Brown hits CalPERS on pension spiking

Brown hits CalPERS on pension spiking

Pension reform shredded, Cagle, Wolverton, Aug. 25, 2014A bad month for CalPERS has gotten worse. On the heels of unfavorable news surrounding its investment strategy and leadership, the California Public Employee Retirement System provoked the wrath of Gov. Jerry Brown, who heaped scorn on its latest “pension spiking” plan.

“Today CalPERS got it wrong,” Brown said in a statement, revealing he had asked his staff to determine what could be done to “protect the integrity” of legislation enacted just last year to combat such schemes. An audit of CalPERS pension spiking, underway in the State Controller’s office, is set to be released soon.

A cat and mouse game

Employees spike pensions by using overtime, vacation time and similar benefits to drive up their income before retirement. CalPERS, the largest pension fund in the country, ran afoul of the governor’s wishes by permitting such temporary pay increases to count as “pensionable income,” the amount used to calculate the size of retirement pensions.

The move flew in the face of Assembly Bill 340, signed into law by Brown as the Public Employees’ Pension Reform Act. Its aim was to make a dent in the public pensions crisis that has threatened to overwhelm city and state budgets. Through a series of complex regulatory adjustments, PEPRA made newer public employees much more responsible for paying the cost of their retirement benefits. While Brown and his allies cheered the over $50 billion in expected savings over 30 years, unions such as the Service Employees International Union decried the changes.

One of Brown’s key objectives was to use PEPRA to crack down on pension spiking. As The Wall Street Journal reported, PEPRA “ostensibly closed these loopholes by defining ‘pensionable compensation’ as ‘base pay’ for ‘services rendered on a full-time basis during normal working hours.'” In other words, extras like “unused vacation and sick leave” were officially off limits.

But CalPERS, as the Journal put it, “tried to end run the law by including 99 other salary boosters such as ‘incentive pay’ for ‘local safety members, school security officers and California Highway Patrol officers who meet an established physical fitness criterion.'”

Flagrant abuses

As it turns out, these under-the-radar boosters have proliferated among public workers. In his criticism of CalPERS, Brown focused exclusively on the evils of temporary pay as a source of pension spiking.

But new investigations have turned up myriad abuses. The San Francisco Chronicle, for instance, uncovered special “marksmanship pay” for cops; an “asphalt work premium” for those who “mix, transport and/or apply a tar-like substance for sidewalks, roads, roofs and/or parking lots”; an “audio visual premium” for “workers who are consistently responsible for operating audio visual equipment”; and a “circulation librarian premium,” which applies, as one might imagine, to circulation librarians — apparently for doing nothing more than their jobs.

The flagrant use of double-payment techniques like these helped fuel support for Brown from the League of California Cities. That organization, according to PublicCEO.com, echoed Brown’s criticism of pension spiking in an effort to push CalPERS “to narrow the scope of pensionable compensation and review the extra pay items to see if they still serve a public service. Chris McKenzie, the League executive director, told the board hundreds of California cities are still in financial distress and facing six years of increasing CalPERS rates” — with the higher rates paid ultimately by local taxpayers.

A credibility gap

The chorus of anger directed at CalPERS comes at an especially embarrassing time. CalPERS board member Priya Mathur is in hot water with the Fair Political Practices Commission over her repeated failure to file legally mandated reports on campaign contributions and so-called statements of economic interest. After some $13,000 in fines, the Los Angeles Times reports, the CalPERS board “punished” Mathur “by temporarily removing her as chairwoman of the health committee and suspending her traveling privileges.”

9 comments

Write a comment
  1. michael
    michael 27 August, 2014, 12:37

    …..This is similar to my dog chasing his tail.

    Reply this comment
  2. T Mind of Ted Your God
    T Mind of Ted Your God 27 August, 2014, 13:20

    CWD got the lead wrong.

    This isn’t bad news for CP , it’s good news.

    The fund will be even more fit!

    Once again– God Bless our sharp Gov!!!!

    Reply this comment
  3. T Mind of Ted Your God
    T Mind of Ted Your God 27 August, 2014, 13:22

    301.8 BILLION today!

    Reply this comment
  4. Queeg
    Queeg 28 August, 2014, 08:15

    Boy!

    Would those greedy globalists like to get there greasy mitts on that wad!

    Reply this comment
  5. Deserttrek
    Deserttrek 28 August, 2014, 11:28

    more criminal activity by the criminals in sacramento

    Reply this comment
  6. bob
    bob 29 August, 2014, 17:21

    So this was too over the top for the Old Brown Buzzard.

    Big deal. All these Demoncrat politicians are corrupt and owned in one way or another by the public unions.

    They will borrow ever more money and bleed the taxpayers white before the ever truly reform pensions.

    Reply this comment
  7. S Moderation Douglas
    S Moderation Douglas 29 August, 2014, 18:03

    ROF.

    “WALL STREET JOURNAL SAID”

    Wall Street Journal said CalPERS “tried to end run the law by including 99 other salary boosters”

    Wall Street Journal said ” If only journalists could earn bonuses for writing.”

    I say, “If only journalists could actually research and verify their stories instead of jumping on the bandwagon.”

    CalPERS does NOT HAVE THE POWER to include any “salary boosters”. These pay categories were created by management and approved by the legislature. And they are not ” spiking”.

    This isn’t a bad month for CalPERS, it’s an embarrassing month for journalism. Present company included.

    Reply this comment
  8. MyNewsLogin
    MyNewsLogin 3 September, 2014, 10:26

    You state, “Employees spike pensions by using overtime, vacation time and similar benefits to drive up their income before retirement. CalPERS, the largest pension fund in the country, ran afoul of the governor’s wishes by permitting such temporary pay increases to count as “pensionable income,” the amount used to calculate the size of retirement pensions.”

    You also state, “In other words, extras like “unused vacation and sick leave” were officially off limits.”

    Please cite a document at CalPERS that lists “overtime, vacation time and similar benefits” or “unused vacation and sick leave” among the items approved by CalPERS as pensionable. I sure can’t find it. Instead, I find incentive pay and premium pay for people doing tasks beyond normal duties or providing skills, certifications, and training beyond what is required for the job.

    Reply this comment
  9. Max Neiman
    Max Neiman 3 September, 2014, 14:15

    I’d like to know which category of public employees is involved in spiking. Are these teachers? Public safety personnel? Management? Who? In my case, university professors cannot spike their retirement salary. And the piece conveys the impression that public employees are all, in principle, capable of doing this with their retirement income.

    I appreciate the exposing of spiking, which I think is deplorable, but I also find it equally troubling to have someone convey the impression that this is a general and widespread problem, without making a better empirical case for that impression.

    Reply this comment

Write a Comment

Leave a Reply


Tags assigned to this article:
CalPERSJerry BrownunionsJames Poulos

Related Articles

Tesla aims to build 1 million cars annually by 2020

  High-flying clean-energy industrialist Elon Musk has doubled down on his production plans in California. Tesla, his auto company, “took a

BART strike is a teachable moment

Reactions from the press and public to the BART strikes this year have been overwhelmingly negative. In one of the

California bill would let 17-year-olds vote in all elections

California doesn’t have a particularly high opinion of the maturity of 18-year-olds, who can join the military but who can’t