Adachi Pushes New S.F. Pension Reform

MARCH 28, 2011

By DAVE ROBERTS

Jeff Adachi, San Francisco’s elected public defender, is a modern-day Don Quixote tilting at unionized windmills while singing “To Dream the Impossible Pension Reform Dream.” The self-described progressive dared to take on that city’s powerful unions last year with his pension and health care reform measure, Proposition B. It lost 57 percent to 43 percent after being savaged and distorted by a $2.5 million union ad campaign.

Having licked his wounds and learned a few lessons, Adachi is once again saddling up to launch a new reform effort that has been dubbed “Son of B.” It’s actually triplets named Charter Amendments 1, 2 and 3. They differ in their requirements, with CA 1 requiring city employees to contribute more to their pensions; while CA 2 and CA 3 also require the employees to contribute to their health care. He needs to collect 46,177 signatures by July 11, and will decide later which measure to take to the ballot.

The measures share the following reforms:

* Pension spiking is eliminated;

* Employees with higher salaries have to contribute a greater percentage;

* Pensions are capped at $140,000;

* The retirement age for public safety employees is extended to 57 from the current 55 (and extended to age 65 instead of 62 for all others);

* New employees receive reduced benefits.

Adachi, in a speech to the Contra Costa Taxpayers Association last week, discussed the need for reform, lessons from last year’s campaign and why he’s confident a reform measure will pass this November. He said:

In San Francisco now we spend almost a billion dollars — and we have a $6 billion budget — almost a billion dollars on pensions and benefits for our city employees: 26,000 city employees, 28,000 retirees and 47,000 dependents. We have a debt of $4.3 billion in unfunded health care liability. That comes out to about $36,000 per household.

Now if you had to write a check every month to a city employees retiree and benefits fund of $3,000 out of your household, you would get it right away; you would be on the corner with a sign. But most people don’t even notice; most people don’t even understand what pension reform is. It’s not like “Save the Redwoods” — everyone gets that in three words. But when people get it they are militant about it.

53 Militant Unions

Even more militant, however, are the city’s 53 employee unions — “a virtual army of folks,” said Adachi. Of his losing first campaign, he said:

It was quite a brutal campaign. Our campaign wasn’t as strong as it should have been. The unions hired the best. They managed to put on a campaign that essentially said we were attacking health care for kids. Because we would require 25 percent more for health care. I think tactically I made a mistake by trying to address both health care and pensions. Had it just been a pension measure it would have passed without question.

He was only able to raise $1 million for the pro-B campaign, an amount that he plans to double this time around. But in a city in which the average city employee makes $95,000 a year, the unions will no doubt have deeper pockets.

The need for reform is a no-brainer when you look at the budget numbers:

    • * This year San Francisco taxpayers are contributing $357 million to city employee pension costs. In four years, that amount is projected to reach $600 million.
    • * Most city employees contribute 7.5 percent of their salary toward the pension system while the city contributes 13.5 percent of salary. The city’s rate is projected to increase to 28 percent by 2015, while the employee rate remains the same.
    • * The $4.3 billion unfunded liability for health care is growing by $300 million per year and will reach $10 billion in 12 years. Meanwhile the city has only saved $9 million to cover this debt.
    • * This year San Francisco is facing a $379 million budget deficit, which is expected to increase next year.

Services Slashed

As a result, city services have been cut. Summer school was canceled last year for the first time; the park and recreation budget was slashed in half and $113 million was shaved off the school budget, representing a quarter of teachers and staff.

“So the reality is that we know what the problem is,” said Adachi. “The question is: Do we have the courage to forge a solution?”

Adachi has learned from the misleading anti-Measure B ad campaigns featuring employees unable to provide health care for their sick children. Now with the new reform measure he is counting on support for the graduated-contribution level based on income, which exempts employees making less than $50,000.

“During the campaign, they put fliers out saying this is going to hurt employees who make under $40,000,” he said. “That’s true, but there’s only 15 of them in San Francisco.”

Adachi hopes to shift the debate this time around from what is being taken from city employees to what is being taken from the other 94 percent of residents — the taxpayers — to support the current and retired workforces (many of whom don’t live in San Francisco), and how vital it is for the city’s fiscal survival that action be taken now.

The essential message that we will get across this time is that if we don’t act, even if we continue to contribute hundreds of millions of dollars from taxpayers to pension funds — and San Francisco has one of the better-funded programs in the country, which isn’t saying much — we will wind up with a one-in-three chance that we will not be able to pay our pension obligations by 2024.

And we’re much better off than most counties and most cities. This year alone there are an estimated 49 cities in the state that will probably either come close to declaring bankruptcy or will declare bankruptcy. Vallejo is no longer an isolated case. We will reach a point where we are not able to pay our health care cost.

It’s like that old Aesop fable about the ant and the grasshopper. If you sit there like the grasshopper and kick the can down the road and think everything will be fine, you will starve. We’ve seen that happen already in cities across the nation. Look at what’s happening in Illinois … where they are not able to pay their debts anymore.

Adachi said he sometimes feels like the character in a science fiction movie who warns that the world is about to end:

We don’t have to wait until five or 10 years from now of the aliens landing and taking over. It’s happening now. Our message is a positive one, and it has two parts. One part is that we need to save ourselves if we want to enjoy the quality of life that we have all come to enjoy. Oakland cut their police force by 20 percent. I can’t think of a worse place to cut a police force than Oakland. San Jose, they are laying off 20 to 25 percent of their firefighters. That’s crazy. That’s the first lesson: to save ourselves.

But the more compelling one is that we have got to save our children. We have to make sure that their future is secure. We have to make sure that the great educational and social institutions that we have are preserved. I really do believe it comes from the bottom up. We have to take a stand. We are forming an organization called California United so we can begin looking at how we can combine strategies and resources with other pension reform efforts all around the state. This time I know how to win.

No comments

Write a comment
  1. CityWorker
    CityWorker 28 March, 2011, 12:40

    Please at least get your facts straight, while you are going about trying to scapegoat us. I almost fell off my chair laughing when I read “But in a city in which the average city employee makes $95,000 a year, the unions will no doubt have deeper pockets.” Excuse me, I work for the Department of Public Health and no colleague or clerk here earns that much! In fact, our clerk got a pay decrease and a demotion in order to help the City save money last year. Workers at my level (Psych. Social Worker) have not had a raise in years! There are administrators that earn that much and more, but they are hardly the “average city employee.”

    After citing your statistics about how public workers are costing money, you then conclude, “As a result, city services have been cut.” Excuse me, but where is the balance in this article?? What other sources of revenue could the City be collecting? (For example, from Twitter). What other expenses is the City incurring? What are the bankers, the realtors and the developers paying in taxes, I would like to know?

    Your article’s slant leads me to believe that you are part of the movement to pit workers against each other, so that we won’t notice how much the CEO’s, the financial firms and the other moneyed interests in this City are pulling in. I would like to read a balanced article, with accurate reporting, about who is costing what.

    I know that public workers have nothing to apologize for. Most of us are not overpaid, are not allowed to “spike” because we aren’t paid overtime, and we do the jobs any non-public worker would do with the same dedication. I believe that U.S. workers should look up and see who is getting away with murder while we are fighting over crumbs. Pitting City workers against children, of all things, (“we have got to save our children”) while ignoring other City expenses and areas where we could collect revenue is irresponsible journalism. Many of us work in the health services for and with children! We advocate for them, find resources for them, provide medical and mental health treatment for them, and we do a good job of it, given the resources available.

    I’ll be watching for your follow-up coverage and hoping you can make yourselves a credit to the field of journalism by providing balance and getting your facts straight.

    Reply this comment
  2. Rex ther Wonder Dog!
    Rex ther Wonder Dog! 30 March, 2011, 08:23

    1. CityWorker says:
    March 28, 2011 at 12:40 pm
    Please at least get your facts straight, while you are going about trying to scapegoat us. I almost fell off my chair laughing when I read “But in a city in which the average city employee makes $95,000 a year, the unions will no doubt have deeper pockets.” Excuse me, I work for the Department of Public Health and no colleague or clerk here earns that much!
    ===============
    I GUARANTEE you that you, and every other torugh feeding hack in SF, earns over $100K on AVERAGE in **COMPENSATION**. You do understand that word don’t you?

    Reply this comment
  3. Rex ther Wonder Dog!
    Rex ther Wonder Dog! 30 March, 2011, 08:29

    Pitting City workers against children, of all things, (“we have got to save our children”) while ignoring other City expenses and areas where we could collect revenue is irresponsible journalism. Many of us work in the health services for and with children! We advocate for them, find resources for them, provide medical and mental health treatment for them, and we do a good job of it, given the resources available.

    ===============
    PUBLIC unions employees-like you-are by far the biggest threat to the poor and middle class at the local and state level today. You are paid, on AVERAGE, 3-20 times more than what you would be paid in the private sector (GED cops/FF’s earning $300K+ in full compensation in SF). The AVERAGE private sector employee in CA today earns $33K in salary and $10K in benefits. It is LOWER today than in 2000.

    Stop the lies, the spin and the whining.

    As far as corporate Ameria goes-I am with you 100%, what they and the Congress are doing to America is destroying the country-but that has NOTHING to do with public unions destroying the country also-two wrongs NEVER make a right.

    Reply this comment
  4. CityTaxpayer
    CityTaxpayer 30 March, 2011, 08:34

    Why do you guys have unions at all? Why should taxpayers have to watch these massively funded ad campaigns paid for by public sector unions, who get their money from tax revenues? Are you actually suggesting that anyone has anywhere near as much money to buy our politicians as the public sector unions?

    You “almost fell out of your chair laughing” when you read about the average salary of a worker in San Francisco. I’m glad you think it’s so damn funny. I have personally examined the payroll data for several California cities and have no doubt $95,000 as an average salary is accurate, and does not include benefits. The average total compensation, including funding retirement benefits, in most California cities is about $125,000 per year. And when CalPERS ends their partnership with Wall Street, and pension funds stop claiming they can earn 8% per year returns, costs for the average public employee will go up to something closer to $150,000 per year.

    Maybe if you guys spent some time in the real world you would see how much money that is. The rest of us work harder than you, make less than you, and pay the taxes to support you. Then we have to watch your unions divert some of the money we pay you to buy our politicians so you can make even more.

    Reply this comment
  5. David from Oceanside
    David from Oceanside 30 March, 2011, 09:13

    I can’t figure out if CityWorker is for real or not. Throwing up tired cliche’s and calling himself “CityWorker” seems a fun way to provoke.

    I had a bumper sticker made with one of those little fire helmets that are plastered on late model pick up trucks and SUV back windows. Only I added “U OWE US” above and “WE OWN U” below and to the side. Its great fun to drive around town with this.

    I am thinking CityWorker is a hidden Saturday Night Live skit.

    Reply this comment
  6. SeeSaw
    SeeSaw 30 March, 2011, 10:18

    My former CM makes $305,000 in retirement; I make $50,000. If we were the only two members of CalPERS, the news sources would be reporting that the average CalPERS pension is $175,000. (I quote these figures as as example–I have no resentment toward my former CM.) Using the figures of the highest paid, and adding them with the figures of the lowest paid–then, dividing the result by the number on the receiving end–that is how they come up with those large average salaries, that do not pertain to the majority of the rank and file, in the respective public entities.

    Reply this comment
  7. Tough Love
    Tough Love 30 March, 2011, 13:04

    (1) Quoting …”But in a city in which the average city employee makes $95,000 a year, the unions will no doubt have deeper pockets.”

    THAT says quite a bit !

    (2) Quoting … “The need for reform is a no-brainer when you look at the budget numbers:

    * This year San Francisco taxpayers are contributing $357 million to city employee pension costs. In four years, that amount is projected to reach $600 million.
    * Most city employees contribute 7.5 percent of their salary toward the pension system while the city contributes 13.5 percent of salary. The city’s rate is projected to increase to 28 percent by 2015, while the employee rate remains the same.
    * The $4.3 billion unfunded liability for health care is growing by $300 million per year and will reach $10 billion in 12 years. Meanwhile the city has only saved $9 million to cover this debt.
    * This year San Francisco is facing a $379 million budget deficit, which is expected to increase next year.”

    And THAT, says the rest !

    Reply this comment
  8. Tough Love
    Tough Love 30 March, 2011, 13:27

    SeeSaw, your comparison is interesting.

    But the appropriate question isn’t … what is the average (mean or median) Public sector pension and whether that pension is too high (or not), but rather for a variety of income levels (from low to high) … what is the typical Public Sector pension vs the Private Sector pension.

    It is TYPICALLY 2, 4, even 6 times greater in value …. in EVERY income band …. for Public Sector workers.

    That’s the problem ……… and one you refuse to even consider as a legitimate concern of Private Sector taxpayers (yes, the people that pay for 80-90% of Civil Servant pensions …. even though you still refuse to accept that fact as well).

    Reply this comment
  9. Rex ther Wonder Dog!
    Rex ther Wonder Dog! 30 March, 2011, 22:14

    My former CM makes $305,000 in retirement; I make $50,000. If we were the only two members of CalPERS, the news sources would be reporting that the average CalPERS pension is $175,000.
    ===============
    Seesaw, if you two were the only one, then $175K would be the average.

    Reply this comment

Write a Comment

Leave a Reply



Related Articles

L.A. Sheriffs set the standard for dealing with the homeless

Editor’s note: This is the second part of a three-part series on how the homeless and mentally ill are treated

Pulling Back CalPERS' Ethics Curtain

JAN. 7, 2010 By WAYNE LUSVARDI The Securities and Exchange Commission has exposed the self-righteous CalPERS, the California Public Employees

Another Taxing Tax Levy

JULY 22, 2010 By KATY GRIMES Senator Gloria Romero, D-Los Angeles, is sponsoring a tax bill that the California Chamber