pension

| | | |

Confusing Signs on Prospects for a Pension Initiative (& Everything Else)

Byuclafaculty

Earlier posts on this blog have outlined the possibility that some pension initiative could end up on the 2012 ballot that would override the Regents’ December 2010 decision on the UC pension. There are two “legacy” organizations that descend from the Prop 13 property tax initiative of 1978. In a previous post, we noted that one of them – Peoples Advocate – has filed a pension initiative and seems to be fishing for someone or some group to provide financial backing for a signature and election campaign. But now the other group, the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, has said it…

| | |

More on Pension Initiatives: All Kinds of Clever Ideas Out There

Byuclafaculty

Yesterday, this blog featured some developments that might impede public pension ballot initiatives getting on the ballot that could potentially override the Regents’ action last December revamping the UC pension system. It only costs $200 to file initiatives. For that modest sum, the filer gets an analysis from the Attorney General (including summary description and title) and a fiscal analysis from the Legislative Analyst. Even initiatives that have a snowball’s chance in Hell get the same treatment – which clearly costs the state a lot more than $200. Here is a summary of snowball-type pension initiative that someone thought was…

| | | | |

Pension Initiative Drive Might Become More Difficult

Byuclafaculty

Earlier posts on this blog have pointed out that a pension initiative could appear on the California ballot that would override the changes made by the Regents last December in the UC pension plan. It was noted that initiatives – once qualified – go on the next statewide ballot. For 2012, that might have been February when the state presidential primary was originally scheduled. The mix of voters in a February primary might have tilted toward passage of such an initiative. Now, however, the governor has signed a bill moving the presidential primary back to June when the regular primary…

| | | |

Our Primary Concern

Byuclafaculty

The Sacramento Bee today carries a story about the resetting of the date for the California presidential primary. It focuses on the arguments made when – last time there was a presidential election (2008) – California moved its presidential primary from June (when the primary for state offices is held) to February. The idea was to be early in the presidential primary campaign season and thus have more influence on the outcome. You can read all about that idea – and whether it worked in practice – at http://www.sacbee.com/2011/07/29/3802418/california-set-to-move-its-presidential.html Where this matters for UC is in the initiative process. As…

| |

Possible Pension Fix Coming from On High?

Byuclafaculty

Could this be the ultimate deus ex machina to fix the UC pension’s unfunded liability? Unseen comet’s orbit indicates possible crash David Perlman, San Francisco Chronicle, July 28, 2011 A stream of dusty fragments from a comet born in the outermost reaches of the solar system has hit the Earth on a path that leads astronomers to conclude the comet itself could be “potentially hazardous” if it crashes into the planet. The comet’s location is unknown, making it difficult to say when it will approach Earth, but “the orbits of the dust trail tells us that the comet is on…

| | | |

Could Washington Debt-Ceiling Impasse Adversely Affect UC?

Byuclafaculty

The simple answer is – as someone said – you betcha! Chaotic financial conditions – if such occur – can damage the economy, e.g., 2008, and ultimately cut into state tax revenue. Drops in the value of financial assets hurts the pension fund (and the individual 403b and 457b accounts of UC employees) and other funds UC maintains. Significant funding flows from the federal government to UC in the form of research contracts, Medicare payments, etc. Will that be interrupted? Who knows? This is one social science experiment we would do well not to undertake. Bottom Line: There is no…

| |

Not Again! Another Pension Initiative Filed

Byuclafaculty

Ted Costa of Peoples Advocate has submitted a ballot initiative on public pensions that explicitly includes UC. Peoples Advocate is the organization originally founded by Paul Gann of the Jarvis-Gann initiative known as Prop 13. You have probably heard of Prop 13. (Joke) The organization by itself does not have funding for signature gathering. But it has a history of getting funding from others. Most notably, it kicked off the recall of Gray Davis. So I would take this initiative seriously. It has things like $100,000 caps on pensions, limits on cost of living adjustments, rules about funding, etc. It…

| | |

CalPERS May Contest San Jose’s Way With Pension

Byuclafaculty

As noted in prior posts, it seems clear that accumulated public pension rights of retirees and current workers cannot be voided or reduced. And it is also clear that new hires can be given lesser benefits than current workers or retirees. In the private sector, benefit formulas of current worker going forward can be made less generous. However, the degree to which that is possible in the public sector has been disputed. CalPERS takes the position that only new hires can have reduced benefits and formulas. But San Jose has a measure on the ballot that would change formulas for…

| |

CalPERS Issues Report on Vested Rights of California Pension Recipients and Covered Current mployees

Byuclafaculty

Although the CalPERS report refers to its participants, most of the legal discussion is generally applicable to any public pension plan in California. Basically, the report indicates that both earned benefits AND benefit formulas cannot be altered, except in extraordinary circumstances, in ways that disadvantage covered employee. The report is available below from Issu and/or Scribd: Open publication – Free publishing – More calpers Vested Rights of CalPERS Members Bottom Line: No, they can’t take that away…

| | | |

Unseemly Picture? A Proposal to Tax State Public Pensions – But Not UCRP – Is Among Three Initiatives Submitted by a Santa Barbara Group

Byuclafaculty

A group called the California Center for Public Policy submitted three initiatives to the Attorney General Tuesday. One would ban collective bargaining in the public sector in California. Two others deal with public pensions. Notably, the two pension initiatives omit the UC pension and cover only CalPERS and CalSTRS. One initiative would tax pension benefits above $100,000 with progressive surcharges. The other raises the basic retirement age to 65. Scroll down to the bottom of this entry to read the three initiatives. (Reminder: Anyone can submit initiatives for $200. It takes $1-$2 million to pay signature-gathering firms to get things…