‘Should’ is advisory, not certain. It also equals ‘ought.’

There is, of course, no bar to the Supreme Court adopting a Court of Appeal's reasoning as its own. Yet there is legitimate reason to question whether that was what the Supreme Court intended in 1983. First, as just shown, only the least authoritative of the three sources cited **385 actually supports the word “must,” while the two Supreme Court decisions employ “should.” Second, barely a month later, the Supreme Court—speaking though the same justice—filed another decision which used the “should” formulation from the 1955 Allen decision as quoted in Abbott.20 Third, the 1983 Allen decision involved retirees (and Flournoy the widow of a retiree), who historically receive a heightened degree of judicial protection. (See fn. 19, ante.) Fourth, and most significantly, the “must” formulation has never been reiterated by the Supreme Court, which has instead uniformly employed the “should” *699 language from the 1955 Allen decision. (Olson v. Cory, supra, 27 Cal.3d 532, 541, 178 Cal.Rptr. 568, 636 P.2d 532 [“Although an employee does not obtain any ‘absolute right to fixed or specific benefits ... there [are] strict limitation[s] on the conditions which may modify the pension system in effect during employment.’ [Citation.] Such modifications must be reasonable and any ‘ “changes in a pension plan which result in disadvantage to employees should be accompanied by comparable new advantages” ’ ”]; Legislature v. Eu (1991) 54 Cal.3d 492, 529–530, 286 Cal.Rptr. 283, 816 P.2d 1309 [quoting Olson]; City of Huntington Beach v. Board of Administration (1992) 4 Cal.4th 462, 472, 14 Cal.Rptr.2d 514, 841 P.2d 1034 [“changes in a pension plan which result in disadvantage to employees should be accompanied by comparable new advantages,” citing Allen v. City of Long Beach, supra, 45 Cal.2d 128, 131, 287 P.2d 765].)

It thus appears unlikely that the Supreme Court's use of “must” in the 1983 Allen decision was intended to herald a fundamental doctrinal shift. “Should,” not “must,” remains the court's preferred expression. And “should” does not convey imperative obligation, no more compulsion than “ought.” (Lashley v. Koerber (1945) 26 Cal.2d 83, 90, 156 P.2d 441; see People v. Webb (1986) 186 Cal.App.3d 401, 409, fn. 2, 230 Cal.Rptr. 755 [“the word ‘should’ is advisory only and not mandatory”].) In plain effect, “should” is “a recommendation, not ... a mandate.” (Cuevas v. Superior Court (1976) 58 Cal.App.3d 406, 409, 130 Cal.Rptr. 238.)