San Diego pension reform: model for state?

As San Diego officials joined forces this week on an initiative to switch all new hires except police from pensions to 401(k)-style plans, Mayor Jerry Sanders said the city’s troubled pension system could become a “national model.”

But in Sacramento, none of the half dozen pension overhauls proposed this year by Gov. Brown and reform advocates inside and outside of state government is a pure 401(k)-style investment plan.

Brown took a big step last week by expanding the eight-point pension reform plan issued during his campaign to a 12-point plan. Among five undefined concepts still under development are a “pension benefit cap” and a “hybrid option.”

The governor issued the plan shortly after a breakdown in talks with Republicans, who must provide at least four of the legislative votes needed to place a crucial tax extension on the ballot. It’s half of his plan to close a $25 billion gap.

Was Brown offering potential Republican budget votes a chance to help shape pension reform? Could it become a companion to a tax-extension initiative intended to show voters cost control?

Was it an attempt to demonstrate independence from public employee unions, who want any pension changes done through collective bargaining? Or is it simply something Brown thinks should be done?

A brief governor’s news release did not go into motivation.

“All 12 of these pension reform measures were presented and discussed in detail with Republican legislators,” said the release. “Talks broke down, however, over other issues. Brown intends to introduce these pension reforms with or without Republican support.”

A “hybrid” retirement plan is a combination pension and 401(k)-style plan. An example is a plan adopted for new federal employees in 1987 that provides a low guaranteed pension with a 401(k)-style plan, coordinated with Social Security.

Most of the private-sector employers that offer retirement plans have switched to 401(k) plans with no monthly pension guaranteed for life. The change protects the employer from long-term debt and the risk of soaring costs if investment earnings fall short.

The employer makes a fixed annual payment into the employee’s tax-deferred 401(k) investment account and often matches the employee contribution, usually up to about 6 percent of pay.

Critics of a stand-alone 401(k) plan say employees tend to make poor investment choices and have plans that charge high management fees. The critics say the 401(k) was originally intended to be a supplement to a pension, not a replacement.

When there is an economic downturn or stock market crash, the 401(k) plan investments of employees nearing retirement have little time to recover. A study earlier this year found that household heads age 60 to 62 with 401(k)s have less than a quarter of what is needed in retirement.

Recent pension reform proposals have not been stand-alone 401(k) plans.

A bipartisan state watchdog, the Little Hoover Commission, suggested a federal-style hybrid plan while urging a freeze of pensions earned by current workers. A freeze could curb rising pension costs threatening to “crush” government, but would also trigger a legal test of whether promised pensions can be cut.

The non-partisan Legislative Analyst recommended a hybrid plan or a cost-sharing plan that would increase contributions from both employers and employees when a pension fund needs more money.

Former Assemblyman Roger Niello, R-Fair Oaks, who may run for state senate or state controller, filed an initiative last month that would extend retirement ages and lower benefits and require equal employee-employer contributions for new hires.

A new proposal from a pension reform group would cap employer pension contributions at 5 percent of pay for most workers and 7 percent of pay for police and firefighters.

Last year the reform group led by Marcia Fritz hoped to get funding from wealthy Republican gubernatorial candidate Meg Whitman to put a plan on the ballot that would extend retirement ages and give new hires lower pensions.

But Whitman said she favored switching most new hires to a 401(k) plan, while continuing to give new police and firefighters a pension. The issue of exempting safety employees from a 401(k) plan split San Diego officials earlier this year.

San Diego Mayor Sanders and Councilman Kevin Faulconer, who wanted to exempt police and firefighters, reached an agreement with Councilman Carl DeMaio and others, who wanted no exemptions.

Placing a single 401(k) initiative on the June ballot next year, and continuing pensions only for new police, is intended to unite financial support from the business community and avoid dueling initiatives.

Supporters said the initiative is expected to save the city $363 million during the first five years. But much of the savings would come from a five-year cap on pay used to calculate pensions, which is likely to draw a legal challenge from labor unions.

San Diego, dubbed “Enron by the Sea“ in the national media, dropped city contributions below the actuarially required amount in 1996 and 2002 in deals that also raised pensions, leading to lawsuits, a moratorium on bond sales and deep budget cuts.

Sanders announced that he would pursue a 401(k) initiative last November after voters rejected a sales tax increase linked to pension reforms. He said it’s a “radical” idea for municipal government, but pensions were designed for another era.

“Public employees are now paid salaries comparable to those in the private sector, and there’s simply no reason they should enjoy a far richer retirement benefit than anyone else,” he said in a news release.

A statewide poll by the Public Policy Institute of California last month found strong support for switching new hires to 401(k) plans. It was a single question, without the follow-up questions that labor officials say can change results on pension issues.

“Would you favor or oppose changing the pension systems for new public employees from defined benefits to a defined contribution system similar to a 401(k) plan?” asked the pollster.

In favor of the change, said PPIC, were likely voters 74 percent, Democrats 70 percent, Republicans 80 percent, independents 72 percent and public employees 56 percent.

Support for the change among all adults is trending upward, going from 61 percent in 2005 to 67 percent last year before reaching 71 percent this year. Support among whites is 77 percent, Asians 73 percent and Latinos 64 percent.

Support is more likely among those with at least some college education than among those with a high school degree or less. Support also is more likely among households with incomes above $40,000 than those with incomes below that amount.

“This initiative will not only reform our pension system, but transform it into a national model,” Sanders was quoted as saying this week.

Reporter Ed Mendel covered the Capitol in Sacramento for nearly three decades, most recently for the San Diego Union-Tribune. More stories are at https://calpensions.com/ Posted 7 Apr 11

6 Responses to “San Diego pension reform: model for state?”

  1. Reilleyfam Says:

    And when all those people have their retirement eliminated the govt will still have to support them and it’ll cost a lot more than giving them the crummy pensions they now get. You dont tear down those with a functional retirement, you raise up the others. We use the destruction of private sector worker compensation as an excuse to ruin everyones. Welcome to the USA – the Misery Loves Company Nation. Great, we’ll all be destitute and then the anarachy and revolution begin.

  2. Charles Sainte Claire Says:

    What is so special about cops?

  3. Tim O'Connell Says:

    I worked for the City of San Diego 1974-1992, at which time I moved to the San Diego Housing Commission, one of several “independent agencies” originally created by then-Mayor Pete Wilson to reduce the influence of public employee civil service protections and take those workers out of the City Employees Retirement System (CERS), which was not linked to CalPERS.

    The City of San Diego withdrew from the Social Security system while I worked there, and a defined contribution plan was established to “replace” the lost retirement benefits that withdrawal caused for workers.

    The “independent agencies” (including the Centre City Development Corp. responsible for downtown San Diego’s redevelopment activity, the San Diego Data Processing Corp. responsible for all information technology needs for the City agencies, and others) each established their own separate defined contribution plans. Over the year, they have performed about on par with all other 40x plans around the nation– that is, not as well as the markets overall and paying fees to the private management firms selected to operate them.

    If public agencies are going to switch to defined contribution plans, they should be required to participate in Social Security and the level of contribution from the employer should make up at least half of the total funds in the program. The nation cannot afford to balance the budgets on the backs of the workers.

    Of course, the primary reason public pension funds are in trouble is that the agencies responsible for them have consistently underfunded their obligations. In San Diego, both City and County, were forced to disclose and plan to fully fund their underfunded obligations after the SEC showed up charging the City with securities fraud for failing to report their unfunded obligations to CERS. If the pension systems were funded properly, they would not be seen as being so costly.

  4. SeeSaw Says:

    If you put everyone but PS on DC plans, you beging the extinction of the DB pension system. This is a very “knee-jerk” plan for solving pension sustainability issues. Wake up everyone who votes in SD–do not sign that petition!

  5. IT Pro Says:

    SeeSaw, that’s the point. What happened when ex-GAS tried his pension “reform”? It included PS and was like shooting fish in a barrel for the union, remember? “Oh won’t somebody think of the children, living in a crime ridden society, blah, blah”.

    Excluding PS is smart…. divide and conquer. The powerful have been doing that for centuries to the poor uninformed masses. They hope PS will sit back and say “whatever, not me” and not fight it. Isn’t this why PS were excluded in Wisconsin’s bill to strip collective bargaining rights?

    I hope PS doesn’t fall in to this trap in SD.

  6. roger Says:

    Cops think they are better than anyone else & want to retire at age 50 with a whole bunch of OUR money. Screw the cops!!!!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: