Marin IJ Readers’ Forum for Jan. 15, 2019

Drew should self-reflect,
help city move forward

The Novato residents who created and signed a petition against Councilwoman Pam Drew becoming mayor and bravely presented it to the council almost two months ago are not bullies, they are concerned citizens who are tired of witnessing the dysfunction of the Novato City Council. They spoke up and said “enough” to their elected city leaders.

Drew playing the victim (Marin Voice, Jan. 8) in a situation she created shows just how unequipped she is to lead this city. To lash out and say disinformation was spread is not only disingenuous but it is also untrue.

The council members who voted not to select Drew because of how she treats constituents, city staff and anyone who disagrees with her (which has been witnessed time and again at council meetings) did what they had to in order to restore civility to the city’s operations. It would be nice if instead of continuing to hash out what happened, Drew could do some self-reflecting and help the city move forward.

— Amy O’Connor, Novato

Salary increases will
increase pension costs

It is incredible that our county administrator would make the statement (IJ, Dec. 14) that there is no increase in pension cost due to the recent salary increases to management employees. He is referring to the salary increases being less than the 3 percent salary increase assumption that the actuary uses for the funding of the plan.

Fact: Any salary increases will increase the cost of the pension plan. This is especially true for increases to the higher paid, older management employees.

The county pension plan annual taxpayer cost is 25.32 percent of payroll, of which 11.95 percent is attributable to the payment on the unfunded liability. The county administrator should be pursuing real pension reform measures that could reduce future risk and enable the plan to stay well-funded — such as eliminating the California Rule — instead of finding ways to justify pension cost increases.

The California Rule inhibits administrators from making any adjustments to future benefits and are thus unable to combat rising pension costs and unfunded liabilities. This is currently being reviewed by the California Supreme Court in the case of CalFire v. CalPERS.

None of our supervisors or the county administrator have actively supported this reform.

— Bob Bunnell, Novato;
Citizens for Sustainable
Pension Plans

Review of golf course
court ruling is welcomed

Many thanks to Trust for Public Land for its appeal of the Marin Superior Court ruling on the San Geronimo Golf Course. The ruling, in a suit brought by a golfing advocacy group, faulted the county for failure to conduct environmental analysis before proceeding with acquisition of the site from TPL, halting the county’s purchase efforts.

Given public interest in the ruling and its potential legal cloud over conservation efforts, a fresh look at proceedings should be welcomed by all parties.

A Court of Appeal will simply review the lower court’s ruling to ascertain whether there is ground for reversal. Depending on the nature of the appeal, the Court of Appeal either looks at the issue anew or will give great deference to the trial court’s ruling, e.g., it will review the trial court’s ruling for an “abuse of discretion.” No new evidence is admitted.

TPL is a national nonprofit that helps communities acquire and protect important natural lands, parks, farms, forests, and historic sites. Since 1972 they have protected more than 3.3 million acres nationwide, including at Main Headlands and in Marin City. They purchased the golf course in 2017 with the intent of selling the property to the county at a future date.

The San Geronimo property is a conservation target due to its network of waterways that are home to aquatic species including endangered salmon. Public ownership would enable repair of the landscape through cessation of herbicide use and water diversions, and would provide new trails and park areas for the public.

— Ann Thomas, Corte Madera