Laserfiche WebLink
RESOLUTION NO. 6147 OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE <br />CITY OF SANTA ANA, CALIFORNIA, OPPOSING ADOPTION <br />OF SENATE BILL 694 <br /> <br /> WHEREAS, this Council believes that the very liberal pro- <br />visions of the State Employees' Retirement System should not be <br />unreasonably enlarged and firmly believes that this Act should not <br />be further amended to increase the preference provisions for fire- <br />men and policemen, referred to as "local safety members"; that many <br />provisions of the Act provide special benefits to said "local safety <br />members" which cannot be justified upon any reasonable basis; that <br />such special benefits are largely the result of the very effective <br />firemen's lobby, assisted to some extent by the lobbying of peace <br />officer organizations; that disability retirement for injury incurred <br />in public employment should be no different for safety members than <br />for any other employee, and the same cannot be justified upon any <br />basis; that the majority of disability retirements are unrelated to <br />the employment of the retired member, and a grant for life regardless <br />of the amount of recovery and the return of earning ability amounts <br />to a gift of public funds in some cases for a clever presentation of <br />some facts and a tutored concealment of others. <br /> <br /> NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Santa Aha <br />expresses its opposition to Senate Bill 694 as unreasonable, illogi- <br />cal and a special preference to a part of the public employees group <br />represented by special lobbies and has a trend to illogically <br />favor safety members over all other employees in an area where the <br />type of employment is wholly unrelated to the result sought, and <br />suggests that not only should this area be no further enlarged, but <br />that the conclusive presumption that certain ailments suffered by <br />firemen and policemen are necessarily the result of their employment <br />should be removed from the Act as conclusions which cannot be in <br /> <br />fact supported. <br /> <br />-1- <br /> <br /> <br />