Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more ➡
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Add note
Save to My Library
Sync to mobile
Look up keyword
Like this
4Activity
×
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Francis v. CalPERS

Francis v. CalPERS

Ratings: (0)|Views: 2,879|Likes:
Published by jon_ortiz

More info:

Published by: jon_ortiz on Apr 28, 2011
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See More
See less

04/28/2011

pdf

text

original

 
12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728
LAW OFFICE OF MICHAEL P. WHITEMICHAEL P. WHITEAttomey at LawSBN: 1145952420 K Street, Suite 120Sacramento, CA 95816Tele: (916)446-1802Fax: (916)498-9396Email: mv^hite2230(^aol.com
RLEDSuperior Court Of Califomii
Sdcramento
04/19/2011
Attomey for PetitionerCaso Numbur
34-2011-80000841
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIACOUNTY OF SACRAMENTODANIEL E. FRANCISCASENO.:Petitioner
vs.
BOARD OF ADMINISTRATION FOR THECALIFORNIA PUBLIC EMPLOYEESRETIREMENT SYSTEM (CalPERS); ROBERTFECKNER, PRESIDENT, BOARD OFADMINISTRATION FOR THE CALIFORNIAPUBLIC RETIREMENT SYSTEM m his officialcapacity; and, ANNE STAUSBOLL, CHIEFEXECUTIVE OFFICER, CALIFORNIA PUBLICEMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYSTEM m herofficial capacity.RespondentsPETITION FOR WRIT OFMANDAMUS AND/OR OTHERAPPROPRIATE RELIEFCCP §§ 526a and 1085Date:Time:Dept:
/
Petitioner alleges as follows'PARTIES1.Petitioner Daniel E. Francis is, and at all times mentioned herein, was a resident of El DoradoCounty, State of California, a taxpayer in the State ofCalifomia, a retired State ofCalifomia,Department of Forestry and Fire Protection employee, and a member ofthe Califomia Public EmployeesRetirement System (CalPERS) Petitioner is interested in the appropriate expenditure of public funds;the proper administration of CalPERS programs; and, the appropriate application of laws, particularlythose relating to who can properly be a member ofthe CalPERS and be thereby eligible for its retirementand benefit programs.
Francis v CalPERS - Original Petition for Writ of Mandamus
1
 
1 2. Respondent, Califomia State Employees' Retirement System (CalPERS), is the agency2 charged with goveming the State employee retirement system in compliance with Public Employees'3 Retirement Law. (Government Code section 20000 et seq., hereinafter, "PERL"). CalPERS is directed4 by a 13-member Board of Administration5 3. Respondent Robert Feckner has been the CalPERS Board President at all times mentioned6 herein and is named in his official capacity as such. The board has a sole and exclusive fiduciary7 responsibility over CalPERS' assets held for the exclusive purpose of providing benefits to its members.8 (Cal. Const., art. XVI, section 17(a))9 4. Respondent Arme StausboU has been the CalPERS Chief Executive Officer at all times10 mentioned herein and is named in her official capacity as such. Ms. StausboU is responsible for carrying11 out directions set forth by the CalPERS Board and she supervises CalPERS' employees and various12 programs, including CalPERS funding, membership eligibility and member benefits.13 5. CalPERS is located at 400 Q Street, Sacramento, California.14 FACTS COMMON TO ALL CAUSES OF ACTION15 6. On February 14, 2006, the Honorable Thelton Henderson appointed Robert Sillen, to serve as16 Receiver at the pleasure ofthe Federal Court. The Receiver is an officer and agent ofthe Federal Court17 (gxhibitili Plata v. Schwarzenegger, No COI-1351 TEH, Order Appointing Receiver, 2/14/2006, at18 page 2:2-5 and page 6:2-3)19 7. The receivership is the assumption of authority away from the State of California by the20 Federal Court. As an officer and agent ofthe Federal Court, the Receiver is responsible for21 administering and reforming California's inmate medical care system to achieve constitutional22 compliance. The Receiver is imbued with the power and authonty to act in the name ofthe Federal23 Court, and the ultimate authonty and responsibility rests with the Court alone. {Plata v.24 Schwarzenegger, No. COl-1351 TEH, Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Re Appointment of25 Receiver, 10/03/05; See also Exhibit 1, at page 4-5-10, and at page 6:2)26 8. Shortly after his appointment the Receiver established the California Pnson Healthcare27 Receivership Corporation (CPHRC), as a non-profit corporation to carry out the responsibilities ofthe28
Francis v CalPERS - Original Petition for Wnt of Mandamus
2
 
1 Receiver which included establishing an office and hinng staff who along with the Receiver were2 compensated by CPHRC in an amount approved by the Federal Court. (Exhibit 1, at page 6:10-15)3 9. The CPHRC issued salary checks to the Receiver and his appointed staff CPHRC also4 implemented a benefit program consisting of health care insurance and a contnbution-and-eamings 401k5 savings program.6 10. Neither Receiver SiUen nor his appointed staff were enrolled as members of CalPERS.7 II Funding for the Receiver and CPHRC is denved from public funds paid by the State of8 California. The State is the Defendant in the Plata litigation giving rise to the Receivership. (Exhibit 1,9 at page 6:8 through page 7:14)10 12. On January
23,
2008, the Federal Court terminated the appomtment of Robert Sillen, and11 appointed J. Clark Kelso (Kelso) to serve as Receiver at the pleasure ofthe Federal Court effective12 immediately. The Court ordered all powers, pnvileges and responsibilities ofthe Receiver as set forth in13 its February 14, 2006, Order Appointing Receiver continued. The Court additionally reaffirmed the14 Receivership is independent from the State ofCalifomia and that it is an "arm ofthe federal courts"15 established to take over state operations {E^^^^, Plata v Schwarzenegger, No COI-1351 TEH,16 Order Appointing New Receiver, 1/23/2008, at page 5:1-16)17 13. Pnor to his appointment as an officer ofthe Federal Court, Kelso served as the State's Chief18 Information Officer (CIO) with the Califomia Department of Technology Services where he was a19 member of CalPERS accruing a pension based on the length of his State employment and salary rate in20 that position.21 14 Kelso wished to remain m CalPERS m spite of leaving CIO position and accepting22 employment as an officer of the Federal Court. Consequently, Kelso and WiUiam C Vickery, the23 Director ofjudicial Council of California, Administrative Offices ofthe Courts (AOC) caused the24 preparation of
a
contract between CPHRC and the AOC (the contract). (Exnibit^:, Agreement Between25 the Judicial Councii of California, Administrative Office ofthe Courts and the California Pnson Health26 Care Receivership Corporation, 3/25/2008)27 15. The AOC is a State agency and Its employees are CalPERS members.28
Francis v CalPERS - Original Petition for Writ of Mandamus
3

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->