San Gabriel Refuses Tax Suspension Measures for March Ballot

The San Gabriel City Council on Tuesday, Aug. 23, refused to place two initiatives on the March 2013 ballot, citing “significant adverse financial impacts to the city” if the measures were approved by the voters.
The Utility User Tax Suspension and Retirement Tax Suspension initiatives had sufficient signatures to qualify for the March 5, 2013 General Municipal Election. But City Attorney Robert L. Kress, who initially recommended the council to place the measures on the ballot, reversed his recommendation after a further review of the legal issues attached to the measures, as well as a recent development in the Police Officers’ Association’s lawsuit against the city.
The council’s 5-0 vote at Tuesday’s meeting followed the Los Angeles County Superior Court’s decision to sustain the city’s objection to all of the individually named defendants in litigation filed by the San Gabriel Police Officers’ Association. According to City Manager Steven Preston, the court’s action means that all individual defendants, including individual council members and staff, are being dismissed and should not be able to be sued again.
The SGPOA’s lawsuit filed Mar. 8 alleges city officials illegally spent $5.7 million in employee retirement funds. However, the city has maintained that its handling of funds have been managed “prudently, appropriately, and in full accordance with the laws of the State of California,” according to the city’s official response to the lawsuit.
“We are grateful to the Court, and to the outstanding team of individuals who have worked with us to present the facts of the case,” said Mayor Kevin Sawkins the night of the meeting. The city has been given 10 days to file an answer to the complaint.
The law firm Lackie, Dammeier and McGill, which represents the associations for the police officers and firefighters of San Gabriel, proposed the two measures for the March ballot. Both measures, submitted to the city clerk in May, threatened to suspend two of the city’s taxes if San Gabriel would fail to keep the public safety employees’ salary, benefits and staffing at a set level.
Scott Grossberg, legal counsel for the City of San Gabriel, said the two measures were part of the SGPOA’s and its law firm’s “questionable tactics in commencing unwarranted litigation and initiating immoderate political action against the city,” which he says has always been considered as an overall strategy to coerce the city to give in to employment and financial demands.
“The city has taken a very strong stance against such a self-serving and eventually damaging campaign by aggressively crusading to vindicate its actions, and demonstrate to the public and its employees that the city has done nothing wrong,” said Grossberg in an email to this reporter.
In addition, Grossberg said that the latest court ruling absolving the individual defendants of any exposure for alleged wrongdoing provided the further momentum for the City Council to refuse placing the two initiatives on the ballot for March. From its website, www.sangabrielpoa.com, The SGPOA said it would not challenge the city’s decision not to place the initiatives on the March 2013 ballot.
“Under these (present) circumstances, it would almost guarantee that the city would not be able to fully staff the police department as stipulated by the initiative for an undetermined amount of time, thus resulting in further financial challenges for the city that would be difficult to overcome,” the statement reads in regard to the Utility User Tax Suspension proposal.
Regarding the Retirement Tax Suspension, the SGPOA said it was committed to sharing the burden of rising pension costs with the city. The association goes on to say that “Members of the SGPOA took a 4 percent cut in retirement benefits in 2008, and we have now agreed to pay our portion of the retirement contribution.”
The city’s departments and legal staff at Tuesday’s meeting detailed significant potential damage that would have been incurred if the two measures were placed on the ballot. And, citing the recent adoption of memoranda of understanding by the city’s four associations, the City Attorney noted that the measures as written were based on facts no longer in evidence.
After discussing the proposed measures, the council approved the motion to refuse their placement on the March 2013 ballot “in light of significant legal and Constitutional flaws associated with these measures,” according to Preston.

More from Arcadia Weekly