a_measures_NOVEMBER_2010.htm Measure R ballot text]
 
* [http://montereycountyelections.us/a_measures_NOVEMBER_2010.htm Measure R ballot text]
  
Line 43: Line 43:
 
{{reflist}}
 
{{reflist}}
  
{{california stub}}
+
{{California}}
 +
{{California counties}}
 +
{{lbm stub}}
  
 
[[Category:Local pensions, California, 2010]]
 
[[Category:Local pensions, California, 2010]]

Latest revision as of 07:36, 21 March 2014

Voting on Local
Pensions

Pension Hotspots Report
Local Ballot Measures
By state
By year
Hotspots Reports
July 25, 2014
Original Case study
San Jose & San Diego
State-wide Measures
A Pacific Grove Retirement Benefits for City Employees, Measure R ballot question was on the November 2, 2010 ballot for voters in Pacific Grove in Monterey County.[1] It was overwhelmingly approved. However, this measure was ruled unconstitutional by the Monterey County superior court in May of 2013.[2].

Measure R amended Pacific Grove's city charter to conform to an ordinance limiting the ability of the City Council to pay into employee retirement.

The Pacific Grove city council voted on July 21, 2010 by 6-1 to enact the "Sustainable Retirement Benefit Reform Initiative," whose supporters had collected signatures to place that measure on the ballot. Under California law, cities can simply enact such initiated measures rather than place them on the ballot, and that is what the Pacific Grove city council chose to do in July 2010.[3]

The "Sustainable Retirement Benefit Reform Initiative," enacted as an ordinance, caps city contributions to employee pension benefits at 10% of workers' salaries. Employees were required, under Measure R, to pay additional amounts toward their retirement themselves.

Pacific Grove's police union subsequently filed a complaint with the state's Public Employment Relations Board saying that by enacting the ordinance the city had acted illegally because the city was not allowed under the state's labor laws to act to limit the city's contribution to police pensions.

A simple majority vote was required for approval.

Election results

Measure R
ResultVotesPercentage
Approveda Yes 4,390 73.63%
No1,57226.37%
These final, certified results are from Monterey County elections office

Text of measure

The question on the ballot:

Measure R: "Shall the Pacific Grove City Charter be amended to conform to the "Voter Initiative Limiting the Ability of the City of Pacific Grove to Approve or Modify Agreements That Provide Retirement Benefits to City Employees," provide City officers/employees do not hold rights to future employment or future employment benefits, and amend the Pacific Grove Municipal Code to clarify that voter-approved limits relating to long-term City debt or financial liabilities apply only to retirement plans or agreements?"[4]

Court Cases

On May 17th, Judge Thomas Wills, a judge in the Monterey County superior court ruled that Measure R, which approves an ordinance capping city contributions to employee pension benefits at 10% of workers' salaries, thus requiring employees to pay additional amounts toward their retirement themselves, was in conflict with the state constitution. Judge Wills expressed the position that pensions and benefits promised when an employee was hired are "vested rights" and cannot be reduced.[2][2]

External links

BallotpediaAvatar bigger.png
Suggest a link

References


LocalBallotMeasures Final.png This local ballot measure article is a stub. You can help people learn by expanding it.