Affidavits by key county witnesses, including Supervisors Lynne DeBruin and Mark Borkowski, are “sham” documents that directly contradict earlier statements by the same people, according to the defendant in the county’s federal court pension lawsuit.

Mercer Human Resource Consulting Inc. filed a motion seeking dismissal of the case in June, arguing that “there is no evidence demonstrating that any County Board members relied on Mercer’s advice, much less a majority. Instead, the Plaintiffs’ case is an after-the-fact fabrication in an attempt to scapegoat Mercer and to shift blame away from the mistakes of County personnel like (former Director of Human Resources Gary) Dobbert and the County Board’s own lack of oversight in connection with the enactment of the 2001-2004 Wage and Benefit Package.”

In response, the county filed a series of affidavits from former members of the Pension Study Committee stating that they did indeed rely on Mercer’s advice. Those affidavits, Mercer argued in a new filing, directly contradict what the officials first said.

Borkowski, in his latest affidavit, according to Mercer, stated that “I received a package of information regarding the pension benefit enhancement package before the meeting. That packet . . . contained analysis by the actuaries from Mercer.”

In his earlier testimony, though, according to Mercer, Borkowski stated he  “never saw” Mercer’s October 3, 2000 letter. He testified that the “first time I’m seeing” the letter was during his 2003 deposition.He “did not see $7.6 million” referenced in Mercer’s October 3, 2000 letter, which was Mercer’s estimate for the cost of the pension package without including the BackDROP. Borkowski “would remember if I saw a $7 million price tag on something.”

In Borkowski’s new affidavit, according to Mercer, the supervisor said he voted in favor because “I was convinced by staff prior to the meeting and by Mercer actuaries at the Pension Study Commission meeting that the changes proposed were either cost neutral, meaning that they could be made with no increase in tax levy, or very affordable, meaning that they could be made with an insignificant tax levy increase. I relied upon those Mercer representations to cast my vote.”

Borkowski’s earlier testimony, according to Mercer, indicated that the only information Borkowski considered was the fiscal note, which did not include any reference to the BackDROP. He testified that “as far as county government is concerned, my costing out is the fiscal note” and “for me . . . the fiscal note on the resolution is what salted my vote.”

DeBruin’s affidavits similarly contradicted themselves, Mercer said.

In her new affidavit, Mercer said, DeBruin maintained she “received and reviewed” Mercer’s October 3, 2000 letter before the October 27, 2000 PSC meeting. She “reviewed that material” and “assumed it to be correct.”

In her previous affidavit, according to Mercer, DeBruin said she did not see Mercer’s October 3, 2000 letter until “after the scandal broke, sometime after.” In response to the question “you don’t recall seeing it at or about the time it was authored?” DeBruin responded “Oh, absolutely not.”

DeBruin, according to Mercer, said in her recent affidavit that if Mercer had told her “they had not done a study to analyze either the actuarial effect or cost implications of the backDROP,” DeBruin would have “raised red flags to County officials, including moving that the item be laid over so that a full actuarial study could be completed on the benefit and that the matter be referred to the Finance Committee for study of financial impact.”

In her earlier testimony, according to Mercer, DeBruin said that Dobbert told her an actuarial study had not been done prior to enactment of the BackDROP for the majority of the unions. “He told me it could not be done. He specifically said, you cannot do an actuarial report on the impact of the pension changes until after it’s adopted. That’s one of the reasons I voted against the package.”

Affidavits by Pension Study Committee members Derek Kenner and James McClutchy are contradictory as well, Mercer argues.  The county has not yet responded to Mercer’s allegations that they are “sham” documents.