a adjustment for inflation the default option is described as just judgement is a portion of the options you have when you first become a cheating police officer were yes i'm referring to the business about whether to benefit that you're talking about is something that only comes into effect after twenty five years correct that's true your honor you say something that you're that you're in no sense entitle to is vested in the crude that's hard for me to option option or whatever so that's what that's what our that only call that only comes into effect that that language that kind of strange language only applies after twenty five years and when you have leader abuse if you only go twenty four taken away before the twenty five years you see that i'm just candidly telling you what my difficulty is with the argument how do you address well you know under the provisions of the pension plan that allow for these options at twenty five years we're in the point when he started when he vested it ten years they were there the provision that i know him i mean when he vested that means when he's entitled to a set of benefits that didn't include this thing well the proof i'm trying to get at that the provision that says you must invest in a crew wasn't even part of the plan not to ninety seven the term accrual was added in two thousand we noted in every in the it already vested then also the provision that allows the city to have a minute or change of pension plan for economic necessity was added in two thousand these weren't even part of the point he vested in and i would argue that mean it's not like you're selecting a benefit on the friday and then it's something you get to it after twenty five years it's an option a viable to you we did you're going to have to exercise one of them  that or what connex it is it's a part of your basic calculation of what you get it's not some addition you might get a lighter this is part of what you're going to get into this case it reduced his pension but of fifty five percent which is a great deal of money over the course of his l potentially as was so that if i understand your argument it's in the nature of when i was accumulating these twenty five years scientists paid at the end of the twenty five years i'd have the option to do a no the problem with this in math would be i mean we know that there are you know there's been a lot of painful challenges pension systems in recent years and very painful to public employee and the reason it's so painful is that some one of the reasons is that it was within the reasonable expectation of the employer but it may not be a part of the vested and about if your honour's are correct and we don't have a coin i would say that since he vested prior to any change in the language it requires a cruel which i think is more vague concept i think he  only say sixty thousand hours against two hundred sixty million of gross value that might is going to lay down decision on what does have an economic cost and equities it's not a very equitable option i mean it looks like it was a mistake when they wrote it it might have it may have been around and when you start to say well this you know this kind of fairness thing well it's down there as well and i know i submitted dozens and dozens of people enjoying it as we stand here today and only a few people were cut out of it after expecting it for twenty four years the savings to the point is minuscule it's in the zero zero zero two percent of the total point value there's no economic necessity here there's no necessity why it was changed probably was the the in the in the brief but if he vested me i understand that argument makes certain amount of sense but if you're making that kind of general this seems wrong kind of argument looks like house cleaning it clean up something that was wrong well wh really trying to address and i agree with your honor but what i'm trying to address is the fact that blackwell talks about economic necessity the pension plan amendment in two thousand talks about it it's not they are so what is that what is the purpose if that matters if it doesn't and what he vested at it ten years is the question what did he get it ten years if it's a cruel then he's out of a glass blackwell trumps however if he vested in looked well in that other opinion as well i'm sorry dealt with blackwell in which is part of the basis of this argument besting occur and what vested it ten years was not the plan we have now and if it fundamentally affects a calculation i submit five cent over the course of a man's lifetime is only fifty to is w g him that's in the record this is hundreds of thousands of dollars we're talking about those were a lot of money to exactly they were great deal although they still have some benefit and it could go back to them to something so much of what it was of this a cruel and for this this concept of a cruel and in essence his right to receive this pinch invested ten years or whatever form you know whatever financial point he reached the pensions based on how long you war in your highest three years of salar it but he still vested in a certain amount of ten years so even under your theory it's vested but not accrued he would lose all know it he vested it ten years in the right to pick one of these options is what i'm saying he vested in the plan that existed as oregon if we're right on the head mr dodd admits in his deposition record entry thirty seven dash wanted pages to a three to ten to twenty four that he had to be eligible for the twenty five year pension that he is retired and receiving to be a to be eligible for this default benefit whatever we want to call and the plain language of the pension plan is clear and unequivocal that you have to be eligible to retire with a service retirement pension twenty five your pension in order to be eligible for this default option that's the language of two four eleven see which says again fifteen that says it ten years you best in something and that is the route to a refund of your if you leave after ten years to get what you contribute back or you get this deferred pension until you're fifty five it doesn't say anything about the pension that mr dodd i asked it doesn't say anything about this default benefit just default death benefit no option option whatever the proper term is it says nothing about you best city ordinance say that three readings are required in those two provisions be consistent the city charter was amended in two thousand and four to require only two readings to pass an ordinance and section t of that ordinance that made that change was suddenly passed by referendum which was is required said the order to change the charter in order to change the charter and all the ordinances it says any mauls all law is inconsistent with this so anything that  and is that inconsistent wise and consistent wise and i'm not sure the intensity because it can tell if one thinks is you need three for a subcategory of cases and then there's general rule which says you only need to both of those could apply that the to this thing requires an extra i would have i would assert that the the the part of like saying to that means it's inconsistent with anything that requires more than that the charter control the charter controls and it said in two thousand and four that only two r so only two readings are required even in those situations where the ordinance is to be changed it requires three i believe when the charter is changed it says anything inconsistent with this which would include a three rating acquirement somewhere else is repealed would mean that a two rating requirement is zero is required and if you look at it and that makes sense but i'm asking what's wrong with the argument i'm not sure they make it it's consistent with that have a subcategory of cases where three is required and under brutal logic those aren't consistent they are consistent and but i think the three to the extent the three reading the language of three readings was was  in the code that was taken care of subsequently in an ordinance that spread for the plaintiff where archaic provisions as the phrase used were deleted and so the change was made legally effective in two thousand and four that only two readings are required and if you look at the city councils actions two thousand and four and own including changes made to this pension plan only two readings were used after two thousand  never after two thousand and four it was understood by the city council certainly that only two rings were required to make changes in fact that ordinance that delayed the archaic provisions which was passed in  gets one to six seven or was the ordinance number mr dawoud argued below that that was the ordinance that changed the reading requirement from three two but that ordinance was passed on to readings so  if in fact if three readings had been required and hadn't been changed then the ordinance that mr dodd said below doesn't make that argument here made this change from three to two was only passed on to readings that would be a harness they use the word when the charter was changed misted i mean are you saying you didn't persist in that or did it not persist is a better of the law persist as a matter of law and the city can't after two thousand and four it is a matter of fact you can  go back and fed the confusing language that is that is that is true in the city council remedy that i think when the when the when the when the legal change was made in two thousand and four the city councils practice as as that two thousand and four change the city council always on the in from then on operated under the two reading requirement it understood that's exactly what i was right but as a matter of fact yes it was stay or it was cleaned up when the ordinance w changed baumol and the two reading requirement was implemented it took some time to go and find where three readings were said everywhere in the code and the only a mile and that was fixed i'm looking at one to six seven for us ro doesn't govern specifically because we're talking about different statutory city codes but the structure of frazier which asks the question must is does the change affect any accrued or vested benefit that clearly applies and there's no question that both of those issues have not been met or both of the standards and not been met in this particular case one thing i would like to address that planet has alluded to was is the necessary reasonable changes of the don't think the court gets there i don't that's a step down the road there has to be first unequivocally clearly a contractual right and if there is then the court asks the later questions but i think it's helpful to have some context for the change made and economically sound it looked first at what it would call easy changes things that it felt were non controversial things that felt should be corrected as judge rogers mentioned perhaps or other low hanging fruit this was one of those examples this was a subsidy this was something that had been given it was not part of the best to create benefit and accordingly it was something that was first done it was a an appropriate and necessary first step for all of the things that were later addressed in the frazier case the fraser case technically addressed only a cola but the but in the fraser case the backstory is there were tons of other changes that were made to the pension fund same thing here while the plaintiff addresses only one aspect of what was changed here there were other changes made perhaps myer but none unless there were things that were helping to streamline and prepare for later changes that needed to be made changes to the investment structure changes to what's called the final average salary which help which is part of the analysis for what is a pension benefit significantly this change the change that  chief dodd objects to made it more equitable among beneficiaries at the time beneficiaries not married did not get this benefit people who were married did get the benefit so it actually corrects something that was an equable to other members and i have nothing further to add we thank you for your time does the court have any questions i ask a question  about an argument that deals with the archaic language in one to six seven see if we didn't opt out i found it misunderstood your question i'm not sure we hope we pull that modern out you may i'm not sure we pull that out but we point out in our brief in our in our summ judgment papers and that the the one to because he didn't raise this one to six seven seven argument in this court he did not make that argument up in this court he made the p made that point below and we let arguments not before us and that argument is not before you thank charter yes that's helpful thank you in simply put it appears at least to me that it is reasonable argument that the city created the special provision for pension changes and possibly were not it's not clear to me that they  is to the economic argument i don't know the difficulty i don't want to take too much time of the difficulty i have that with that it's little bit inconsistent with what we held in frasier which said the cruel isn't just how much you can figure out ahead of time it's your  that is in the case in say that only that a cruel to me gets to that i don't know that it gets to the idea of what options for your for your relatives that exist past that and this is the economic are going to understand what city saying with sixty thousand dollars against hundred fifty million dollars i have to disagree with my friend and colleague judgment tice i've known for many years i don't think an expert is necessary is know that that's not really an economic benefit and i'll rest at that point