Finance – April 2019
New Finance Employee Rich Magana
Finance would like to welcome Richard Magana to the City of El Segundo Team! Rich just joined the Finance Department’s Business Service Division as a License Permit Specialist II. Richard will be providing in person, over the phone, and online customer support to our residents and business community for water billing, accounts receivables, business license and all other services provided by the business services counter.
Before coming to the City of El Segundo, Richard worked for the Business License Division at the City of Long Beach for over two years administering permits for events such as the Long Beach Grand Prix and Goldenvoice concerts at the Queen Mary. He is a graduate from California State University, Long Beach with a B.A. in Communication Studies. While attending college, he was part of a nationally successful debate program.
Please stop by to welcome Rich to the El Segundo team!
Through recent recruitment, a current employee, Daisy Benoit was selected for the Accountant position in the Finance department. Daisy has been with the City since July 2017 as an Accounting Technician in the Business License division. Congratulations Daisy on your new position!
The Mid-year budget will be on the upcoming May 7th City Council Agenda.
FY 17-18 Financial Review
The FY 17-18 Financial Review is coming to a close. The CAFR report will be given to Council in early May, and the Auditor’s presentation at the May 21st Council meeting.
League of California Cities Policy Meeting Recap
Joe Lillio attended the League of California Cities Governance, Transparency, & Labor Relations Policy Committee meeting on Friday, March 29, 2019. Below is a brief overview of items discussed.
Key topics discussed were:
- CA Cities Advocate
Article: California Supreme Court
Finds Airtime Was Not a Vested Pension Benefit in Cal Fire Local 2881 v.
CalPERS; Declines to Address the “California Rule” on Pension Modification
- Brown Act Clarification: Action Item
Use of Social Media by Local Elected Officials: Update
Speakers: Alison Leary, Deputy General Counsel, League of
Hutchings, Legislative Representative, League of California Cities
• AB 992 (Mullin) Open
meetings: local agencies: social media
Supreme Court Finds Airtime Was Not a Vested Pension Benefit in Cal Fire Local
2881 v. CalPERS; Declines to Address the “California Rule” on Pension
March 4, 2019
California Supreme Court issued a unanimous decision today in Cal Fire Local
2881 v. California Public Employees’ Retirement System. The League filed
an amicus brief in
the case, and has been monitoring the case closely.
As the League anticipated,
the Court found that employees enrolled as classic members of CalPERS did not
have a “vested” right to purchase up to five years of service credit (commonly
known as “airtime”) to add to their pension benefit, and therefore upheld the
Legislature’s elimination of airtime as part of the Public Employees’ Pension
Reform Act. The Court’s conclusion is consistent with the arguments the League
made in its amicus brief.
League applauds today’s California Supreme Court decision upholding a key
provision which amended the law governing the state’s public employee
retirement system,” said Carolyn Coleman, executive director, League of
California Cities. “While today’s decision lets stand reforms important to the
fiscal health of the system, more work must be done to address the challenge of
escalating pension costs for local governments. The League stands ready to
partner with the Administration, Legislature and stakeholders to ensure a
strong defined benefit retirement system for California’s public sector workers
reaching its conclusion that airtime was not a vested pension benefit, the
Court noted that there was no evidence to clearly demonstrate that the
Legislature intended to create a vested right when it enacted the airtime
statute. Furthermore, the Court found that airtime could not be considered to
be vested as “deferred compensation” because it was not meaningfully tied to
actual public service. It noted that the same amount of airtime was available
to all employees who had completed the five years necessary to qualify to
receive a pension in the first place.
the Court explained that even if airtime was viewed as a contractual offer,
there were two things employees had to do to accept the offer – (1) file a
written election with the employee’s pension board and (2) make appropriate
payments to the retirement system – and therefore the Legislature was entitled
to revoke that offer for all employees, including plaintiffs, who had yet to
make the written election and the payments.
the Court concluded the benefit was not vested, it had no occasion to address
prior precedent now commonly referred to as the “California rule,” which
provides that modifications to vested pension benefits must bear some material
relation to the successful operation of a pension system and any resulting
disadvantages to pensioners must be offset by comparable new advantages.
League is working on a full analysis of the case, and more information on the
case and its impact on cities will be forthcoming. In the meantime, you can
access the opinion online.
AB 992 (Mullin) Open
meetings: local agencies: social media
This bill states that the Ralph M. Brown
Act does not apply to the posting, commenting, liking, interaction with, or
participation in, internet-based social media platforms that are ephemeral,
live, or static, by a majority of the members of a legislative body, provided
that a majority of the members do not discuss among themselves business of a
specific nature that is within the subject matter jurisdiction of the
legislative body of the local agency.
This bill would add the following as
exceptions to the Brown Act:
(7)(A) The posting,
commenting, liking, interaction with, or participation in, internet-based
social media platforms that are ephemeral, live, or static, by a majority of
the members of a legislative body, provided that a majority of the members do
not discuss among themselves business of a specific nature that is within the
subject matter jurisdiction of the legislative body of the local agency.
(B)For purposes of
this paragraph, all of the following definitions shall apply:
sharing a video, photo, or other content that is temporary in nature,
including, but not limited to, Snapchat Stories, Facebook Stories, or Instagram
(ii)“Live” means a
video or commenting post that is synchronous and happens live, including, but
not limited to, Reddit Ask Me Anything (AMA) or Facebook Live.
(iii)“Static” means a post in the form of a video, photo, or text
that is viewable by members of the public, including, but not limited to, a
Twitter status update, YouTube video, Facebook post, or Instagram post.
Since January, League staff has hosted
several conference calls with the Brown Act Committee to discuss this issue.
The shared goal of the Policy Committee, Brown Act Working Group as well as the
Author of the measure is to simply provide direction to local agencies in how
to comply with the Brown Act in a time when social media has become a virtual
requirement for local elected officials in dealing with the public.
Additionally, the Brown Act Working
Group felt that the use of social media as well as direct interaction with
other council members should fall under the same rules and restrictions as
outlined in section 54952.2 of the Government code. League staff feels the
language moves in the right direction. After all, in today’s digital age having
a “virtual” gathering is in some cases, more common than attending a
traditional conference, an open and publicized meeting, or a purely social
gathering, as defined in the Brown Act. Why not take this opportunity to
modernize the act to take this into account?
The proposed language below reflects
that shared goal by providing clarity on the following:
• How social media is defined. More
specifically not limiting social media to one specific platform.
• What actions can take place with
social media without violation of the serial meeting provisions in the Brown
• How to modify the Brown Act in a way that reflects the digital
age of how council members interact with the public.