Mendocino County Board of Retirement denies retiree’s appeal over pension calculation, directs staff to review records

The Mendocino County Board of Retirement on Oct. 15 denied an appeal by retiree Phil Pantaine challenging a correction notice that led the pension system to change his retirement calculation. After hearing arguments from Pantaine and system counsel, trustees voted to reject the appeal and instructed staff to provide Pantaine with all available records and to perform a comprehensive review of his contribution rates.

The appeal drew detailed historical claims from Pantaine, who told trustees he believes his retirement tier and final compensation were recorded and handled incorrectly, and that the errors have harmed retired beneficiaries’ livelihoods. “MCERA uses, such words as systemic and human error when describing the retirees' pension revisions based on error by staff. But MCERA doesn't say how or why, and it's your burden of proof to prove how and why these errors were committed,” Pantaine said during his presentation.

In written materials and at the hearing, counsel for the retirement system urged the board to correct errors where they are found. Alex Westerfield, who introduced himself as representing the system, told trustees there is “just no basis to treat mister Pintaine as a safety tier 1 member” for calculating his retirement allowance and warned trustees that continuing to pay a benefit that lacks legal authorization risks creating an unconstitutional gift of public funds and could jeopardize tax-favored status.

Staff told trustees they had checked contribution-rate records and could provide documentation showing the contributions paid during Pantaine’s employment matched safety tier 2 rates, and offered to send detailed reconciling information to Pantaine. At the conclusion of public argument, the board met in closed session to deliberate the appeal. Upon returning to open session, a trustee moved to deny the appeal “as presented today with direction to staff” to provide all available records to Pantaine and to perform a comprehensive review of his contribution rates; a second was given and the motion carried unanimously among trustees present.

The board’s action instructs staff to assemble and deliver year-by-year contribution documentation to Pantaine and to conduct a file-wide reconciliation for the retirement records that underlie his calculation. The motion did not change any benefits at the meeting; rather, it denied the procedural appeal while ordering further record work and review by staff.

Trustees and attorneys at the hearing referred to state law and constitutional provisions during arguments. Pantaine questioned application of Government Code provisions and cited legislative history; system counsel referenced doctrines including the prohibition against gifts of public funds, tax-law constraints on unauthorized benefit payments and equitable estoppel case law when urging the board to correct mistakes where they are discovered.

Staff said it will produce the requested records to Pantaine and perform the directed comprehensive review, and trustees did not adopt any immediate change to pension payments at the meeting. The board did not identify any resulting overpayment recoupment or other specific enforcement steps at the public meeting; any such actions would follow from staff findings and legal counsel advice.

Ending: Trustees declined the appeal but ordered staff to compile and deliver contribution-rate records to the claimant and to complete a thorough review of his contribution history. The board’s denial concludes the public hearing portion of the item; any further changes to benefits would depend on the results of the staff review and additional legal advice.