Response Would Be a Slender Reed (Pun Intended), But Why Not?

Prior posts on this blog have noted that there is an anti-pension initiative that has been filed by a group whose front man is San Jose mayor Chuck Reed.  The proposition, if it got on the ballot, would cover UC.  It would require plans do be drawn up, presumably by the Regents, to deal with retirement underfunding.  The plans would be different than what the Regents developed on their own in 2010.  In theory, the Regents could draw up the plans and ignore them.  That would create political problems for the Regents and UC, however.

Bottom line: We would be better off being removed from the ballot proposition.  There is plenty of time for the group to file a revised version that drops UC from coverage.  However, once a proposed ballot prop goes into circulation, it cannot be amended.

Note that there is plenty of rationale for dropping UC.  1) The Regents have acted.  2) The Regents have constitutional autonomy.  3) The group’s campaign seems to be based on problems municipalities are having (which is why mayors including Reed are the fronts) and UC is not a municipality.

As we have also noted, after the proposition was filed, Reed sent a letter to public sector unions asking them to discuss the issue with him.  Not surprisingly, they have rejected the invitation.  You can read about it the letter and the response at:
http://www.sacbee.com/2013/11/07/5891098/california-unions-to-san-jose.html

Although the original letter from Reed wasn’t addressed to UC, someone from UC might nonetheless respond and ask to discuss the three points above.  The worst that could happen is that there would be no response or a negative response.  Silence or a negative response, however, would provide an enhanced rationale for UC and the Regents to oppose the prop, assuming it gets on the ballot.  Is anyone at UCOP picking up the phone and responding to Reed?

Reed says he wants an answer:
[youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MuMtI8-qnVE?feature=player_detailpage]