When I published an article detailing CalPERS’ determination that the City of Fullerton unlawfully employed multiple retirees, the City’s response was not to dispute the facts publicly, but to escalate the matter elsewhere.

The City Council’s closed session agenda referenced an appeal titled:
“In the Matter of the Appeal of Post Retirement Employment of Eddie R. Manfro, Cindy J. Collins, Gregory J. Pfost and Jeffrey W. Collier, Respondents, and the City of Fullerton, Respondent.”

The mere presence of an appeal indicates that CalPERS had already issued an adverse determination. Appeals are not filed preemptively; they are a response to findings of noncompliance. This was the basis for the original reporting. The existence, parties, and nature of the appeal were all publicly listed.

Instead of publicly clarifying the issue or explaining the violations to residents, the City went a different direction. At a subsequent City Council meeting on December 16, City Attorney Dick Jones announced that the City would ask the Orange County District Attorney to investigate a potential Brown Act violation regarding the reporting of this issue. The City Attorney said Mayor Fred Jung proposed drafting a legal request for an investigation, which Mayor Pro Tem Dr. Shana Charles seconded.

Importantly, the reporting at issue relied entirely on publicly available records and logical inference, not leaks, tips from closed sessions, or confidential materials. Even if a referral were ultimately found unwarranted, its use in this context functions as a deterrent to public scrutiny rather than a corrective to unlawful conduct.

Since then, the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) has released the full set of documents related to the City’s appeals, confirming that the underlying violations identified in the original article were real, documented, and formally determined by CalPERS.

The more consequential issue now is not whether the violations occurred, but how the City has responded at every stage; procedurally, legally, and politically.

The OAH records show that CalPERS issued formal Notices of Unlawful Post-Retirement Employment to at least four individuals employed by the City of Fullerton after retirement. These notices cite specific violations of the California Government Code governing post-retirement employment, specifically for a lack of active recruitment and exceeding the 960-hour limit.

The City of Fullerton, represented by outside counsel, did not argue that CalPERS lacked authority or that the rules were unclear. Instead, the City’s appeals focused almost entirely on procedural and technical arguments, such as disputing the exact date ranges of unlawful employment, seeking to limit the duration of violations, and challenging whether certain periods should be excluded.

Notably absent from the filings is any claim that the employment itself complied with post-retirement law. The appeals do not deny that violations occurred; they attempt to reduce exposure, not refute wrongdoing. This distinction matters.

Appeals that focus on narrowing liability rather than contesting legality are a tacit acknowledgment that the underlying conduct is difficult to defend on the merits. Viewed together, the City’s actions follow a consistent pattern:
1. Violations are identified by CalPERS
2. The City appeals on procedural grounds
3. Public explanation is limited
4. Scrutiny is redirected elsewhere

The City has not meaningfully disputed CalPERS’ authority, denied the factual basis of the violations, or proactively disclosed how or why multiple unlawful post-retirement employments occurred. Instead, resources are being spent on appeals, outside counsel, and now a district attorney referral, all while residents remain largely in the dark.
Post-retirement employment laws exist to protect the integrity of public pension systems and prevent abuse. Violations can carry six-figure financial consequences, including repayment of benefits and retroactive contributions. According to court filings, damages being sought by CalPERS are in excess of $330,000.

Equally important is the issue of governance. When multiple unlawful employments occur following the abrupt termination of a city manager (Ken Domer) and amid widespread executive turnover, residents deserve transparency, not procedural deflection.

The documents now available confirm that the original reporting was accurate. The unresolved question is why the City’s response has prioritized delay, opacity, and escalation over accountability and disclosure.

Additional records have been requested from both the City of Fullerton and CalPERS. As those records are released, they will further clarify:
● Who approved the unlawful appointments, and when
● What internal legal guidance was given at the time
● How much potential liability does the City face

The facts are not going away. The paper trail exists. At this point, the story is no longer just about unlawful post-retirement employment. It is about how a city responds when those violations are exposed.