Monday, March 31, 2008 | Scott Peters is remembered by many who worked with him (and may again do so) as a smart, tenacious lawyer with high analytical skills.
What I remember about him is his lack of curiosity on the most important issue he has dealt with as a councilmember: the November 18th, 2002, proposal by former city manager Mike Uberuaga to increase pension benefits 25 percent while continuing to under-fund the pension plan. When Uberuaga claimed the fiscal impact would be only $5 million, neither Peters nor fellow city attorney candidate Bryan Maienschein asked a single question.
In fact, it was placed on the consent agenda at the previous meeting. It would have sailed through with no discussion had not Diann Shipione, a non-employee member of the pension board, raised hell about the proposal. Still, no questions by Peters or Maienschein. They sat mute as two union presidents and the HR director, all three beneficiaries of the plan, defamed Shipione.
The other thing I remember about Peters (and Maienschein) is the employment of the “doofus” defense when it hit the fan. They were supposedly misled and given poor advice by city staff including the city attorney. The only thing you can say about this is they were brain dead, knew nothing about pension funding and hadn’t the desire to learn.
Correction: The original version of the letter contended that Peters placed the item on the consent agenda. In fact, in 2002, the mayor set the City Council’s agenda.