eastern district of wisconsin milwaukee county, employee

Again, Dobbert confirmed these facts in his August 2007 deposition. 26
Dobbert had, in fact, been considering a BackDROP for some time. Many witnesses
have confirmed that he got the idea for the BackDROP by attending a conference on the subject
in the late 1990s. Indeed, in January 1999, he commissioned and received a detailed
memorandum from the Reinhart Boerner law firm regarding DROPs that mentions BackDROPs
as a possible variation. In that memorandum, Reinhart discussed plan design options for
DROPs available to the County, told the County that their choice regarding a DROP could have
cost implications, and told them that their choice could affect retirement patterns. 27
Thus, when Dobbert considered a BackDROP for inclusion in the Package, he again
turned to Reinhart. On September 12, 2000, Dobbert sent a letter to Steven Huff (“Huff”) of the
Reinhart firm, describing the BackDROP in detail, and asking Huff to look for “red flags.”
Mercer, notably, was not copied on this letter. 28
Then, in late October 2000, days before the PSC hearing at which the benefit
enhancements included in the Package would be considered, Dobbert received a twenty-five
page memorandum Reinhart attorneys had drafted discussing, among other things, “DROP
design issues.” This memorandum, which concluded that “the County should wait to implement
the expected amendments to ERS until the Pension Board receives a favorable determination
letter from the Internal Revenue Service,” was later called the “go-slow memo” by County
representatives. Huff told Dobbert that costing out the BackDROP benefit was “an area that
needed to be addressed and that an actuary was needed.” 29
26 PFF, 58-60
27 PFF, 61-63.
28 PFF, 64-65.
29 PFF, 66-68.
QBACTIVE\6280487.1 13
Case 2:06-cv-00372-CNC Filed 06/09/2008 Page 13 of 52 Document 110