It turns out that the City Council gave Aguirre full support for the pension lawsuit

Mike Aguirre was telling the truth all along.

Mike Aguirre has been smeared so badly by Bonnie Dumanis and Ann Smith, that even I was influenced by it. I thought there was a grain of truth to the claim that Aguirre filed the pension suit on his own.

I don't seem to be able to get it through my head, even after so many years of proof, including my own first-hand experience with Bonnie Dumanis and Ann Smith, that the people in charge in San Diego are deeply, incredibly dishonest.


Here's what Pat Flannery wrote about this.

The truth is out: Peters lied.
02/28/08
by Pat Flannery
Click here for original article.

Here is the transcript of the closed session of the City Council on August 2, 2005 that everybody has wanted to read. Here is a press release from the City Attorney today summarizing the relevant events.

Also, here are two relevant Court Declarations, one from Jerry Sanders and the other from Donna Frye. Both clearly confirm the City Attorney's long standing assertion that he was given the enthusiastic support of the City Council and of the Mayor to pursue in court a resolution of the legality or illegality of the disputed pension benefits.

Scott Peters now wants to say that Aguirre did all this on his own without authorization from the City. Of course, we all know why he is doing this: as a shill for the city unions, particularly the MEA.

Peters tried to smear the City Attorney for doing his job. Peters has abused the legal process by filing a false complaint with the State Bar wrongly asserting that Mr. Aguirre was not authorized by his client, the City, to file a cross-complaint in a matter in which the City was sued. In other words Peters tried to ensure that the unions would win by default.

Clearly Scott Peters does not have the best interest of the City at heart, merely his unions backers. His abuse of the State bar disciplinary process for political purposes should be enough to disqualify him from practicing law let alone becoming City Attorney for any city.



Voice of San Diego tells more about the transcript:

The Aguirre Transcripts
by ANDREW DONOHUE
February 28 2008


We just got a copy of the closed session transcripts that were sought by State Bar investigators as part of their probe into City Attorney Mike Aguirre, and the documents show that the City Council authorized Aguirre to pursue his pension litigation -- but on the condition it was done in his name only.

In the Aug. 2, 2005 hearing, Council President Scott Peters said he was worried the council would be found to have negotiated in bad faith with the labor unions if it took the public stance that the employee pension benefits at issue in the lawsuit were illegal. However, he said in the meeting, there needed to be a decision regarding whether or not the rounds of benefits granted to employees through controversial deals in 1996 and 2002 were legal.

The hearing began with Executive Assistant City Attorney Don McGrath briefing the council on the lawsuit, which has since been struck down by a judge and is in appeals court.

The suit had originally been filed without the council's approval. That was done, McGrath said, because the council was on recess at the time and the statute of limitations was set to expire.

The City Attorney's Office was seeking the council's formal approval on the suit.

Councilwoman Donna Frye originally proposed a motion to support it, but Peters said he'd prefer that the suit be brought in Aguirre's name to avoid the labor issues. The council eventually approved Peters' idea by a vote of 5-1. Councilman Jim Madaffer voted against the motion, and the District 2 and 8 seats were vacant at the time.

This is the general idea of what had happened before the suit. It may not resolve much.

The issue being made by Aguirre's opponents is this: he later changed the suit to be back in the city's name.

"He's defied the direction of the client by bringing the suit in the name of the city," said Pam Hardy, Peters spokeswoman.

In an interview, McGrath said that the city attorney never needed the council's authorization to bring the suit to begin with. And, later, the judge in the case told him to bring the suit in the city's name, so he did...

http://www.voiceofsandiego.org/this_just_in/