O.C Retirement Board Ties Debated

In another long and at times contentious meeting, the Orange County Retirement Board on Monday debated several issues concerning the retirement system’s relationship with the county.

Under a state law designed to protect public employee pensions, retirement systems are considered separate entities from the counties they serve. Though some retirement panel members are appointed by the Board of Supervisors, they are supposed to act in the best interest of the pensioners.

But Monday, some board members complained that county officials were trying to gain improper influence over the way the system is run. At issue was a meeting three weeks ago between three board members and County Chief Executive Officer Jan Mittermeier about the pension system.

Critics contend that the entire board should have been informed about the meeting before it occurred. Panelist Keith Concannon said he feared Mittermeier wanted to “indoctrinate” the panelists about the path the county wants the system to follow.

Others expressed concerns that the county will seek a reduction in its contribution to the retirement system in an effort to ease its recovery from bankruptcy.

But Retirement Board Chairman Thomas Lightvoet, one of those who attended the meeting, said the talks only touched on general topics, and that county officials did not demand specific actions from the pension board.

“The intention was to keep the lines of communication open,” Lightvoet said. “There wasn’t anything alarming discussed.”

Lightvoet added that the county had not formally proposed any reduction in its pension contribution. “It would have to be proven to us that it would not impair the health of the system,” he said. “I think the county recognizes that.”

Concannon also suggested that the retirement board stop using the county counsel’s office as the system’s legal advocate on some matters, saying the office has a conflict of interest because it also represents the county.

“I’m thoroughly dissatisfied with the services rendered by the county counsel,” Concannon said. “They don’t serve the retirement board, they serve the Board of Supervisors.”

Other board members endorsed Concannon’s idea of hiring a staff attorney for the system, but officials said it was unclear whether such a move would be allowed under state law. The board voted to study the issue further.

Also Monday, the board voted 5-4 to retain the services of its fiduciary counsel. Some panelists have also questioned the need to use the attorney, who is based in San Francisco.