This is a bad idea dressed up as reform. It takes a system that depends on balance, accountability, and professional administration, and risks handing too much power to a volunteer board that should be advising, not running the show. That is not good governance. That is a recipe for confusion, conflict, and weak accountability.
I say this not only as a concerned resident, but as Chair of the East County Citizen Advisory Board. My experience has taught me that qualified citizens absolutely play an important role in government. In fact, ordinary but informed residents often bring the kind of inclusive, grounded, and practical insight that improves public decisions. But that role is advisory. Citizens should provide expert recommendations, community perspective, and public accountability. They should not be the ones making the final administrative decisions.
The stronger model is clear: citizens advise, professionals decide. A seasoned, accountable, and expert full-time employee should make the final call. That is how you get collective wisdom without sacrificing responsibility. That is how you make better decisions, not merely louder ones.
Supporters of this bill may claim they are improving pension governance, but what they are really doing is shifting authority in a way that could weaken the very structure that protects employees, retirees, and taxpayers. Once you start blurring the line between advisory input and operational control, you create instability. You create opportunities for politics, inconsistency, and unnecessary risk.
If the County wants better pension management, it should improve oversight, strengthen professional administration, and preserve real citizen input where it belongs. It should not be able to hand more power to a volunteer body and pretend that it is progress.
If the Council believes this bill must move forward, then I urge you to amend it in a way that creates a true win-win outcome. The advisory board should keep its role as the body that offers guidance, raises concerns, and brings forward informed recommendations, while the administrator should remain the person who acts, executes, and makes the final professional decision. That balance would preserve citizen input, protect accountability, and create a more effective process where each side does what it does best. Done correctly, this approach could lead to stronger solutions, better oversight, and a system that works more efficiently for everyone involved, especially the retirees who depend on stability, trust, and sound decision-making.
So let me be clear: this bill should be opposed. If Councilmembers truly care about accountability, stability, and sound management, then they should reject this measure or send it back for major changes.
Thank you.