Facts

Petitioners Katy Rose, a citizen of Menlo Park, SEIU 521, and AFSCME Local 829 filed suit against the City of Menlo Park seeking a writ of mandate to prevent the "New Public Employee Pension Reform Act" (Act) submitted by Edward Moritz, real party in interest. SEIU 521 and AFSCME Local 829 are the exclusive bargaining representatives for the non-police employees of the City of Menlo Park. Moritz is a resident of Menlo Park and treasurer of the organization, Citizens for Fair and Responsible Pension Reform (Citizens).

Moritz submitted 3,119 signatures to the City Clerk for the proposed Act that would provide for fiscally responsible and fair retirement benefits for new public employees, excluding police officers hired by the city after the effective date of the Act. The collected signatures constituted more than the requisite 10% of the Menlo Park electorate sufficient to qualify the measure upon action by the City Council.

Following San Mateo County Elections Division's certification of the signatures and qualification of the initiative for the ballot, the Menlo Park City Council adopted a resolution ordering the Act to be presented to the voters on the Nov. 2, 2010 general election ballot.

The Act, if passed, would apply to any defined benefit pension plan for new employees and provides for full retirement age at no less than 60 years. It permits new employees to receive a pension benefit at a lower rate no sooner than five years prior to the full retirement age.

PETITIONERS' CONTENTIONS:
Petitioners contended that the substance of the measure, i.e., the voter's right to set limits on pension benefits, is beyond the power of the voters to adopt. Further, Petitioners contended that the initiative is invalid because the state's collective bargaining statutory scheme and the statutes governing the Public Employee Retirement System (PERS), effectively preempt the bargaining positions.

Result

The judge denied the petition for writ of mandamus on pre-election review, and ordered the election on the measure to proceed. The judge did not find against either party on substantive grounds, inviting review after the election in the event the measure was passed by the electorate.