California Court of Appeal

In a case involving an indictment of certain former members of a city's retirement board arising from their alleged agreement to underfund its pension system in exchange for increased benefits, a petition for a writ of prohibition challenging a denial of petitioners' motion to set aside the information is denied as: 1) the people presented sufficient evidence at a preliminary hearing such that "a reasonable person could harbor a strong suspicion of [petitioners'] guilt" under Government Code section 1090; 2) pension benefits are within the definition of "salary" for purposes of the exception provided by section 1091.5(a)(9); 3) however, the exception provided by that section is not applicable because the increased pension benefits directly impacted petitioners' departments or employing units; 4) the exception provided by section 1091.5(a)(3) does not apply because the granting of pension benefits is not a "public service"; 5) the composition of the pension board did not control petitioners' actions; and 6) prosecution under section 1090 does not criminalize petitioners' exercise of their fiduciary duties.

Appellate Information

• Decided 09/07/2007
• Published 09/07/2007

Judges

• NARES, Acting P.J.

Court

• California Court of Appeal

Counsel

• For Appellant:
  
• Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher and Nicola T. Hanna, Irvine, 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, San Diego, for Petitioner Teresa Aja Webster., Damiani Law Group and Lisa J. Damiani, San Diego, for Petitioner Sharon Kay Wilkinson., Jennifer B. Henning, upon request of the Court of Appeal, and Daniel S. Hentschke, Oceanside, for the California State Association of Counties and League of California Cities, as Amici Curiae on behalf of Petitioners., Steefel, Levitt & Weiss, Ashley K. Dunning, Amy B. Briggs, San Francisco, and Kelly R. Knudson for the Boards of Retirement of the Alameda County Employees' Retirement Association, California Public Employees' Retirement System, California State Teachers' Retirement System, Los Angeles City Employees' Retirement System, Los Angeles County Employees' Retirement Association, and the San Bernardino County Employees' Retirement Association as Amici Curiae on behalf of Petitioners., Bonnie M. Dumanis, District Attorney, Stephen R. Robinson, William J. La Fond and Craig Fisher, Deputy District Attorneys, for Real Party in Interest.


• For Appellees:
  
• No appearance for Respondent.