Last week, the court issued its long-awaited decision in a court case involving a Sacramento local firefighters union that alleged a provision of the 2012 pension reform measure approved by the Legislature and signed by then-Gov. Jerry Brown was illegal under the “California Rule.” That’s the legal concept stemming from a 1955 state Supreme Court ruling that holds the terms of a public employee’s pension benefit cannot be reduced for years not yet worked, only kept the same or increased.

Cal Fire Local 2881 said that the pension reform’s ban on “air time” – the purchase of service credits to enhance pensions – violated the California Rule. But a unanimous state Supreme Court said “air time” was not a comprehensively bargained or legislatively approved vested right.

Yet in the lead opinion, Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye (pictured) explicitly said she was not taking a position on the California Rule question of whether pension terms could be changed going forward for years not worked.

This mixed message produced media confusion. Some news bulletins declared the justices had approved allowing a rollback of local benefits. Others suggested the California Rule had dodged a bullet.

Was ‘California Rule’ weakened or untouched?

Interest groups were similarly split.

Officials with the League of California Cities saw the court’s willingness to change the terms of pensions on a relatively minor issue as a sign it was open to a significant weakening of the California Rule. The league and many like groups hope for a state Supreme Court ruling that echoes a lower court’s ruling that pensions are not “immutable.” They were heartened by Cantil-Sakauye specifically noting the state had raised the retirement age from 67 to 70 for current as well as prospective employees.

But the Californians for Retirement Security, which represents 1.6 million public employees and former public employees, declared victory after noting that Cantil-Sakauye had specifically said “air time” was changeable because it was not a vested right – unlike basic pension formulas basing retirement checks on years worked times a percent of late-career salary.

The group and others also cited a concurring opinion written by Justice Leondra Kruger and joined by Justice Goodwin Liu that held that government employers could not “withdraw” from the pension terms established upon initial employment by “an implied unilateral contract.”

The state Supreme Court is expected to eventually take up at least two more cases involving union objections to the 2012 pension reform, so the sanctity and extent of the California Rule is likely to remain in the news. In his final year in office, Gov. Jerry Brown repeatedly urged the court to give governments the option to change future pension terms as pension costs have crowded out local, county and school programs and services. Brown’s office defended the 2012 reform law before the high court because of concern that state Attorney General Xavier Becerra was not eager to defend it.

Like 2017 case, ruling seen as murky, not clarifying

But in the meantime, last week’s ruling seems as murky as the court’s decision in the 2017 California Cannabis Coalition v. City of Upland case. Previously, Proposition 218, approved by voters in 1996, had been understood to require that any tax whose revenue would go to a special purpose – building a sports arena, adding libraries, etc. – had to be approved by a two-thirds vote.

Upending decades of precedent, the state Supreme Court held in a 5-2 decision that the two-thirds threshold applied only to ballot measures initiated by local governments. Because they were not local government measures, those qualified by citizen initiatives only needed simple majority support to be enacted.

In dissent, Justice Kruger took square aim at the idea that this interpretation was what voters expected in 1996 when they made it harder for local governments to raise taxes.

Kruger wrote, “A tax passed by voter initiative, no less than a tax passed by vote of the city council, is a tax of the local government, to be collected by the local government, to raise revenue for the local government. None of this could have been lost on the electorate that, also by initiative, amended the California Constitution to set ground rules for voter approval of local taxes.”

Next fiscal year, Newsom wants to give $3 billion to the California Public Employees’ Retirement System. He also proposes giving up to $5.9 billion over four years to the California State Teachers’ Retirement System.

Both funds have less than 70 percent of the assets they will need to pay off promised pensions. Last year, CalSTRS’ unfunded liability was estimated to be $107.3 billion and CalPERS’ was put at $136 billion. Some see Newsom’s proposal as a confirmation of the failure of ballyhooed efforts by Gov. Jerry Brown and the Legislature to reform pensions and shore up the pension giants.

In 2012, they enacted the California Public Employees’ Pension Reform Act (PEPRA). It changed retirement terms for state employees hired after Jan. 1, 2013, by limiting what types of pay would apply toward pensions and by making small reductions to benefit calculation formulas and pushing back when employees could retire.

Brown hailed the law’s passage as a significant first step toward Sacramento bringing pension costs under control.

The next significant step came in 2014, when the Legislature and Brown approved a bailout of CalSTRS. It gradually raised the $5.7 billion that school districts, the state and teachers contributed to CalSTRS in 2013-14 to $11 billion in 2020-21, when the phased-in increases were complete. Districts have to pay for 70 percent of the new contributions, with the state picking up 20 percent and teachers 10 percent.

‘Significant’ CalSTRS changes didn’t stabilize fund

The nonpartisan state Legislative Analyst’s Office described the funding law as a “significant” accomplishment with promise to keep CalSTRS on firm ground for decades to come.

But as Brown’s second term wore on, with CalPERS alternating between poor and relatively successful years with its investments, it became clear that the 2012 pension reform measure hadn’t changed the grim long-term picture for CalPERS’ finances. A 2017 Pensions & Investment report detailed how CalPERS’ 10-year record of 4.4 percent average returns wasn’t keeping up with its obligations and noted that in one poor investment year alone, CalPERS saw its unfunded liabilities soar by $27.3 billion.

And the LAO soon changed its tone on the CalSTRS bailout. In 2016, its analysts warned that liabilities continued to increase. And in November, as CalWatchdog reported, an internal CalSTRS analysis concluded there was a 50 percent chance that CalSTRS’ funding would drop to less than 50 percent over the next 30 years. Pension analysts note that few pension systems ever recover from dropping below the 50 percent level.

Perhaps the most significant hope for pension reform from the Brown era came as the surprise result of a legal challenge to some of the limits on pensions for new hires in the 2012 law. A public safety union argued that this was a violation of the “California rule,” the long-standing court precedent that held pension benefits could not be reduced for public employees without comparable additional benefits being provided.

But two appellate courts not only disagreed with the lawsuit’s premise, they held the “California rule” of inviolate pensions didn’t apply to years not yet worked by public employees, and that cheaper benefits could be collectively bargained.

The California Supreme Court held a hearing on the lawsuit last month and a decision is expected in coming weeks.

Legislators have largely avoided the pension issue since passage of a reform law that went into effect in 2013, and reformers have struggled to settle on an initiative strategy to take to voters. That’s unlikely to change. But last week the high court agreed to review a union appeal of a decision involving an obscure concept known as the California Rule. The decision could change everything.

The California Rule is not actually a rule, but a legal doctrine that emanated from a 1955 court case. Essentially, it states that no vested public-employee benefit such as a pension can be reduced unless public employees are granted another benefit of equal or greater value. Unions claim that a 2013 state law unfairly deprives them of vested benefits.

The rule remains the stumbling block for most efforts to reduce pension costs, given that it severely limits public agencies’ efforts to slice current pension costs. Hence, pension reformers and unions alike are eager to get a final verdict on the matter.

In the private sector, companies that offer defined-benefit pension plans – those plans that guarantee a pension payout based on a formula, as opposed to 401(k)s – are free to reduce the benefits going forward. In other words, employees must be made whole through today, but may start receiving lower benefits tomorrow. By contrast, in California and other states that follow this rule, government workers must be paid the full amount of the promised benefits until they (and their spouses) pass away.

The accepted interpretation has been that a benefit hike, once approved by a government agency, is permanent. It can never be rolled back. As a result, most pension reform proposals deal only with shaving benefits for new hires, who won’t start retiring for 25 or 30 years. That leaves service cuts and tax hikes as the only way to deal with increasing pension debt.

Some localities have tried to take on the rule. In 2012, for instance, San Jose officials put a pension-reform measure on the ballot that required current city employees to choose between new pension plans that offered fewer benefits than current plans. It passed with 70 percent of the vote, but the courts later gutted that measure. They relied on the California Rule.

But now the California Supreme Court is ready to address the issue, at least around the margins. Last week, the court, without comment, agreed to a union challenge of a San Francisco appeals court that put limits on the application of the rule. Last summer, unions appealed a similar Marin County case, in which an appeals court also put some limits on the rule’s application.

At issue is the California Public Employees’ Pension Reform Act, which went into effect in January 2013. Most analysts viewed the law as a modest attempt to get control of the state’s growing unfunded pension liabilities, or debt. Most of it applied only to newly hired state workers. But it did include a handful of provisions that affect current workers.

On Dec. 30, the First District Court of Appeal in San Francisco rejected a challenge by a state firefighters’ union claiming that PEPRA’s elimination of a 2003 benefit that let firefighters purchase up to five years of additional credits (airtime) before retiring was in violation of the rule.

“The unions argued that their members had a legal right to the pension benefits that were in effect when they were hired and that the state broke its contractual promise to them by eliminating those benefits,” according to a San Francisco Chronicle analysis. The 3-0 written opinion found that public employees have a right to a “reasonable pension” but they aren’t guaranteed “fixed or definite benefits immune from modification or elimination.”

“(P)laintiffs assert a vested contractual right to purchase up to five years of airtime service credit that is not subject to elimination or destruction by legislative amendment or repeal ‘even before the benefit has been accessed or the time for retirement has arrived.’” The court said plaintiffs “disregard the fact that, when amending the statutory scheme governing pension rights, the Legislature in fact provided (eligible public employees) … a several-month window in which to purchase the airtime service credit before the option terminated.”

The high court could uphold the rule or overturn it, or put certain limits on its application and deal narrowly with the “airtime” issue. In that separate Marin County case, five unions challenged PEPRA’s limitation of various ways that public employees enhance, or spike, their end-of-career salaries (bonuses, unused leave, etc.) to boost their lifetime retirement pay.

Unions argue that the reform reduced their vested pension benefits and was therefore in violation of their constitutional rights, as upheld by – you guessed it – the California Rule. “(W)hile a public employee does have a ‘vested right’ to a pension, that right is only to a ‘reasonable’ pension – not an immutable entitlement to the most optimal formula of calculating that pension,” ruled Justice James Richman, in language similar to the San Francisco ruling. He wrote that the Legislature may “prior to the employee’s retirement, alter the formula, thereby reducing the anticipated pension.”

As reporter Ed Mendel has explained in Calpensions, “The high court will wait until an appeals court rules on three similar spiking ban suits consolidated from Alameda, Contra Costa and Merced counties.” That might take some time, but this issue is definitely coming to the state’s high court in one form or another, sooner or later.

Battle lines are drawn. The unions claim that state and local agencies may not reduce any pension benefits. Pension reformers – and the courts, in recent decisions – say that while a reasonable pension remains a right, that doesn’t stop localities from reducing some things. These cases deal with pension-spiking enhancements and the purchase of airtime – controversial and somewhat limited practices. But the future of pension reform is on the line.

Steven Greenhut is Western region director for the R Street Institute. Write to him at sgreenhut@rstreet.org.

“SAN JOSE — In a landmark ruling that could help shape city budgets around the state, a judge invalidated key parts of San Jose’s voter-approved pension cuts but upheld other elements that could still save huge taxpayer costs.

“Santa Clara County Superior Court Judge Patricia Lucas’ tentative decision released Monday prohibits the city from forcing current employees to contribute significantly more toward their pensions, as called for in last year’s Measure B. But the ruling allows the city to cut employees’ salaries to offset its increasing pension costs.”

That’s from the San Jose Mercury-News. How is it possible that in California, once a public employee is hired, his pension can get bigger, but never smaller? It’s time for the depressing story of what’s known among pension lawyers as the “California rule.”

No cut without ‘comparable new advantage’

Emory University economist and law professor Sasha Volokh explained recently on one of the Reason websites: