| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
California public pensions are comprised of three systems. The California Public Employee Retirement System (CalPERS) is a $216 billion fund[1] that covers state employees and retired teachers/administrators and is the largest public pension fund in the country.[2] California public schools are covered by the California State Teachers Retirement System (CalSTRS).
California has 490,791 total employees as of 2010.[3] In Fiscal Year 2010, the state has a total of 1,902,986 active and inactive pension fund members, with 802,270 receiving periodic benefit payments. [4]
A study by the Pew Center for the States revealed that while the state's plans are more than 80 percent funded, the state has failed to consistently make the required contributions, which created a funding decline from a $9 billion surplus in 2000 to a $53 billion unfunded liability in 2007.[5]
State pension costs in California have increased 2500 percent in the last decade. [6] Pension costs are an ever increasing worry in California. The city of Vallejo has filed for bankruptcy which will have the effect of obviating its pension obligations. The City of Orange spent $13 million on pensions in 2009 and expects this number to rise to $23 million in three years. In Los Angeles, one half of the city?s $7 billion budget goes to employee salaries which is one of the factors contributing to a budget shortfall of hundreds of millions of dollars currently and a projection of $1 billion in a few years. This after the city handed out a 23 percent pay increase to city employees in 2007.[6]
Fitch Ratings rated the credit enhancement programs offered by CalPERS and CalSTRS "AAA" and "AA+". [7] A recent study by Stanford said that the average household's share of the debt for state and local government employee pensions is roughly $30,500.[8]
[edit] Role of FY2011 budget
In 2010, Gov. Schwarzenegger insisted the FY 2011 budget pare pension benefits for newly hired state workers to pre-1999 levels as part of any budget agreement.[9] The governor was successful, as the FY2011 state budget created a two-tier system that scaled back pensions for newly hired workers.[1] In addition, the budget included new reporting requirements that CalPERS must justify the need to the governor, state treasurer and Legislature when it needs more money from taxpayers.[1]
In FY2011, the state put $3.9 billion into CalPERS, an 18 percent increase from FY2010.[1]
[edit] Public pension plans
| Plan | Current Value | Percentage funded | Unfunded liabilities | Total state employees | Avg. pension |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CalPERS [10] | $216 billion | 66 percent | $62.1 billion | 1.6 million members | $27,984 |
| CalSTRS [11] | $155 billion | 69 percent | $64.5 billion | 603,319 members | $53,182 |
| University of California Retirement Plan [12] | $41.9 billion | 81 percent | $10.6 billion | 232,767 members | $62,385 |
[edit] CalPERS
The California Public Employee Retirement System (CalPERS) is governed by a 13 member board,including the state treasurer and state controller, with another 6 of the members elected by current or retired public employees.[1] CalPERS has assets of $230.1 billion.[13]
CalPERS adjusts employer contribution rates every year based on whether the pension fund experiences actuarial gains or losses.[14]
[edit] Contributions
The Board of Administration of CalPERS agreed to increase state government contributions to the retirement fund in the fiscal year beginning July 1, 2010. The State contribution is projected by CalPERS staff to be approximately $600 million more than the contribution of $3.3 billion in FY2011. School districts will pay an additional $108 million to cover retirements of non-teaching personnel.[15] The State Legislative Analyst?s Office estimates the actual contribution could be as low as $481 million with recent projections of lower payroll growth and that the estimated increase to the State general fund budget will be $184 million. The rest of the increase will be paid with non-general-fund revenues generated by self-funded agencies ? commonly referred to as special fund agencies.[15]
Two factors led to the total contribution increase:[15]
- $299 million in additional contributions to adjust for a recent demographic study that found CalPERS retirees living longer and workers retiring slightly earlier.
- $217 million in additional contributions to compensate for investment losses during the recent economic recession. The value of the CalPERS pension fund dropped by 24 percent in the 12 months that ended June 30, 2009.
CalPERS recently had to disclose documents from its $100 million investment in East Palo Alto apartment complexes bought up by Page Mill Properties, which was a complete failure.[16]
In June 2010, Gov. Schwarzenegger bargained with the 12 public employee unions. Four of unions agreed to let the state cut its own contributions by requiring current workers to pay sharply more for the same pensions. The workers will contribute 10 percent of their pay, in some cases double the previous rate, to the state pension fund.[17]
Pew Charitable Trusts has reported that the CalPERS pension system has $59.5 billion in unfunded retirement promises, but the Government Accountability Office has said it is $62.5 billion.[18] Another Stanford University study pensions underfunded by as much as $500 billion based on standard accounting practices.[18]
Due to the unfunded liabilities cities and counties will need to contribute more to the funds, adding an extra $26 to the Sacramento region to the $200 million in contributions.[19]
The California Foundation for Fiscal Responsibility estimates that about 9,000 retirees in CalPERS receive pensions that are $100,000 or more a year.[2]
[edit] CalPERS impact on economy
CalPERS pumped nearly $12 billion into the state's economy last year through benefits paid to retirees and other beneficiaries, making it "a significant economic engine in most California communities," a new study says. CalPERS' payments to 431,000 retirees and beneficiaries living in California stimulated about $26 billion in total economic activity last year as the benefits were re-spent in the chain of commerce. That multiplier effect supported almost 94,000 jobs, the report said. [20]
According to the study, 64 percent of every dollar spent by a CalPERS retiree is generated by gains from CalPERS' $237-billion investment portfolio. The balance comes from state and local government employer contributions (21%) and from members during their working years (15 percent). CalPERS investments have returned an average of 7.9 percent a year over the last 20 years, the study said.[20]
The study has its critics. Dan Pellisier, president of California Pension Reform, published a rebuttal that claims the report is an attempt to divert attention from the unfunded liability and the losses the fund sustained.[21] "So while CalPERS vainly tries to convince Californians they are helping the economy, their increasing demands for tax dollars is gobbling up the money we need to fund our schools, build our roads, keep our parks open and our fire stations fully staffed. Growth in government pension costs is also adding pressure to raise taxes at the state and local levels." [21]
The turmoil in the stock market negatively impacted CalPERS investments. The market value of CalPERS' investments fell $18 billion, a drop of 7.6 percent since June 30, leaving the country's largest public pension fund with $220 billion in assets. [22] In July 2011 California's two public pension funds reported more than 20 percent investment gains for the fiscal year ending June 30. [23]
[edit] $100,000 club
There are over 12,000 people drawing annual CalPERS pensions of $100,000 or more, according to a database compiled by a pension reform organization.[24]
According to the site, the top 10 pension recipients are:[24]
| Name | Monthly | Annual | Employer |
|---|---|---|---|
| Malkenhorst, Bruce V. | $44,189.02 | $530,268.24 | Vernon |
| Fuster, Joaquin M. | $26,226.08 | $314,712.96 | UC Los Angeles |
| Gerth, Donald R. | $24,590.52 | $295,086.24 | CSU Sacramento |
| Garret, William | $24,129.46 | $289,553.52 | El Cajon |
| Stahl, James F. | $23,289.98 | $279,479.76 | LA Co Sanit #2 |
| Schlag, John D. | $22,604.16 | $271,249.92 | UC Los Angeles |
| Southard, Glenn D. | $22,596.42 | $271,157.04 | Indio |
| Adams, Randy G. | $22,119.79 | $265,437.48 | Bell |
| Newell, George T. | $21,708.82 | $260,505.84 | Santa Clara County |
| Schachter, Julius | $21,470.66 | $257,647.92 | UC San Francisco |
[edit] CalPERS corruption investigation
CalPERS has been under state and federal investigation over allegations that former executives and board members improperly influenced the fund's investment decisions and strong-armed a medical benefits vendor to retain a former board member as a consultant, according to an internal review ordered by the fund and released in April. The email deletion policy was put in place last year but was disclosed only recently in response to a Public Records Act request from the Los Angeles Times. [25]
Investment Manger, Joncarlo Mark, testified during pretrial proceedings that top investment staff for CalPERS were allowed to accept private jet trips and other luxury travel from financial firms they were doing business with.[26] Additional, the staff was not required to disclose these trips. CalPERS spokeswoman Pat Macht said that CalPERS officials were not required to disclose the travel because they were part of the contracts with the investment firms.[26] CalPERS would not allow those contracts to be made public, arguing they contained trade secrets.[26]
CalPERS has since fired the Pacific Corporate Group, who was closely affiliated with Alfred Villalobos and his company, Arvco Capital Research, who were guilty of bribing the top three officials at CalPERS.[27] Another CalPERS investment Partner, CIM Group, agreed to stop using placement agents.[28]
Deleting emails
The Los Angeles Times reports the California Public Employees' Retirement System has begun automatically deleting any emails older than 60 days. Under the policy, the nation's largest public pension fund ordered its 2,300 workers to save only those emails with "administrative, legal or archival requirements" ? but left it up to them to decide exactly what documents to ditch. Any emails older than 60 days would be deleted automatically. CalPERS said its retention policy was aimed at "removing obsolete and/or extraneous records" from its email system. It is similar to a decade-old practice that the fund appears to have largely ignored and, for a time, not used.[25]
CalPERS' emails contain both sensitive and routine information about investments, personnel, individual retiree accounts and legal issues, among other matters. It has a $237-billion investment portfolio to cover benefits for 1.6 million retirees and healthcare for 1.3 million members. [25]
Relationship with State Street Corp.
Despite a lawsuit against State Street Corp. CalPERS signed a new three-year deal with the bank. CalPERS accused State Street of fraud in connection with foreign exchange trading rates. [29] The contract, which Calpers says is worth about $5.7 million in annual revenue, suggests lawsuits facing State Street and rival BNY Mellon will do little damage to the custody banks? ability to retain business from public pension funds. [30]
[edit] Other counties
20 of California's 58 counties do not participate in CalPERS. Although "salary spiking" was banned by CalPERS in 1993, the practice still occurs in many counties that do not participate in the system. In Ventura County, for example, 84 percent of retirees earning more than $100,000 per year in retirement benefits are receiving more than they did while on the job. The County's retirement system is underfunded by $761 million. In Kern County, 77 percentof employees earning benefits over $100,000 are earning more than they did while working.[31]
[edit] CalSTRS
CalSTRS is the retirement fund for public school teachers in California. The number of teacher's earning raises has increased by 76 percent, from 3,010 in 2009 to 5,308 in 2010.[32] The average annual salary for teachers in 2010 was $64,156 and the average retirement benefit was $51,072 annually, more than the average salary for teachers in 28 states.[33]
According to a 2011 report California teachers receive on average $25,440 per year. In comparison, retired teachers in Texas receive an average of $18,372 a year.[34]
California covers only the current year's cost of these benefits, without setting aside funds to cover future obligations. As a result, the state's total estimated liability grows each year and as of June 30, 2010, it totaled $59.9 billion, an increase of nearly $12 billion over the previous two-year period, the auditor said. [35]
CalSTRS was dubbed a "high risk" problem for California by the state auditor. Without additional dollars from taxpayers, CalSTRS' assets "will be depleted in 30 years," the auditor's report says. CalSTRS is considered riskier than CalPERS, because of a quirk in state law. CalPERS can impose higher taxpayer contributions, but CalSTRS must go to the Legislature for higher rates. [36]
At the end of the 2011 legislative session, leaders of CalSTRS opted to begin a lower-key, multiyear lobbying campaign to convince Gov. Jerry Brown and lawmakers to approve a gradual increase in state, community college and school district contributions for the retirement of 852,000 public school educators. Without a contributions boost CalSTRS faces a projected $56-billion funding gap and could run out of money in 32 or 33 years, said Chief Executive Ehnes in a meeting Tuesday with the Los Angeles Times editorial board. The fund has only 71 percent of the money estimated to meet pension obligations, a drop from the 110 percent funding level it had at the beginning of the decade. Experts consider 80 percent to be the minimum secure level. [37]
[edit] CalSTRS impact on economy
A study commissioned by CalSTRS called retirement benefits an economic engine in California, especially in rural counties. The study concluded that the California economy gained $6.71 for every dollar invested in pensions by employers and taxpayers. [38]
California is debating a plan for public workers to give up their fixed pensions and combine it with a 401k plan. Lawmakers say the pension system is unsustainable. California currently has 203,000 teachers already collecting a pension today, and up to another 50,000 looking to retire in the next decade. [39]
[edit] $100,000 club
The number of educators receiving $100,000-plus annual pensions jumped 650 percent according to a Sacramento Bee review of data from CalSTRS, about 2 percent of overall pensions. According to a pension watchdog organization, there are 5,259 CalSTRS members who receive over $100,000 in annual pension payments. [40] Six-figure retirees receive7 percent of CalSTRS benefits and can ultimately receive millions more than they put into the system. Booming administrator salaries are largely behind the trend. Public school superintendents, on average, earned $168,000 in base pay last year, roughly 56 percent more than they did 10 years ago, according to data from the California Department of Education. [41]
According to California Pension Reform the top 10 pension recipients are:[40]
| Name | Monthly | Annual | Employer |
|---|---|---|---|
| Enochs, James C. | $24,712.95 | $296,555.40 | Moedesto City Elementary |
| Wentworth, Frederick | $24,207.07 | $290,484.84 | San Joaquin County Schools |
| Hernandez Jr., Edward | $23,866.35 | $286,396.20 | Rancho Santiago |
| Shattuck, Virginia J. | $23,564.19 | $282,770.28 | Norwalk-LA |
| Jaque-Anton, Donnalyn E. | $22,809.45 | $273,713.40 | LA Unified School District |
| Smith, James F. | $22,681.86 | $272,182.32 | Evergreen Elementary |
| Wagner, Brockton J. | $22,519.52 | $270,234.24 | Tustin Unified Schools |
| Lin, Christine A. | $22,394.05 | $268,728.60 | San Leandro Unified Schools |
| Miller, Marilyn L. | $21,963.66 | $263,563.92 | Hillsborough City Schools |
| Castruita, Rudy M. | $21,557.91 | $258,694.92 | San Diego County Schools |
Several of the best-known former superintendents from the Sacramento region earn close to $200,000 a year in pensions, including:[41]
- Sacramento City Unified superintendent Mary Carrillo Mejia, will earn about $195,000.
- San Juan Unified Superintendent General Davie, will earn about $181,000.
- Sacramento County Office of Education Superintendent David Meaney, will earn about $192,000.
[edit] Sources of funds
Teachers and administrators pay 8% of their annual salary into the CalSTRS system, approximately $2 billion each year.[42] School districts contribute 8.25%, about $2.2 billion..[42] The state of California makes two annual payments of 2.017% and 2.5%, approximately $1.2 billion a year. Total income amounts to about $22 billion.[42]
A member of the CalSTRS board of directors estimated the total cost of teacher/administrator pensions is about $9 billion per year. If $22 billion is collected from the teacher/administrator, the school district and the state, the excess income of about is around $13 billion, which is invested.[42]
[edit] Investments
The economic drop from 2007 to 2009 cost the fund nearly $50 billion. In a good economic climate, the investment funds are $170 billion a year.[42] CalPERS suffered a 23% investment loss in 2008, the fourth worst of any state according to a study by the Pew Center on the States.[43]
Investment legislation
A proposed ballot initiative would force CalPERS and other public pension funds to invest at least 85 percent of their assets in California businesses. Supporters of the move are now gathering signatures to put the item on the ballot. If it makes it and is approved by voters, it would require big changes for CalPERS, which now invests just 9 percent of its money in businesses with at least 70 percent of their workers in the Golden State. The item needs to get 807,615 signatures from the state?s voters by Jan. 12 to make it onto the ballot. [44]
[edit] Cost of living adjustment
Retired educators do not receive a cost of living adjustment until he/she lives 17 years into retirement.[42]
The California Foundation for Fiscal Responsibility estimates that about 3,000 retirees in CalSTRS receive pensions that are $100,000 or more a year.[2]
Beginning in July 2013 faculty and staff will contribute 6.5 percent of their pay and UC will contribute 12 percent to the UC Retirement Plan. Employees currently pay 3.5 percent and UC pays 7 percent. Those rates will increase to 5 and 10 percent respectively on July 1, 2012. The increases are part of the board of regents plans to shore up finances and funding. [45]
According to the board of regents the 2013 combined employee and UC contribution rate will, for the first time in more than 20 years, cover the annual cost of the plan. Every year, the plan absorbs liabilities that are equivalent to roughly 18 percent of UC?s covered payroll.[45]
For almost 20 years, until the spring of 2010, faculty and staff from the University of California system did not pay into the retirement plan because the plan maintained a surplus. But a combination of factors ? steep market losses, the lack of contributions and changing demographics ? led to a deficit. [46]
Until UC and its employees together contribute enough to cover the annual increase in cost for active members, about 17 percent of pay, the pension program?s current $14 billion unfunded liability will grow, adding to the pressures on UC?s operating budget, according to the board of regents. [47]
Starting July 1, faculty and staff in the University of California system will have more money taken out of their paychecks to go towards their pension plan. Faculty and staff, who now pay 3.5 percent of their pay, will see that go up to 5 percent. The university will also pitch in more, raising its own contributions from 7 percent of an employee's pay to 10 percent. [48]
[edit] State pension reform
During recent state budget negotiations, the legislature agreed to increase the age limit for public pensions, spiking prevention by using a rolling formulation of three to five years, and addressed the unrealistic growth predictions previously used.[49]
Gov. Jerry Brown is proposing that the state give CalPERS $1.5 million to identify and study alternatives for a ?hybrid? retirement plan, a cost-cutting combination of pensions and 401(k)-style individual investment plans. The item in the governor?s revised state budget plan last week is a reminder that the ?12-point pension reform plan? he proposed last March listed a ?hybrid option? as one of five points still under development. Brown issued the reform plan after a breakdown in talks with a handful of Republican legislators, who must provide at least four of the votes needed to extend an expiring tax increase. [50]
A legislative analyst rejected Brown's proposal, calling the $1.5 million budget item ?uncommonly amorphous and inscrutable.? The analyst said CalPERS, with its hard-won independence and legal duty to give priority to the interests of retirees, must be able to raise employer contribution rates in response to reforms and, if necessary, go to court.[50] Alan Milligan, an actuary for CalPers, said if the government freezes the current pension plan for existing workers and starts a new 401(k)-style plan for new workers, taxpayers would have to pay for the cost of administering two retirement plans simultaneously for the foreseeable future. Administering two plans costs more than one. [51]
Four state Senate Republicans have introduced a long-shot effort aimed at putting a ballot measure before voters that would make sweeping changes to public pensions in California. Senate Constitutional Amendment 13 would alter everything from how much current and future employees pay toward their retirement accounts to retroactive pension increases ? which would be banned. Its provisions would apply to all state and local pension systems in California starting July 1, 2012, and would affect workers hired on or after that same date. [52]
California Democrats plan to lead an effort in reforming the state's pension ills in the fall. Some of the ideas include Gov. Jerry Brown's proposals to eliminate purchase of air time, prohibit so-called pension holidays and retroactive pension increases and ban payment of pension benefits to employees who are convicted of a felony related to their job. [53]
A Republican proposal in the California Senate would hike how much all current and future state and local government workers pay toward their pensions. Senate Constitutional Amendment 13 would mandate, among other things, that California state and local government workers pay 5 percent more of their salaries toward their retirements if their pension fund's assets equal less than 90 percent of promised payments. If approved, the measure would immediately increase pension contributions paid by state and local workers in the 3,000 agencies whose retirement plans are administered by the California Public Employees' Retirement System. Although the fund's assets are valued at about $240 billion, that's enough money to cover only about 70 percent of its long-term obligations. Most experts consider an 80 percent funding status to be the bare minimum required for a public pension fund's health. [54][55]
A pension reform study suggests that switching California state government pensions to a hybrid system that provides a modest monthly check plus a 401(k)-type savings plan could save taxpayers about $250 million right away and generate billions of dollars in savings in future years. Savings would be much higher, roughly $2 billion, if state workers were required to pay up to half of the cost of their early retirement health insurance premiums, said the report released Friday by the California Foundation for Fiscal Responsibility in the Sacramento suburb of Citrus Heights. Immediate savings at the local government level would be $3 billion to $4 billion a year, the report said. [56] CalPERS criticized the California Foundation for Fiscal Responsibility's research as flawed, saying the study "is based on artificial models and doesn't use real data." The pension fund also said the study "falls short on specifics and lacks comparative data" [57]
Some pension reform bills before the California legislature are being watered down. [58]
Ballot Initiatives
In 2012 California voters may get the chance to vote on two potential November ballot initiatives that aim to cut government pension costs. One of the measures backed by California Pension Reform would put newly hired state and local government workers into "defined contribution" plans similar to a 401(k) account. The group's other measure would put those future employees into "hybrid" plans that blend smaller guaranteed pensions with defined-contribution savings accounts for retirement.[59]
CPR will need 807,615 registered California voters to put their names on a petition for the ballot initiative. The law sets a 150-day deadline to turn in signatures, which would be June 8, 2012.[59]
Gov. Brown's 12-Point Pension Reform Plan
In December 2011 Brown unveiled a pension reform plan he said would save taxpayers about $900 million annually. The plan includes: [60]
- Moving new employees to a hybrid system that combines pensions with a 401K style plan. Many employees will have to contribute at least half of their pension costs
- Increase the retirement age from 55 to 67 years old
- Prohibit pension spiking
- Equal sharing of pension costs between employee and employer
- Calculate benefits based on regular pay to stop spiking for new employees
- Limit post-retirement employment
- Felons forfeit pension benefits
- Prohibit retroactive pension increases
- Prohibit pension holidays
- Prohibit purchase of service credit
- Increase independence of the pension boards
The plan to create the hybrid pension plan was rejected by Democratic legislative leaders. The Democrats plan to put forth their own reform bill they expect will preserve the state?s current defined benefit plans, but cap the amount of pension benefits newly hired public employees can obtain. [61] The legislature is required to complete business by midnight Aug. 31. [62]
[63]
[edit] Pension Deal Reached
Following the rejection of Gov. Brown's plan, the next day he announced that he reached an agreement with legislative Democrats on a pension reform plan that requires current state employees to pay for at least 50 percent of their pension costs, and establishes that this will be the norm for all future public employees at every level of government in California going forward. The plan also increases the retirement age for all new public employees by at least two years and changes several retirement formulas. For local fire and police employees, who currently may retire at age age 50 with 3 percent of their final salary for every year worked, the formula now changes to 2.7 percent at 57. For local miscellaneous employees, who currently may retire at age 55 with 2.5 percent of their final salary for every year worked, the formula is now 2 percent at 62 ? with a maximum of 2.5 percent at 67. The deal eliminates all 3 percent formulas going forward and rolls back retirement increases granted in 1999. [64][65]
The new plan also seeks to prohibit abuses of the system by mandating that the final salaries used in pension benefit calculations for new employees be the average of the employees? three final years of employment, to avoid pension spiking. It limits post-retirement employment in government, prohibits felons from receiving pension benefits and outlaws retroactive pension increases and pension holidays. [66]
The deal still must get out of committee before it can become law.
Public employees are not happy with the proposal, calling it a "pension gutting" plan. Republicans also criticized the proposal saying it doesn't go far enough in its reform measures. [67]
If the deal is approved, it would also impact local and county run pension plans that may exceed a state cap. [68]
[edit] Litigation
In 1997 the California Court of Appeals ruled that the Governor could not delay payments to the pension system to balance the budget, because it violated the state employees? contractual right to an actuarially sound retirement system.
In March 2012 Jeffrey Baker, a county investment officer, calculated risk beyond allowable limits in two sectors of the $8 billion San Diego County pension fund, and was terminated for releasing the information outside the protocols of the San Diego County Employees Retirement Association, a firing upheld by the Commission on March 6, 2012. Baker responded to the ruling by saying he planned to take his allegedly illegal firing to superior court. [69]
Additionally bills strengthening the hand of public employee unions in bargaining for pay, pensions and working conditions are moving through the Legislature, usually on party-line votes with Democrats in support and Republicans opposed. One of the bills allows unions to request a ?fact-finding panel? when bargaining reaches impasse. [70]
Lawsuits were filed in San Jose by members of the police and fire unions challenging a measure that shifts current retirement plans to a lower plan, or to allow workers to pay more into their ow plan. The measure allows workers to keep their current pensions by increasing their contributions by up to 16 percent of pay or until half the unfunded liability is covered. The suit argues that the measure compromises the fiduciary duty of the pension board by compelling the board to ?ensure fair and equitable treatment for current and future plan members and taxpayers with respect to the costs of the plans.? [71]
Disclosure
The San Diego County retirement system can?t withhold the names and pension amounts of retired county employees from public inspection, a San Diego appeals court ruled. The decision by the 4th District Court of Appeal came in a lawsuit filed by a citizens group seeking information on county retirees from the San Diego County Employees Retirement Association. The data was sought by Californians for Fiscal Responsibility, which pushes for pension reform. The San Diego Union-Tribune, whose Watchdog team requested the data more than a year ago, filed a brief in support of the case along with most of the state?s major newspapers. The ruling is the second time in the past six weeks that a state appeals court has ruled that data on county retirees is public information and can?t be withheld. On May 11, an appeals court in Sacramento said that the public has a right to know the pension benefits paid out to public employees in a lawsuit brought by the First Amendment Coalition and the Sacramento Bee newspaper.[72]
The pension system has so far spent more than $100,000 in its effort not to disclose the names, and the ruling says the taxpayer group is entitled to court costs as the victors in the case.[72]
The San Bernardino County Employees' Retirement Association made public the names, job titles and payouts to retirees whose pensions exceed $90,000 after losing a yearlong legal battle to keep secret the identities of retirees. The information on the 598 local-government retirees, who collectively receive about $75 million a year in pensions, came 354 days after The Press-Enterprise requested the information under California's public records law and a week after the retirement association was served with a judge's order requiring the association to disclose the information. Given the state's focus on public-pension reform, the newspaper wanted to know how many retires received more than $100,000 a year and sued last year after a request for such information was denied. [73]
[edit] Local public pensions
- Main article: Local government public pensions
There are multiple pension systems covering county and municipal employees throughout California. Notable programs include: L.A. County Employees; San Francisco City Employees; L.A. Fire and Police; Orange County Employees; L.A. City Employees; San Diego County Employees; L.A. Water and Power Employees
[edit] County reforms
An Orange County Register report indicates many county and municipal governments are paying not only their share of pension contributions, but also those of many employees. Local governments spent $1.34 billion picking up their employees? required contributions to retirement accounts in 2009 ? and $1.96 billion doing the same in 2010, according to data collected by State Controller John Chiang.[74] According to the report Mission Viejo spent $543,000 to cover its employees? share of pension contributions and Newport Beach paid $5 million for its employees' share.[74]
Other big contributors include:[74]
- County of Orange: $43.3 million
- Anaheim: $11.5 million
- Santa Ana: $10.8 million
- Newport Beach: $5 million
- Huntington Beach: $4.5 million
- Costa Mesa: $4.1 million
- Irvine: $3 million
- Orange: $3 million
- Fullerton: $1.8 million
- Westminster: $1.8 million
- Mission Viejo: $543,000
Los Angeles County, California has almost completely neglected to fund retiree healthcare benefits for public-sector employees, according to a new report from a Civil Grand Jury, which in California investigates the county and municipal governments on an annual basis. The report Whoa! The State of Public Pensions In Los Angeles County found that at least 56 of L.A. County's 88 cities have not funded retiree healthcare at all. The Grand Jury states that the combined unfunded retiree healthcare liability for L.A. County and its cities is about $33.9 billion. With only $3.7 billion in combined assets, the retiree healthcare plans are only 10.8% funded. The largest portion of that liability ? about 71 percent ? is held by the L.A. County government, which has an unfunded benefit benefit obligation of $24 billion. [75]
San Bernardino County, California Supervisor Janice Rutherford proposed sweeping reforms to county employee pension benefits, including a cap on benefits and restricting the practice of pension spiking. Assembly Bill 340, carried by Sen. Gloria Negrete McLeod, D-Montclair, prohibits county workers from cashing out unused vacation and sick time at the end of their careers. It also prohibits employees from spiking pensions with raises and bonuses awarded at the end of their careers. Last week, the county released a list of 595 county retirees who earn pensions of more than $90,000 a year. Of those retirees, more than 34 percent earn more than $100,000 per year, and 37 percent earn more than $200,000 a year. [76]
To prevent pension spiking, Rutherford proposes that an employee's final compensation be based on a three- to five-year average as opposed to their highest base pay in one year. She is also proposing:[76]
- limiting pension allowances to no more than 70 percent of pre-retirement salary or a fixed maximum benefit cap. If an employee exceeds the salary cap, then the employee and the county could make additional contributions into a 401(k) type plan.
- Voter approval for any benefit increases, similar to ballot measures adopted in Riverside and Orange counties.
- Increasing eligibility age to keep pace with life expectancy trends and to discourage early retirement of productive employees.
- Further limit post-retirement employment by cutting the amount of hours retirees can work for the county while still receiving pension benefits, known as double dipping.
- Establish a hybrid retirement system like the one available to federal employees, which would include a mixture of a defined-benefit plan and a 401(k) plan.
- Eliminate the ability to purchase additional retirement credits.
In Marin County, California decades of rising public-sector salaries and generous pension packages have turned into short- and long-term public debt that have generated questions from taxpayers, according to the Marin Independent Journal. Rising pension costs have been a driving force in the county's elimination of nearly 200 jobs. [77]
Some Riverside County, California officials are calling for the end of a supplemental retirement plan of $100 per month that costs the county more than $2.5 million a year. Those receiving the benefit come from various departments. The Sheriff?s Department has the most employees ? 446 ? receiving the 401(a) contributions, largely because the Law Enforcement Management Unit negotiated the benefit, county spokesman Ray Smith said Tuesday. The unit represents sergeants, lieutenants and captains. [78]
The 3rd District Court of Appeal denied the Sacramento County employee retirement board's petition for a rehearing of the court's decision last month, ordering the board to make public the names and pension amounts it pays to individual retirees. In the midst of the annual struggle to close large budget gaps, pension costs have been soaring.The Sacramento Board of Supervisors just approved a budget that included a $278 million pension bill. That's $60 million or some 27 percent more than the county spent on its pension obligations just five years ago. [79]
[edit] Municipal actions
In a survey by the League of California Cities, two-thirds of the 296 localities that responded said they?re negotiating changes in their plans. Thirty-eight percent had increased pension payments from current employees, and 20 percent had created a new tier of benefits for future hires.[80]
A former statistician for the California Public Employee Retirement System (CalPERS), the state?s pension fund, warned that by 2014, local governments could be paying 50 percent of a police officer?s salary, 40 percent of a firefighter?s salary and 25 percent of an employee?s salary for their pensions, according to a recent report by the California League of Cities, a statewide advocacy group. [81]
The City Council of Brea voted unanimously last month to slash pensions for future hires and require current employees to pay as much as 4.5 percent of their salary toward retirement, up from zero. Brea is among about 90 cities in the most populous state that have made changes to their pension plans, according to an informal list kept by the California Public Employees? Retirement System. Brea contributed $8.3 million. or 8.9 percent, of its general-fund spending to retiree health-care and pensions last year, according to the city?s annual report. Los Angeles put in $710 million or 16 percent of its budget, according to a City Council presentation by City Administrative Officer Miguel Santana last year. Los Angeles and San Diego negotiated agreements this year that will add employee contributions to their retirement health- care for the first time. The cities have also lowered benefits for future workers. [80]
San Francisco Mayor Ed Lee and Supervisor Sean Elsbernd on May 24 proposed a November ballot measure that would cap pension benefits, raise retirement ages and require greater contributions from workers. San Jose Mayor Chuck Reed has proposed similar changes.[80]
San Diego is one of those cities looking at putting new hires into a 401(k) style plan, with the exception of police recruits. It's a measure that's drawn a line in the sand between labor unions and conservatives and business interests, who say it will save the city between $1-$2 billion over 30 years. [82] A ballot initiative is set for the next election cycle. [83] The city has been reforming its pension system since a 2004 scandal involving its failure to fully disclose pension liabilities. That resulted in a settlement with the Securities and Exchange Commission. A 2008 study of states by the Center for State and Local Government Excellence found that defined-contribution plans generally have higher investment and administrative expenses than defined benefit plans. [84]
Newport Beach lifeguards have bowed to pressure to scale back their retirement benefits. Newport Beach City Council members Tuesday night approved a reworked contract with full-time lifeguards that would roll back pension plans for new employees, and require current guards to contribute more toward their own retirement costs. The council voted 6 to 1 to approve the contract. Newport is one of a growing number of California beach cities that have said they can no longer afford to pay full-time lifeguards the same "public safety" pensions offered to police officers and firefighters. [85]
Hermosa Beach is on the hook for nearly $14 million in unfunded pension liabilities and will face skyrocketing retiree costs that could cripple the city?s ability to provide essential services if changes aren?t made, according to a report released this week. The audit by the county civil grand jury ? titled ?Whoa! The State of Public Pensions in Los Angeles County? ? investigated five public pension plans. The volunteer pool of 23 residents is charged with investigating public agencies to ensure they are being governed honestly and effectively. The report contained no allegations of criminal wrongdoing or negligence. It did note, however, that Hermosa Beach?s contribution level to the retirement funds and health care plans of retired police officers is the highest in the county. Hermosa was the only South Bay city cited. [86]
A Hermosa Beach consultant told council the city will get some relief from its high pension costs within six years. The consultant reported the costs are high in part because it has been paying off a high number of disability-related pensions, which can cost more over time, because the employees often retire at a younger age. [87]
Long Beach leaders are having to continue to cut the city's budget, but pension costs are increasing. In eight straight years of budget cutting Long Beach has sliced $188 million, or 19 percent. A pension reform plan in the works could save the city up to $100 million in a decade. [88] The details of the reform plan have not been released. he primary cause of the current fiscal crisis, Foster said, was when in 2002 pension benefits were granted to government employees, not only for future terms but retroactively for the past 20 years. However, in 2008, Foster spoke in support of five-year agreements instead of three-year ones for firefighters and some other city employees. [89]
The pensions promised by Beverly Hills to all of its employees will run to $1 million to over $3 million or more for each one, simple calculations show. Based on The Courier?s calculations, the average cumulative retirement pay for each City worker is $3.321 million. Each year, Beverly Hills turns over to the California Public Employees Retirement System, CalPERS, a certain amount of money. None of the pension is paid for by an employee. All is paid by Beverly Hills. [90]
The city council in San Jose approved a measure for the June 2012 ballot that would overhaul pensions for city workers to rein in their rising costs. San Jose's measure would place new city employees into a "hybrid" retirement plan combining a traditional pension with 401(k)-like accounts or Social Security. The measure would also give current employees the option of keeping current retirement plans by paying a larger share of their cost or selecting a lower-cost plan. Additionally, the measure would allow the city council to suspend cost-of-living increases for retirees in fiscal emergencies and require voters approve raising retirement benefits. [91] On March 6 the city council voted 8-3 to place pension reform measures on the June ballot. [92]
San Jose actuarial reports show $3.5 billion of city debt for underfunded pension and retiree health benefits -- a shortfall that works out to about $11,000 for every household in the city. The calculations show the city's retirement programs combined have only 56 percent of the funds they should. [93]
Due to the enormity of pension issues facing San Jose, a group of state lawmakers launched a campaign for a state legislative audit of the city's finances and pension debts. The audit is in response to a June pension reform ballot measure that the city's mayor is pushing to ease the growing costs of employee retirement. [94]
Several department heads in Costa Mesa have agreed to pay the maximum amount allowed toward their state pensions, something the city council has been pushing for over a year. Costa Mesa is looking to renegotiate with its own employee groups over their pension contributions to help alleviate the increased burden. Most city employees and department leaders already pay toward their retirement, but not at the maximum allowable amount, which left Costa Mesa covering it. [95]
With an unfunded pension liability of $420 million, the city of Berkely has a costly, but generous pension plan that allowed the City Manager Phil Kamlarz to retire with an annual pension of $266,000 -- higher than his $250,000 salary. The Berkeley City Council in 2002, before Kamlarz became city manager, chose one of the most generous plans offered by CalPERS. It provides 2.7 percent of salary for every year on the job for those retiring after age 55. Kamlarz, who was nearly 65 when he retired, worked 36.7 years for the city, starting as an associate accountant in 1975 and working his way up to the top. So he was entitled to a starting pension equal to about 99 percent of his best year's salary. [96]
Voter Referendums
Voters in San Diego and San Jose sent resounding messages: If the choice is between the generous financing of public-sector retirement funds or restoring government services, they want the latter. San Jose was unable to finance the operation of four new libraries, so they haven?t been opened. San Diego was forced to set up a rotation for firehouse closures. Both cities laid off many workers, causing services to diminish. Meanwhile, firefighters and police officers in San Jose could retire after 30 years and collect pensions amounting to 90 percent of their salaries. [97]
[edit] Investigations
Improper Gifts
The state's Fair Political Practices Commission is conducting an investigation that focuses on executives at the California Public Employees' Retirement System. CalPERS Chief Executive Anne Stausboll told administrators that some 49 senior executives and former officials may have failed to report gifts properly on annual statements of economic interest. The list includes four of the fund's 13 board members: President Rob Feckner, Vice President George Diehr, Louis F. Moret and J.J. Jelincic. Also on the list are Chief Investment Officer Joseph Dear, former Chief Executive Fred Buenrostro, senior investment officers Curtis Ishii and Forouk Majeed, and former senior investment officers Christy Wood and Joncarlo Mark. Gifts, including gourmet meals, private jet travel and bottles of wine, were commonplace before allegations of influence peddling and corruption emerged during a scandal that gripped the $237-billion CalPERS beginning in fall 2009. [98]
The watchdog is looking into whether CalPERS workers received gifts worth at least $50 from someone in a single calendar year without reporting it, or received gifts from someone worth more than the legal maximum of $420. [99]
Corruption, Influence Peddling
The California Public Employees' Retirement System paid $11 million to a Washington, D.C., law firm and its advisors to conduct an internal review, an amount that has some of the fund's own directors proposing more stringent oversight of outside legal fees. The review found support for allegations of corruption, bribery and influence peddling at the country's biggest public pension fund, but some lawyers and financial experts familiar with the scandal said they were surprised by the large legal fees. [100]
The 18-month review by Washington, D.C.'s Steptoe & Johnson firm found support for allegations of corruption, bribery and influence peddling.
CalPERS says it used the review's findings to negotiate $215 million in fee reductions from private equity investment managers who handle large assets. CalPERS chief investment officer Joseph Dear says the study was worth the cost. [101] Dear said the review also created "continuing value" by communicating to the marketplace that CalPERS wanted to eliminate the abusive use of politically connected intermediaries -- known as placement agents -- in closing deals with the California pension fund.[100]
The Sacramento Bee profiled a whistleblower with CalSTRS who lost his job after raising concerns over the practice of "spiking", which is the practice of school employees padding compensation at the end of their careers to enhance their retirement benefits. According to the Bee column spiking at CalSTRS goes unaddressed even as the retirement fund faces severe economic challenges. As of June 30, 2010, its last actuarial valuation, CalSTRS reported a staggering funding gap of $56 billion, $15.5 billion higher than the previous year. [102]
[edit] Proposition B
Sustainable City Employees Benefits Reform would require police, firefighters and other city employees covered by CalPERS to contribute 10% of their pension contribution.[103] These employees currently contribute either 7.5% or 9%, depending on when they were hired. The maximum amount that could come out of an individual worker's paycheck toward his or her pension contribution would be 2.5%.[citation needed]
Other city employees, who currently contribute 7.5%, would contribute 9%. Muni workers, who currently contribute nothing, would have to start paying into the system as other city workers do, under the Adachi proposal.[citation needed] The initiative would also require city employees to pay for 50%, rather than 25%, of their family's health care coverage. The proposition gathered 77,000 signatures and qualified for the November 2010 ballot.
Several city employee labor unions have filed a lawsuit against the proposition. Participants in the suit include: San Francisco Fire Fighters, Local 798, International Federation of Professional & Technical Engineers, Local 21, Service Employees International Union, Local 1021, the San Francisco Municipal Executives? Association, and the San Francisco Police Officers Association.[104][105]
[edit] SB 867 and SBX6 22
Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger signed into effect SB 867 and SBX6 22 in October 2010. The reforms, which were agreed on during the budget process, will roll back SB 400, end pension spiking, and increase pension transparency.[106]
For the transparency measure, it will require CalPERS to report its numbers in plain language and requires the Treasurer to evaluate and provide an opinion of the report to the legislature.[106]
[edit] Other legislation
According to Cal Watch the following legislation has been proposed for pension reform:[107]
- SB27, which aims to stop pension spiking. It would provide that any change in compensation in order to enhance benefits would not be included in determining the benefit. Sponsored by Sen. Joe Simitian, D-P
Source: http://sunshinereview.org/index.php?title=California_public_pensions&diff=70728&oldid=70660
aspirin aspirin 21 jump street illinois primary results acapulco mexico hines ward alex smith
No comments:
Post a Comment