A federal bankruptcy judge ruled yesterday that the bankrupt city of Stockton can legally reduce its pension obligations to California's massive public pension system and use that money to pay other creditors. Also, the killing of nearly 1,000 chickens at a Foster Farms facility in Fresno County has thrown a spotlight on animal cruelty cases. Then, the battle over the Greek Theatre continues with Live Nation vs. Nederlander Corp.
Stockton ruling renews debate: should bankrupt cities be able to renege on pensions?
In a landmark blow to CalPERS, a federal bankruptcy judge ruled yesterday that the bankrupt city of Stockton can legally reduce its pension obligations to California's massive public pension system and use that money to pay other creditors.
Pension obligations have long been the third rail of city bankruptcy negotiations and yesterday’s finding could have huge implications for other debt-stressed California cities like San Bernardino. Public employee unions have consistently claimed that bankrupt cities have to make full contributions to pensions, even if they can’t pay their other debts. But Judge Christopher Klein ruled that cities’ future pension payments need not be treated any differently than other financial obligations, like those to Franklin Templeton Investments, another Stockton creditor. Yesterday’s ruling comes about 9 months after a bankruptcy judge in Detroit, the nation's largest city to declare bankruptcy, ruled that the city could reduce what it owed in pensions even though the Michigan state constitution expressly protects pension payments. In June, employees voted to approve their own pension benefit cuts.
Will we see more of this in the future? Should cities be obligated to honor promises they made to public unions even when they get into financial trouble, or should they have the flexibility to change those agreements? What could be the potential impact of yesterday’s ruling on public employees and city services?
Guests:
Marcia Fritz, President of the California Foundation for Fiscal Responsibility, a nonprofit organization that focuses on public employee retirement benefit issues in California
Terry Brennand, a lobbyist for Service Employees International Union (SEIU)
Supreme Court will consider cops' ignorance of the law in Heien v. North Carolina
Today the Supreme Court justices granted hearings to eleven new cases for this term. In a religious discrimination dispute, the Court will hear the case of a young Muslim woman denied a job at Abercrombie & Fitch because she wore a headscarf. The court will also tackle a fair housing case from Texas and step into an Arizona fight over congressional redistricting. The justices have yet to grant a same-sex marriage case, but could still do so.
This Monday, in the first oral arguments of the year, is a fascinating Fourth Amendment case. In 2009, Nicholas Heien was driving with a broken taillight in North Carolina when he was stopped by police who mistakenly believed state law required two working taillights. The police then searched the car, with the permission of Heien, and found cocaine. At his trial, Heien asked to suppress the evidence arguing the officer never had reasonable suspicion to pull over the car.
Should the police be rewarded for ignorance of the law in this case? Or, because officers have a special interest in traffic safety, did the police make a good-faith mistake? Justices Antonin Scalia and Stephen Breyer do not rule predictably for and against law enforcement, respectively. How could that affect this case?
Guest:
Greg Stohr, Supreme Court reporter for Bloomberg News;
Ilya Shapiro, Senior Fellow in Constitutional Studies at the Cato Institute and Editor-in-Chief of the Cato Supreme Court Review; Shapiro joined an amicus brief filed with the Court in support of the petitioner, Heien.
Karen Kruger, Attorney with Funk and Bolton law firm based in Baltimore, Maryland; General Chair of the Legal Officers Section of the International Association of Chiefs of Police.
Four people arrested for chicken massacre in Fresno County; a look at adjudicating cases of animal cruelty
Animal cruelty was once considered a sideline issue relegated to a few “extremists” who cared a lot about our four legged friends. But, over the years, animal advocates have taken a front seat in pushing for jail sentences for those that harm animals and some officials are listening. For example, New York City created an Animal Cruelty Investigation Squad, and the FBI has announced the creation of a new federal category for animal cruelty crimes this month to better track those offenses. But, some in the legal community say their actions don’t deserve jail time, since it can lead to gang affiliations and could interrupt a potentially productive life.
Cases of animal cruelty are vastly under-reported, according to legal experts. But the killing of nearly 1,000 chickens at a Foster Farms facility in Fresno County has thrown a spotlight on these kind of cases. Today, police announced that they have arrested four people--one 18-year-old man and three juveniles--in connection to the case, who are being charged with burglary and felony cruelty to animals.
Is jail too harsh a sentence for those who hurt animals? What are the underlying causes that lead to animal abuse? What might other consequences be for those that cause pain or neglect to animals?
Guests:
Diane Balkin, Contract Attorney, Criminal Justice Program, Animal Legal Defense Fund. She is the former Chief Deputy District Attorney in the Denver District Attorney’s Office
Matthew Guerrero, Esq., criminal defense attorney in San Luis Obispo County. He is Treasurer of California Attorneys for Criminal Justice, an organization of criminal defense lawyers and criminal defense professionals in the state
White mother sues sperm bank after giving birth to African-American baby
When Jennifer Cramblett gave birth to her baby girl, it was immediately clear the sperm donor was not caucasian, as she and her domestic partner, Amanda Zincon, had requested. Instead, the baby came out bi-racial. As it turns out, the sperm bank had erroneously sent Cramblett vials of sperm from an African-American donor.
Now, two years later, Cramblett is suing the sperm bank for negligence. She says while she wouldn’t change anything about her daughter, the bank’s mix up will make it difficult for her daughter growing up in a conservative, majority-white Ohio town, and the bank needs to be held accountable for its actions. Cramblett is a lesbian, which she says already makes her family’s situation more difficult.
What are the broader implications of this kind of mistake? How regulated are sperm banks? How would you respond in that situation?
Guest:
Arthur Caplan, Ph.D., Professor of Medical Ethics at New York University Langone Medical Center
Jose Huizar on the contested race for council seat, and future of Downtown revitalization
The race for the 14th District City Council seat got interesting last month, when outgoing LA County supervisor Gloria Molina decided to throw her hat in the ring against incumbent Jose Huizar. The 14th District includes Boyle Heights, Eagle Rock, El Sereno, Downtown Los Angeles -- communities that have experienced dramatic changes in the last several years.
But one thing that has not changed is the rate of homelessness. Huizar has asked for a ‘Homeless czar’ to oversee operations affecting the homeless, an effort that could work in conjunction with the city’s $3.7 million Operation Healthy Streets program.
Huizar has also been in the spotlight lately because of a sexual harassment lawsuit brought against him by one of his former aides. A settlement was announced this morning, as well as the fact that the city will not be pay anything. The city was on the hook, however, for $200,000 in his legal fees.
Last week, Larry talked to Molina about the upcoming race. Today, he checks in with Huizar.
Guest:
Jose Huizar, Los Angeles City Councilmember since 2005 for the 14th District - encompassing Downtown LA, Boyle Heights, El Sereno. He’s seeking reelection for a third term in the district in March 2015
Beloved Greek Theatre in tug-of-war over who will run it
Riled up community members opposed to a change in operations at the Greek Theatre packed a meeting Wednesday at the L.A. Department of Recreation and Parks. Major concert promoter Live Nation wants to take over the Greek from Nederlander Corp., which has had the concessions contract since 1975. Losing the Greek would cripple Nederlander, so it teamed up with AEG to compete against the Live Nation bid. The city panel will revisit the matter October 8.
If Nederlander loses the contract, will L.A. be down to just two major promoters — Live Nation and AEG? Why is the city leaning toward Live Nation? Why are community members in Los Feliz opposed? What is the reaction in the live entertainment industry?
Guest:
Dave Brooks, Founder of Amplify - a new-media company in the events business