Difference between revisions of "San Francisco Pension Reform, Propositions C and D (November 2011)"

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search
(Polls)
m (Text replace - ""," to ","")
(13 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown)
Line 8: Line 8:
 
  topic = [[:Category:Local pensions, California, 2011|Pensions]]|
 
  topic = [[:Category:Local pensions, California, 2011|Pensions]]|
 
  status = On the ballot|
 
  status = On the ballot|
}}{{tnr}}'''Proposition C''' and '''Proposition D''', on the {{nov08ca2011}} in {{san francisco}}, present voters with two different pension reform options.
+
}}{{tnr}}'''Proposition C''' and '''Proposition D''' were on the {{nov08ca2011}} in {{san francisco}}. They presented voters with two different pension reform options.
  
Proposition D is supported by [[Jeff Adachi]]. Proposition C is a rival measure supported by [[Edwin M. Lee|Mayor Ed Lee]] and several San Francisco County superintendents.  Proposition D will save the city $50 million more a year than Proposition C.<ref>[http://www.sfexaminer.com/local/2011/07/adachi-submits-ballot-measure-reform-san-franciscos-pension-system ''San Francisco Examiner'', "Adachi submits ballot measure to reform San Francisco's pension system", July 11, 2011]</ref>
+
* Proposition C was '''approved.'''
 +
* Proposition D was '''defeated.'''
  
Since [[Jeff Adachi|Adachi]] and current San Francisco mayor [[Edwin M. Lee|Lee]] are both running for mayor and have differing views on pension reform, it has become a key issue in the [[San Francisco mayoral election, 2011|November 8, 2011 mayoral contest]] in the city.<ref name=adachi/>
+
Proposition D was supported by [[Jeff Adachi]]. Proposition C was a rival measure supported by [[Edwin M. Lee|Mayor Ed Lee]] and all the San Francisco County superintendents.<ref>[http://www.sfexaminer.com/local/2011/07/adachi-submits-ballot-measure-reform-san-franciscos-pension-system ''San Francisco Examiner'', "Adachi submits ballot measure to reform San Francisco's pension system," July 11, 2011]</ref>
  
If both propositions receive a majority vote, the one with the most votes will go into effect.<ref>[http://blogs.sfweekly.com/thesnitch/2011/04/pension_adachi.php ''SF Weekly'', "Latest Jeff Adachi Pension Measure Won't Be Called 'Pension Measure'", April 12, 2011]</ref> However, any parts of the measure that receives the smaller majority vote that are not in conflict with any parts of the measure that receives the larger majority vote will also take effect.<ref name=maj/>
+
Since [[Jeff Adachi|Adachi]] and current San Francisco mayor [[Edwin M. Lee|Lee]] were both running for mayor and had differing views on pension reform, pension reform became a key issue in the [[San Francisco mayoral election, 2011|November 8, 2011 mayoral contest]] in the city.<ref name=adachi/>
  
Propositions C and D are both proposed amendments to the San Francisco City Charter.<ref name=duel>[http://www.beyondchron.org/news/index.php?itemid=9468 ''Beyond Chron'', "Dueling Pension Reform Measures Dominate Voter Handbook", August 29, 2011]</ref>
+
If both propositions had received a majority vote, the one with the most votes would have gone into effect.<ref>[http://blogs.sfweekly.com/thesnitch/2011/04/pension_adachi.php ''SF Weekly'', "Latest Jeff Adachi Pension Measure Won't Be Called 'Pension Measure'," April 12, 2011]</ref> However, any parts of the measure that received the smaller majority vote that were not in conflict with any parts of the measure that receives the larger majority vote will also take effect.<ref name=maj/> However, since Proposition D did not receive even a majority of the vote, no considerations have to be given as to how to reconcile the two measures.
 +
 
 +
Propositions C and D were both proposed amendments to the San Francisco City Charter.<ref name=duel>[http://www.beyondchron.org/news/index.php?itemid=9468 ''Beyond Chron'', "Dueling Pension Reform Measures Dominate Voter Handbook," August 29, 2011]</ref>
 +
 
 +
==Election results==
 +
:: ''See also: [[2011 ballot measure election results]] and [[Local ballot measure elections in 2011]]''
 +
 
 +
===Proposition C===
 +
 
 +
:: ''See also: [[2011 ballot measure election results]] and [[Local ballot measure elections in 2011]]''
 +
{{Short outcome
 +
| title = San Francisco Pension Reform, Proposition C
 +
| yes = 129,554
 +
| yespct = 68.91
 +
| no = 58,460
 +
| nopct = 31.09
 +
| image = {{approved}}
 +
| unresolved =
 +
}}
 +
 
 +
===Proposition D===
 +
 
 +
{{Short outcome
 +
| title = San Francisco Pension Reform, Proposition D
 +
| yes = 62,358
 +
| yespct = 33.45
 +
| no = 124,051
 +
| nopct = 66.55
 +
| image = {{defeated}}
 +
| unresolved =
 +
}}
 +
 
 +
::''Election results are from the [http://www.sfelections.org/results/20111108/ San Francisco elections office] as of 5:30 a.m. PST on Thursday, November 24, 2011.''
 +
 
 +
Other notable 2011 local ballot measure results can be found [[2011_ballot_measure_election_results#Notable_local_contests|here]].
  
 
==San Francisco's pension costs==
 
==San Francisco's pension costs==
  
According to Heather Knight and John Coté, writers for the [[San Francisco Chronicle]], "Pension reform is a sizzling topic among voters, who are angered by seeing their own retirement plans limp along with the struggling economy while public employees' pensions rise."<ref>[http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2011/04/25/MNA21J4NLC.DTL ''San Francisco Chronicle'', "S.F. pension reform to be hottest issue on ballot", April 25, 2011]</ref>
+
San Francisco has 26,000 current and 28,000 retired employees.<ref>[http://www.mercurynews.com/news/ci_19222876 ''Mercury News'', "Calif. cities take pension reform to the ballot," October 29, 2011]</ref>
 +
 
 +
According to Heather Knight and John Coté, writers for the [[San Francisco Chronicle]], "Pension reform is a sizzling topic among voters, who are angered by seeing their own retirement plans limp along with the struggling economy while public employees' pensions rise."<ref>[http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2011/04/25/MNA21J4NLC.DTL ''San Francisco Chronicle'', "S.F. pension reform to be hottest issue on ballot," April 25, 2011]</ref>
  
 
A number of studies and analyses of the problems with the current San Francisco pension system and its underfunding have been produced. The consensus is:
 
A number of studies and analyses of the problems with the current San Francisco pension system and its underfunding have been produced. The consensus is:
  
* Pension costs paid to retired city workers will be about $423 million in 2011, at a time when San Francisco is facing an annual deficit of about $400 million.<ref name=bet>[http://www.sfweekly.com/2011-08-31/news/pension-reform-san-francisco-jeff-adachi-ed-lee-joe-eskenazi/ ''SF Weekly'', "The Billion-Dollar Bet", August 31, 2011]</ref>
+
* Pension costs paid to retired city workers will be about $423 million in 2011, at a time when San Francisco is facing an annual deficit of about $400 million.<ref name=bet>[http://www.sfweekly.com/2011-08-31/news/pension-reform-san-francisco-jeff-adachi-ed-lee-joe-eskenazi/ ''SF Weekly'', "The Billion-Dollar Bet," August 31, 2011]</ref>
* "San Francisco owes $4.476 billion in pensions to its employees but only has the money to pay roughly three-quarters of that cost."<ref>[http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=%2Fc%2Fa%2F2011%2F03%2F15%2FBAEK1IBSDC.DTL ''San Francisco Chronicle'', "Study on pensions 'shocking'", March 16, 2011]</ref>
+
* "San Francisco owes $4.476 billion in pensions to its employees but only has the money to pay roughly three-quarters of that cost."<ref>[http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=%2Fc%2Fa%2F2011%2F03%2F15%2FBAEK1IBSDC.DTL ''San Francisco Chronicle'', "Study on pensions 'shocking'," March 16, 2011]</ref>
 
* The $423 million in pension costs in 2011 is about $109 million more than the pension costs in 2010.  
 
* The $423 million in pension costs in 2011 is about $109 million more than the pension costs in 2010.  
 
* The unfunded pension liability in the city is about $35,000 for every household.<ref>[http://blogs.sfweekly.com/thesnitch/2011/01/pension_san_francisco.php# ''SF Weekly'', "San Francisco’s Pension Contribution will Be Far More Than Reported"]</ref>
 
* The unfunded pension liability in the city is about $35,000 for every household.<ref>[http://blogs.sfweekly.com/thesnitch/2011/01/pension_san_francisco.php# ''SF Weekly'', "San Francisco’s Pension Contribution will Be Far More Than Reported"]</ref>
* "The pension investment fund took a $4 billion hit [in 2008], and The City was forced to start contributing hundreds of millions of dollars to pension costs using its annual revenues that pay for basic services such as police, fire, parks and roads."<ref name=costs>[http://www.sfexaminer.com/local/2011/08/san-franciscos-public-pension-system-drowning-red-ink ''San Francisco Examiner'', "San Francisco's public pension system is drowning in red ink", August 14, 2011]</ref>
+
* "The pension investment fund took a $4 billion hit [in 2008], and The City was forced to start contributing hundreds of millions of dollars to pension costs using its annual revenues that pay for basic services such as police, fire, parks and roads."<ref name=costs>[http://www.sfexaminer.com/local/2011/08/san-franciscos-public-pension-system-drowning-red-ink ''San Francisco Examiner'', "San Francisco's public pension system is drowning in red ink," August 14, 2011]</ref>
 
* Projections indicate that pension costs will double to about $800 million in 2014, or about 31% of the city's payroll.<ref name=costs/>
 
* Projections indicate that pension costs will double to about $800 million in 2014, or about 31% of the city's payroll.<ref name=costs/>
 
* According to Gabriel Metcalf, executive director of the San Francisco Planning and Urban Research Association, "Many factors caused us to be in this [pension] mess. It’s been incredibly tempting for a succession of elected officials to offer very rich pension benefits to city employees."<ref name=costs/>
 
* According to Gabriel Metcalf, executive director of the San Francisco Planning and Urban Research Association, "Many factors caused us to be in this [pension] mess. It’s been incredibly tempting for a succession of elected officials to offer very rich pension benefits to city employees."<ref name=costs/>
Line 48: Line 85:
 
===Supporters===
 
===Supporters===
  
Proposition C is supported by Mayor [[Edwin M. Lee|Ed Lee]], Supervisor Sean Elsbernd, and labor unions in the city.<ref name=maj>[http://blog.sfgate.com/cityinsider/2011/07/12/sean-elsbernd-its-one-or-the-other-on-pension-reform/ ''San Francisco Chronicle'', "Sean Elsbernd: It’s one or the other on pension reform", July 12, 2011]</ref>
+
Proposition C is supported by Mayor [[Edwin M. Lee|Ed Lee]], Supervisor Sean Elsbernd, and labor unions in the city.<ref name=maj>[http://blog.sfgate.com/cityinsider/2011/07/12/sean-elsbernd-its-one-or-the-other-on-pension-reform/ ''San Francisco Chronicle'', "Sean Elsbernd: It’s one or the other on pension reform," July 12, 2011]</ref>
  
 
The official ballot guide arguments for Proposition C were signed by:
 
The official ballot guide arguments for Proposition C were signed by:
Line 60: Line 97:
 
* Dennis Kelly of the San Francisco Teachers Union<ref name=duel/>
 
* Dennis Kelly of the San Francisco Teachers Union<ref name=duel/>
  
The [[San Francisco Chronicle]]'s editorial board is in favor of a "yes" vote on Proposition C.<ref>[http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2011/10/02/EDC81LA2UE.DTL&ao=2 ''San Francisco Chronicle'', "Pass SF Prop. C for down payment on pension reform", October 2, 2011]</ref>
+
The [[San Francisco Chronicle]]'s editorial board is in favor of a "yes" vote on Proposition C.<ref>[http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2011/10/02/EDC81LA2UE.DTL&ao=2 ''San Francisco Chronicle'', "Pass SF Prop. C for down payment on pension reform," October 2, 2011]</ref>
  
The editorial board of the ''San Francisco Examiner'' is in favor of a "yes" vote on Proposition C.<ref>[http://www.sfexaminer.com/opinion/editorials/2011/10/prop-c-will-do-more-prop-d-curb-runaway-benefits ''San Francisco Examiner'', "Yes on Prop. C: Plan will do more than Prop. D to curb runaway benefits", October 20, 2011]</ref>
+
The editorial board of the ''San Francisco Examiner'' is in favor of a "yes" vote on Proposition C.<ref>[http://www.sfexaminer.com/opinion/editorials/2011/10/prop-c-will-do-more-prop-d-curb-runaway-benefits ''San Francisco Examiner'', "Yes on Prop. C: Plan will do more than Prop. D to curb runaway benefits," October 20, 2011]</ref>
  
 
===Arguments in favor===
 
===Arguments in favor===
Line 86: Line 123:
 
===Path to the ballot===
 
===Path to the ballot===
  
The San Francisco Board of Supervisors voted unanimously on Tuesday, July 19, to refer Proposition C to the {{nov08ca2011}}.<ref>[http://www.mercurynews.com/news/ci_18513442 ''Mercury News'', "SF supes place pension reform measure on ballot", July 20, 2011]</ref>
+
The San Francisco Board of Supervisors voted unanimously on Tuesday, July 19, to refer Proposition C to the {{nov08ca2011}}.<ref>[http://www.mercurynews.com/news/ci_18513442 ''Mercury News'', "SF supes place pension reform measure on ballot," July 20, 2011]</ref>
  
 
==Proposition D (the "Adachi Initiative")==
 
==Proposition D (the "Adachi Initiative")==
Line 92: Line 129:
 
:: ''See also: [[San Francisco Pension Reform, Proposition B (November 2010)]]''
 
:: ''See also: [[San Francisco Pension Reform, Proposition B (November 2010)]]''
  
Proposition D will require city workers to contribute more to their own pension costs.<ref name=adachi>[http://www.beyondchron.org/news/index.php?itemid=9431 ''Beyond Chron'', "Adachi’s Entry, Debate Hecklers Boost Mayor Lee’s Campaign", August 15, 2011]</ref>
+
Proposition D will require city workers to contribute more to their own pension costs.<ref name=adachi>[http://www.beyondchron.org/news/index.php?itemid=9431 ''Beyond Chron'', "Adachi’s Entry, Debate Hecklers Boost Mayor Lee’s Campaign," August 15, 2011]</ref>
  
 
Specifically, if approved, Proposition D will:
 
Specifically, if approved, Proposition D will:
Line 104: Line 141:
 
* Limit so-called "pension spiking," where workers are promoted to higher-paid jobs at the end of their careers to receive higher pensions.<ref name=donors/>
 
* Limit so-called "pension spiking," where workers are promoted to higher-paid jobs at the end of their careers to receive higher pensions.<ref name=donors/>
  
Proposition D does not address how the city handles health care for retired workers.  According to Adachi, "[Health care retirement benefits and pension reform] really are two separate problems and they should be dealt with separately both for political and practical reasons."<ref>[http://blog.sfgate.com/cityinsider/2011/04/11/adachi-settles-on-one-and-only-pension-reform-ballot-measure/ ''San Francisco Chronicle'', "Adachi settles on one and only pension reform ballot measure", April 11, 2011]</ref>
+
Proposition D does not address how the city handles health care for retired workers.  According to Adachi, "[Healthcare retirement benefits and pension reform] really are two separate problems and they should be dealt with separately both for political and practical reasons."<ref>[http://blog.sfgate.com/cityinsider/2011/04/11/adachi-settles-on-one-and-only-pension-reform-ballot-measure/ ''San Francisco Chronicle'', "Adachi settles on one and only pension reform ballot measure," April 11, 2011]</ref>
 
   
 
   
 
===Arguments in favor===
 
===Arguments in favor===
Line 124: Line 161:
  
 
* Michael Moritz, who has contributed $250,000. Mortiz is a partner in Sequoia Capital.
 
* Michael Moritz, who has contributed $250,000. Mortiz is a partner in Sequoia Capital.
* George Hume, who has contributed $250,000. Hume is the president of the San Francisco Opera Association.<ref name=donors>[http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2011/10/04/MN6P1LAOD3.DTL&type=politics ''San Francisco Chronicle'', "SF pension reform donors tied to antiunion efforts", October 4, 2011]</ref>
+
* George Hume, who has contributed $250,000. Hume is the president of the San Francisco Opera Association.<ref name=donors>[http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2011/10/04/MN6P1LAOD3.DTL&type=politics ''San Francisco Chronicle'', "SF pension reform donors tied to antiunion efforts," October 4, 2011]</ref>
  
 
===Opposition===
 
===Opposition===
Line 132: Line 169:
 
===Advertising restrictions===
 
===Advertising restrictions===
  
On August 25, the San Francisco Ethics Commission issued an advisory ruling saying that the Proposition D campaign cannot use [[Jeff Adachi]]'s name or likeness in its campaign materials because Adachi is running for [[San Francisco mayoral election, 2011|mayor]].<ref>[http://blog.sfgate.com/cityinsider/2011/08/25/jeff-adachis-smiling-face-wont-be-on-pension-reform-ads/ ''San Francisco Chronicle'', "Jeff Adachi’s smiling face won’t be on pension reform ads", August 25, 2011]</ref>
+
On August 25, the San Francisco Ethics Commission issued an advisory ruling saying that the Proposition D campaign cannot use [[Jeff Adachi]]'s name or likeness in its campaign materials because Adachi is running for [[San Francisco mayoral election, 2011|mayor]].<ref>[http://blog.sfgate.com/cityinsider/2011/08/25/jeff-adachis-smiling-face-wont-be-on-pension-reform-ads/ ''San Francisco Chronicle'', "Jeff Adachi’s smiling face won’t be on pension reform ads," August 25, 2011]</ref>
  
 
===Ballot question===
 
===Ballot question===
Line 146: Line 183:
 
===Path to the ballot===
 
===Path to the ballot===
  
As an initiated city charter amendment, Proposition D required 46,559 signatures on petitions to qualify for the ballot. Its supporters submitted 72,640 signatures on July 11. This was 26,000 more signatures than were required.<ref>[http://blog.sfgate.com/cityinsider/2011/07/11/jeff-adachis-pension-measure-gets-almost-73000-signatures/ ''San Francisco Chronicle'', "Jeff Adachi’s pension measure gets almost 73,000 signatures", July 11, 2011]</ref>
+
As an initiated city charter amendment, Proposition D required 46,559 signatures on petitions to qualify for the ballot. Its supporters submitted 72,640 signatures on July 11. This was 26,000 more signatures than were required.<ref>[http://blog.sfgate.com/cityinsider/2011/07/11/jeff-adachis-pension-measure-gets-almost-73000-signatures/ ''San Francisco Chronicle'', "Jeff Adachi’s pension measure gets almost 73,000 signatures," July 11, 2011]</ref>
  
 
==Comparison==
 
==Comparison==
Line 195: Line 232:
 
==Polls==
 
==Polls==
 
<table style="float: right; margin-left: 1em; margin-bottom: 0.5em; width: 242px; border: #99B3FF solid 1px">
 
<table style="float: right; margin-left: 1em; margin-bottom: 0.5em; width: 242px; border: #99B3FF solid 1px">
<tr><td>{{2010BallotMeasurePollLegend}}</td></tr>
+
<tr><td>{{BallotMeasurePollLegend}}</td></tr>
 
</table>
 
</table>
 
:''See also: [[Polls, 2011 ballot measures]]''
 
:''See also: [[Polls, 2011 ballot measures]]''
  
A poll of 551 registered city voters conducted by Bay Citizen/University of San Francisco between October 7-13 showed Proposition C in the lead.<ref>[http://www.baycitizen.org/pension-reform/story/bay-citizen-usf-poll-pension-reform/ ''Bay Citizen'', "Bay Citizen/USF Poll: Unions Winning Pension Reform Battle", October 18, 2011]</ref>
+
A poll of 551 registered city voters conducted by Bay Citizen/University of San Francisco between October 7-13 showed Proposition C in the lead.<ref>[http://www.baycitizen.org/pension-reform/story/bay-citizen-usf-poll-pension-reform/ ''Bay Citizen'', "Bay Citizen/USF Poll: Unions Winning Pension Reform Battle," October 18, 2011]</ref>
  
 
{{sanfranpensionpolls}}
 
{{sanfranpensionpolls}}
Line 226: Line 263:
  
 
==References==
 
==References==
{{reflist}}
+
{{reflist|2}}
  
 
{{california counties}}
 
{{california counties}}
  
 
[[Category:Local pensions, California, 2011]]
 
[[Category:Local pensions, California, 2011]]

Revision as of 08:04, 21 March 2014



Pension Reform
Flag of San Francisco.png
Click here for the latest news on U.S. ballot measures
Quick stats
Topic:Pensions
Status:On the ballot
Proposition C and Proposition D were on the November 8, 2011 ballot in San Francisco. They presented voters with two different pension reform options.
  • Proposition C was approved.
  • Proposition D was defeated.

Proposition D was supported by Jeff Adachi. Proposition C was a rival measure supported by Mayor Ed Lee and all the San Francisco County superintendents.[1]

Since Adachi and current San Francisco mayor Lee were both running for mayor and had differing views on pension reform, pension reform became a key issue in the November 8, 2011 mayoral contest in the city.[2]

If both propositions had received a majority vote, the one with the most votes would have gone into effect.[3] However, any parts of the measure that received the smaller majority vote that were not in conflict with any parts of the measure that receives the larger majority vote will also take effect.[4] However, since Proposition D did not receive even a majority of the vote, no considerations have to be given as to how to reconcile the two measures.

Propositions C and D were both proposed amendments to the San Francisco City Charter.[5]

Election results

See also: 2011 ballot measure election results and Local ballot measure elections in 2011

Proposition C

See also: 2011 ballot measure election results and Local ballot measure elections in 2011
San Francisco Pension Reform, Proposition C
ResultVotesPercentage
Approveda Yes 129,554 68.91%
No58,46031.09%

Proposition D

San Francisco Pension Reform, Proposition D
ResultVotesPercentage
Defeatedd No124,05166.55%
Yes 62,358 33.45%
Election results are from the San Francisco elections office as of 5:30 a.m. PST on Thursday, November 24, 2011.

Other notable 2011 local ballot measure results can be found here.

San Francisco's pension costs

San Francisco has 26,000 current and 28,000 retired employees.[6]

According to Heather Knight and John Coté, writers for the San Francisco Chronicle, "Pension reform is a sizzling topic among voters, who are angered by seeing their own retirement plans limp along with the struggling economy while public employees' pensions rise."[7]

A number of studies and analyses of the problems with the current San Francisco pension system and its underfunding have been produced. The consensus is:

  • Pension costs paid to retired city workers will be about $423 million in 2011, at a time when San Francisco is facing an annual deficit of about $400 million.[8]
  • "San Francisco owes $4.476 billion in pensions to its employees but only has the money to pay roughly three-quarters of that cost."[9]
  • The $423 million in pension costs in 2011 is about $109 million more than the pension costs in 2010.
  • The unfunded pension liability in the city is about $35,000 for every household.[10]
  • "The pension investment fund took a $4 billion hit [in 2008], and The City was forced to start contributing hundreds of millions of dollars to pension costs using its annual revenues that pay for basic services such as police, fire, parks and roads."[11]
  • Projections indicate that pension costs will double to about $800 million in 2014, or about 31% of the city's payroll.[11]
  • According to Gabriel Metcalf, executive director of the San Francisco Planning and Urban Research Association, "Many factors caused us to be in this [pension] mess. It’s been incredibly tempting for a succession of elected officials to offer very rich pension benefits to city employees."[11]
  • Some retired city workers are receiving pension benefits of $22,600/month, which comes $271,200/year.[11]
  • 7,266 retired city workers are receiving monthly checks between $2,000 and $4,999.[11]
  • More than 600 retired workers receive more than $108,000/year in retirement benefits.[11]

Proposition C

Proposition C is 280 pages long.[5]

Proposition C, if approved, will:

  • Eliminate a current benefit under which city employees who leave after five years get paid back all of the money they paid into the retirement system — plus interest — as well as a 100% match from the city.
  • Require existing employees to begin contributing a small percentage of their salaries to a fund offsetting their future health care costs.
  • Alter the composition of the Health Services Board, so that four of the seven members are chosen by the city.
  • Require city workers to pay 7.5% of their salaries toward their pensions. This percentage could rise, for the city's highest-paid workers, to a maximum of 13.5% during years when the city is required to pay large amounts into the pension fund because it is earning a low rate of return on its investments.[12]

Supporters

Proposition C is supported by Mayor Ed Lee, Supervisor Sean Elsbernd, and labor unions in the city.[4]

The official ballot guide arguments for Proposition C were signed by:

  • Ed Lee
  • All 11 members of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors
  • The San Francisco Chamber of Commerce
  • The San Francisco Labor Council
  • The San Francisco Police Officers union
  • The San Francisco firefighters union
  • Dennis Kelly of the San Francisco Teachers Union[5]

The San Francisco Chronicle's editorial board is in favor of a "yes" vote on Proposition C.[13]

The editorial board of the San Francisco Examiner is in favor of a "yes" vote on Proposition C.[14]

Arguments in favor

According to the arguments presented in the official voter guide, Proposition C is a "comprehensive plan that will fix the City’s broken pension and health benefit system and save $1.3 billion over 10 years."[5]

Donors

Donors to the "Yes on C" campaign effort include:

  • Billionaire Warren Hellman. In addition to paying $200,000 for an actuary to provide data, he has donated (as of early October) $100,000 to the "Yes on C" campaign.[12]

Ballot question

Proposition C: "Shall the City amend its Charter to adjust pension contribution rates for most current and future City employees based on the City’s costs; reduce pension benefits for future City employees; limit cost-of-living adjustments to pension benefits; decrease City contributions to retiree health care costs for certain former employees; require all current and future employees to contribute toward their retiree health care costs; change the composition and voting requirements of the Health Service Board; and make other changes to the City’s retirement and health benefits systems?"

Path to the ballot

The San Francisco Board of Supervisors voted unanimously on Tuesday, July 19, to refer Proposition C to the November 8, 2011 ballot.[15]

Proposition D (the "Adachi Initiative")

Website banner of the "Yes on D" campaign
See also: San Francisco Pension Reform, Proposition B (November 2010)

Proposition D will require city workers to contribute more to their own pension costs.[2]

Specifically, if approved, Proposition D will:

  • Require most city workers to pay at least 7.5% of their salary toward their pension.
  • Police officers and firefighters would be required to pay 10%.
  • In years when the city's pension fund is earning a low rate of interest, the percentage that city workers would have to pay in could increase.
  • Those earning less than $50,000/year would never pay more than 7.5%.
  • Those earning $200,000 or more could pay up to 16%, in years when the pension fund is earning a low rate of interest.
  • Set a cap on the total pension payout to any individual.
  • Limit so-called "pension spiking," where workers are promoted to higher-paid jobs at the end of their careers to receive higher pensions.[12]

Proposition D does not address how the city handles health care for retired workers. According to Adachi, "[Healthcare retirement benefits and pension reform] really are two separate problems and they should be dealt with separately both for political and practical reasons."[16]

Arguments in favor

Arguments made in favor of Proposition D include:

  • "The spiraling, unsustainable costs of [retirement and health benefits for city employees] will require massive cuts in city services and the elimination of city jobs."
  • "The cost of pension and health care benefits for the City’s 26,000 employees and 28,000 retirees and their 47,000 dependents now consumes one out of every seven tax dollars."
  • "In the next five years the cost will consume one out of every four dollars. Within five years, these costs are projected to rise to $1 billion annually. At that level, San Francisco could entirely eliminate the Police Department, Fire Department, Sherriff’s Department, District Attorney’s Office, and the Juvenile and Adult Probation Departments and still not have enough money to cover its pension and health care liabilities."
  • "Even assuming optimistic rates of return, San Francisco is unlikely to meet its pension obligations to retirees. If the pension fund collects a generous 7.75% return on its investment each and every year, there is still a 67% chance that it will fail to provide the pension benefits that city employees and retirees are counting on."
  • "Without significant changes in policy, there is a zero probability that San Francisco will be able to meet its health care obligations to retirees."
  • "San Francisco currently has $4.364 billion in unfunded health care obligations. In other words, there are over $4 billion in health care benefits that city employees are expecting to receive but that the city — despite its promises — literally cannot afford to provide."
  • "Every year the city increases its spending on retiree health care. Since 2000, San Francisco’s expenditures for retiree health care have increased by more than 500%, from $23 million to $156 million. Despite that, the city’s unfunded liability is growing. By the city’s own admission, by 2028 it will be $9.5 billion short of paying the retiree health care costs that city employees are counting."
  • "If City employees don’t begin contributing more towards their pensions, the City will go broke, and this will lead to more layoffs of City employees. This year, with a $379 million deficit, City employees are facing a large number of layoffs, which in turn, will weaken the pension system, since there will be fewer people contributing to it. If the pension system continues to lose more value, it too will eventually collapse and City workers won’t get their promised pensions."

Donors

Donors to the "Yes on Proposition D" campaign include:

  • Michael Moritz, who has contributed $250,000. Mortiz is a partner in Sequoia Capital.
  • George Hume, who has contributed $250,000. Hume is the president of the San Francisco Opera Association.[12]

Opposition

San Francisco County Supervisor Sean Elsbernd believes that even if voters prefer Proposition D, the courts in California won't allow it, whereas (Elsbernd believes) the courts in California will allow Proposition C. Elsbernd says: "We believe we have pushed the legal limits (of pension reform) as far as they can be pushed, and Jeff has far exceeded anything that California courts have allowed."[4]

Advertising restrictions

On August 25, the San Francisco Ethics Commission issued an advisory ruling saying that the Proposition D campaign cannot use Jeff Adachi's name or likeness in its campaign materials because Adachi is running for mayor.[17]

Ballot question

Proposition D: "Shall the City amend its Charter to increase pension contribution rates for most current City employees based on the City’s costs; reduce contribution rates and pension benefits for most future City employees; limit cost-of-living adjustments to pension benefits; prohibit the City from picking up any employee’s contribution for pension benefits; and make other changes to the City’s retirement system?"

Path to the ballot

As an initiated city charter amendment, Proposition D required 46,559 signatures on petitions to qualify for the ballot. Its supporters submitted 72,640 signatures on July 11. This was 26,000 more signatures than were required.[18]

Comparison

A July 19, 2011 report by the San Francisco City Controller said that over 10 years:

  • Proposition C would save the city $1.29 billion
  • Proposition D would save the city $1.6 billion.[11]
Feature Current pension system If Proposition C is approved If Proposition D is approved
Pension formula for police/firefighters 3% of final salary (average final two years) X years of service at age 55. 3% of final salary (average final three years) X years of service at age 58. 2.7% of final salary (average final five years) X years of service at age 57.
Pension formula for other city employees 2.3% of final salary X years of service at age 62 2.3% of final salary X years of service at age 65 (change applies to new hires only) 2.3% of final salary X years of service at age 65 (change applies to new hires only)
Employee pension contribution formula for non-public-safety employees 7.5% of salary Between 2.5% and 12.5% of salary. Varies depending on city's ability to pay into the pension fund from rate of return it earns on investments. Between 7.5% and 15% of salary. Varies depending on city's ability to pay into the pension fund from rate of return it earns on investments.
Employee contribution to retirement health care No contribution for employees hired pre-2009. Post-2008 hires contribute 2% of salary. Pre-2009 employees contribute 0.25% of salary starting in 2016, increasing by 0.25% of salary annually to a maximum 1%. No change to current system
Maximum annual pension No limit on maximum No limit on maximum Maximum of $140,000/year

Polls

Legend

     Position is ahead and at or over 50%     Position is ahead or tied, but under 50%

See also: Polls, 2011 ballot measures

A poll of 551 registered city voters conducted by Bay Citizen/University of San Francisco between October 7-13 showed Proposition C in the lead.[19]

Proposition Pollster Date of poll In favor Opposed Undecided # polled
Proposition C Bay Citizen/University of San Francisco October 7-13 45% 19% 36% 551
Proposition D Bay Citizen/University of San Francisco October 7-13 36% 23% 41% 551

Voter guide

The San Francisco voter guide for the November 8, 2011 election includes paid political advertising.

In that voter guide, Proposition C has:

  • 10 paid ballot arguments in favor.
  • 11 paid arguments against.[5]

Proposition D, in the voter guide, has:

  • 14 paid arguments in favor.
  • 14 paid arguments against.[5]

External links

BP-Initials-UPDATED.png
Suggest a link

References

  1. San Francisco Examiner, "Adachi submits ballot measure to reform San Francisco's pension system," July 11, 2011
  2. 2.0 2.1 Beyond Chron, "Adachi’s Entry, Debate Hecklers Boost Mayor Lee’s Campaign," August 15, 2011
  3. SF Weekly, "Latest Jeff Adachi Pension Measure Won't Be Called 'Pension Measure'," April 12, 2011
  4. 4.0 4.1 4.2 San Francisco Chronicle, "Sean Elsbernd: It’s one or the other on pension reform," July 12, 2011
  5. 5.0 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 5.5 Beyond Chron, "Dueling Pension Reform Measures Dominate Voter Handbook," August 29, 2011
  6. Mercury News, "Calif. cities take pension reform to the ballot," October 29, 2011
  7. San Francisco Chronicle, "S.F. pension reform to be hottest issue on ballot," April 25, 2011
  8. SF Weekly, "The Billion-Dollar Bet," August 31, 2011
  9. San Francisco Chronicle, "Study on pensions 'shocking'," March 16, 2011
  10. SF Weekly, "San Francisco’s Pension Contribution will Be Far More Than Reported"
  11. 11.0 11.1 11.2 11.3 11.4 11.5 11.6 San Francisco Examiner, "San Francisco's public pension system is drowning in red ink," August 14, 2011
  12. 12.0 12.1 12.2 12.3 San Francisco Chronicle, "SF pension reform donors tied to antiunion efforts," October 4, 2011
  13. San Francisco Chronicle, "Pass SF Prop. C for down payment on pension reform," October 2, 2011
  14. San Francisco Examiner, "Yes on Prop. C: Plan will do more than Prop. D to curb runaway benefits," October 20, 2011
  15. Mercury News, "SF supes place pension reform measure on ballot," July 20, 2011
  16. San Francisco Chronicle, "Adachi settles on one and only pension reform ballot measure," April 11, 2011
  17. San Francisco Chronicle, "Jeff Adachi’s smiling face won’t be on pension reform ads," August 25, 2011
  18. San Francisco Chronicle, "Jeff Adachi’s pension measure gets almost 73,000 signatures," July 11, 2011
  19. Bay Citizen, "Bay Citizen/USF Poll: Unions Winning Pension Reform Battle," October 18, 2011