Troubles Dog Dana Point City Attorney : Government: Jerry Patterson’s retirement benefits draw criticism and could affect council race. But a drunk-driving arrest, reduced to lesser charge Thursday, is behind him.

The past few months have not been kind to Dana Point City Atty. Jerry Patterson, a former congressman whose wife is running for county supervisor.

First, he was arrested Dec. 15 for alleged drunk driving, a charge that was reduced Thursday to reckless driving--but only after weeks of negative coverage in local newspapers.

Then last week, two residents at a public meeting at Dana Point City Hall demanded Patterson’s resignation for collecting $11,000 a year from the city toward retirement benefits, even though he is a private attorney on retainer to the city and not a city employee.

The practice is perfectly legal, but Patterson’s benefits were news to Councilman William L. Ossenmacher, who called for a city report on the matter.

Patterson--whose wife, Linda Moulton-Patterson, is mayor of Huntington Beach, a member of the California Coastal Commission and a supervisorial candidate--acknowledges both cases are embarrassing, although he says he is innocent of any major wrongdoing.

“I’d very much like not to have this become an issue,” said Patterson, with a chuckle born of frustration, not amusement. “To remove this as an issue, I’m willing to offer to pay for my share of the benefits.”

But it is election time in Dana Point, the only city in the county to hold its City Council race in June. And it appears that Patterson’s benefits will be, rightly or wrongly, dragged into a fray that could become heated, said City Councilman Mike Eggers, who is not seeking reelection after six years on the council.

Eggers--who supports Patterson, the only city attorney 5-year-old Dana Point has ever had--said the benefits issue is a tempest in a teapot.

“It’s campaign season, what we call ‘silly season,’ ” said Eggers of the pre-election weeks. “People are just looking for an issue. . . . There is nothing back door, back room or illegal about this at all.”

One of the people who called for an inquiry was Addison DeBoi, a candidate for City Council in the election next month. DeBoi said he would like to see a full report before voicing an opinion on Patterson’s retirement fund.

Patterson’s troubles began while driving through Newport Beach to his Huntington Beach home in the pre-dawn hours of Dec. 15. He admits he was tired when he was stopped on East Coast Highway for speeding and running a red light.

*

Patterson failed a field sobriety test and was arrested on drunk-driving charges, which he insists was not the case. A breath test at the Newport Beach police station showed Patterson’s blood-alcohol level to be .08%, illegal under California law. A blood test 50 minutes later showed his blood-alcohol at .07%, a legally permissible level.

Patterson said he was not driving drunk. “At a maximum, I had three glasses of wine over a period of time. I was surprised they pursued it.”

In a plea agreement, Patterson this week pleaded guilty to reckless driving, for which he will pay a fine of $400.

But the benefits issue will linger, said Dennis Vlach, an eight-year Dana Point resident and former city traffic commissioner who called for Patterson’s resignation last week. Vlach, who is not running for any elected office, said he plans “to keep hammering on this and keep it an issue at every City Council meeting.”

*

“It’s probably all legal, but I think it’s unethical,” said Vlach, a firefighter for the city of Los Angeles who lives in Dana Point. “His firm contracts from the city. The firm brings in more than $500,000 a year from the city and now he wants an additional $11,000 for retirement.”

Ossenmacher does not like the city’s participation in the arrangement, period.

“Jerry Patterson is not by any stretch of the imagination an employee of our city, so as far as I’m concerned he’s not entitled to benefits,” Ossenmacher said. “Here we are, paying out a tremendous amount of money to an independent firm, and then I find out we’re paying his retirement. Maybe it’s time we look at hiring an in-house attorney.”

Patterson, 59, is an attorney with the Costa Mesa-based municipal law firm Burke, Williams and Sorensen, which is employed by the city as an independent contractor. Last year, the city of Dana Point paid more than $684,000 to the firm for its services.

The city pays the firm $6,300 a month as a retainer, which covers the first 60 hours of work by attorneys. After that, the city is charged $125 an hour.

Contract city attorneys may be, and often are, placed on a city’s retirement plan, according to Michael Ogata, public affairs officer for the Public Employees Retirement System, or PERS, the state system that covers about 1 million active members and retirees from public agencies and school systems.

On July 1, however, the law will change. Attorneys like Patterson under contract to public agencies currently have the option of electing to be part of PERS. But after July 1, each City Council must approve the arrangement, Ogata said.

But the new law is not retroactive and will not apply to Patterson, who has been on PERS for a total of 17 years in various cities and communities. Patterson’s career includes stints as attorney for several Orange County cities and as an instructor at Cal State Long Beach.

It was only last October, however, that Patterson elected to continue his retirement plan in Dana Point because he was no longer on a plan anywhere else, he said.

*

But Dana Point has a more lucrative policy for paying retirement benefits than most cities. The city pays for Patterson’s contribution to the fund as well as the employer’s share, a total of $11,000 a year. Patterson said he is willing to pay for his share of the retirements benefits in order to end the controversy.

“It’s our policy. Some cities do it this way, some don’t, but probably more do,” said Dana Point City Manager Stephen B. Julian. “In some cases, employees have negotiated this instead of a salary increase.”

Julian said he thinks it is unfair to single out Patterson for his retirement package because “he is only taking advantage of something that is clearly being permitted.”