SignOnSanDiego.com > News > Metro — Judge issues, then withdraws, ruling against Aguirre
By Jennifer Vigil

February 23, 2008

SAN DIEGO – A judge issued and then abandoned a ruling against City Attorney Michael Aguirre yesterday, saying he needed more information about San Diego’s city charter before the case can proceed.

Advertisement
Initially, Superior Court Judge William R. Nevitt decided that Aguirre did not receive the required City Council approval to sue the pension system in November. Aguirre is challenging a retirement board decision to take on nearly $150 million in costs to fund a pension perk he opposes.

Nevitt vacated the ruling in a late afternoon hearing, even before attorneys for Aguirre and the pension system began their arguments.

The judge asked the lawyers to submit briefs outlining their interpretations of how the city charter defines the city attorney’s role. He also asked them to clarify any misunderstandings that could arise because of archaic language in the 77-year-old document.

Nevitt will release a new tentative ruling in advance of a March 21 hearing.

Online: To see the judge’s withdrawn ruling, go to uniontrib.com/more/documents.

Arguments over Aguirre’s approach to his job have continued for three years. Aguirre contends that he can act on behalf of the public, while council members maintain that the city attorney works for the council and mayor, not residents.

Pension system attorneys challenged Aguirre’s suit on that point, alleging that he did not obtain the required permission to sue over the pension program.

They are not the only ones. Aguirre’s office is the subject of a State Bar of California investigation, in part over the question of whether Aguirre properly secured authority to pursue his ambitious case to overturn two rounds of pension-benefit increases.

That case failed six months ago when another judge found that the city could not challenge the legality of the benefits.

It was too late for Aguirre to argue that pension board members should not have voted on their own pensions, the judge said, because the statute of limitations had expired on the claims. Aguirre had relied on the conflict-of-interest argument in seeking an end to the benefits.

Aguirre, who personally argued the previous case, did not appear in court yesterday; an assistant, Don McGrath, did.

After the hearing, Aguirre said he would ask council members to relieve the taxpayer liability for the benefit in the case before Nevitt or allow his suit to continue. The council has rebuffed such requests since the fall.