Difference between revisions of "San Jose Pension Reform, Measure B (June 2012)"

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search
(Election results)
(Election results)
Line 9: Line 9:
Results via the [http://www.sanjoseca.gov/clerk/elections/2012Election/20120605.asp San Jose City Clerk]'s website.
Results via the [http://www.sccgov.org/elections/results/jun2012/ Santa Clara County]'s website.

Revision as of 21:56, 5 June 2012

A City of San Jose Pension Reform Ballot Question, Measure B ia on the June 5, 2012 ballot for voters in the City of San Jose in Santa Clara County.[1]

If Measure B is approved, it gives current city workers "the option of switching to a lower pension or staying in the current plan and paying off pension debt with annual contribution increases of 4 percent of pay, capped at 16 percent or half the debt cost."[2]

According to a 2010 audit by the city, the amount that the city pays every year for the retirement plans of its retired workers has risen from $73 million in 2001 to $245 million in 2011. Over the last two decades, the amount paid by the city in total pension benefit payments has grown sevenfold. The amount that is paid out of the account every year has been exceeding the amount paid in for over 10 years. The city's 2010 audit also says that the city is about $2 billion short of the amount that should be in the account to pay for future benefits.[1],[3]

Election results

Unofficial election results will be posted as polls close and numbers are calculated:

Measure B
Approveda Yes 95,716 69.02%

Results via the Santa Clara County's website.


  • Chuck Reed, San Jose's mayor, is a leading supporter of the pension reform measure. He began advocating for pension reform in the city in early 2011. Scott Herhold, a Mercury News columnist, says, "Make no mistake: The proposal that San Jose Mayor Chuck Reed unveiled...to curtail retirement and health benefits for city employees will define his mayoral career."[4]
  • Jeff Cristina, director of Environmental Services at GreenWaste Recovery in San Jose, supports the measure.[1]
  • County Assessor Larry Stone says he supports the measure because "We need significant reform, not just incremental reform. Why? Because the current system is unsustainable."[1]
  • City Councilman Pierluigi Oliverio.[5]
  • Bay Area Council [6]
  • The editorial board of the San Jose Mercury News is in favor of Measure B, saying, "If you believe San Jose has to control the burgeoning public costs of employee pensions that have more than tripled in a decade while the number of police protecting neighborhoods and workers repairing streets has plunged, then there is really no choice on June 5: Vote yes on Measure B."[7]


The measure is opposed by the city's public sector employee unions. In a statement released by five unions after the vote to place the measure on the June ballot, the unions said, "the mayor and his supporters scored some political points today, but only time will tell what the ultimate cost to our city will be."[1]

Yolanda Cruz, president of AFSCME Municipal Employees Federation, and LaVerne Washington, president of AFSCME Confidential Employees Organization, oppose Proposition B. They say, "You've been misled to think pensions are outrageously high. There is definitely room for changes to some elements of the retirement plan, but the majority of city employees are not highly paid police and firefighters; they are clerks, groundskeepers, facility operators, infrastructure maintenance workers, financial staff and program managers -- and their average pension is $37,000. These employees contribute to their pensions every year and do not receive Social Security."[8]

Steven Maviglio predicts that if Measure B is approved, it might unleash similar measures in other cities.[9]

Ballot text

The question on the ballot:

MEASURE B: PENSION MODIFICATION: Shall the Charter be amended to modify retirement benefits of City employees and retirees by: increasing employees’ contributions, establishing a voluntary reduced pension plan for current employees, establish pension cost and benefit limitations for new employees, modify disability retirement procedures, temporarily suspend retiree COLAs during emergencies, require voter approval for increases in future pension benefits?”[10]

Prior to litigation to change the way the ballot question is worded, it said:

To protect essential services, including neighborhood police patrols, fire stations, libraries, community centers, streets and parks, shall the Charter be amended to reform retirement benefits of City employees and retirees by: increasing employees’ contributions, establishing a voluntary reduced pension plan for current employees, establish pension cost and benefit limitations for new employees, reform disability retirements to prevent abuses, temporarily suspend retiree COLAs during emergencies, require voter approval for increases in future pension benefits?

Path to the ballot

The San Jose City Council voted to place the measure on the June 5, 2012 ballot in a meeting on March 6, 2012. The vote was 8-3.

Chuck Reed, Pete Constant, Pierluigi Oliverio, Madison Nguyen, Sam Liccardo, Rose Herrera, Donald Rocha and Nancy Pyle voted in favor of placing the measure on the ballot.

Ash Kalra, Kansen Chu and Xavier Campos voted against placing the measure on the ballot.[1]


See also: 2012 ballot measure litigation

Attempt to remove

On March 16, a lawsuit was filed against the City of San Jose, arguing that the measure should be removed from the June ballot because the ballot question written to describe it isn't neutral.[11]

The plaintiffs in the lawsuit are:

  • Robert Sapien, president of the San Jose Fire Fighters Union
  • Franco Vado, a police officer in the city
  • Karen McDonough, an environmental service specialist
  • Clifford Hubbard, a retired firefighter[11]

Robin Johansen of Remcho, Johansen & Purcell is the attorney working with the plaintiffs. In the complaint, she says, "The code says it has to be fair and impartial, not an argument for the measure. When you look at the kinds of emotionally laden words -- reform and abuse, essential services -- those are very strongly worded phrases intended to get people to vote for the measure."[11]

Chuck Reed said, of the lawsuit, "They're doing everything they can to try to keep the voters from considering the ballot measure. So this is just another step."[11]

The case was heard on April 3.[12]

On Thursday, April 5, a three-judge panel of the Sixth District Court of Appeal issued an order to prevent the printing of any ballots while litigation is pending. Johansen, the lead attorney for the plaintiffs, said, "We are pleased that the 6th District Court of Appeal will consider our emergency writ seeking to ensure that the ballot question for Measure B is impartial and complies with California election law."[13]

Ultimately, the court ordered some changes in the way the measure appears on the ballot, but allowed the election on the measure to go forward.[14]

Voter guide arguments

On March 23, Beth Roth (the campaign treasurer for Measure B) and Pete Constant (a San Jose city council member) filed a lawsuit seeking to have six statements removed from the "arguments against" section of the official voter guide.[15]

Their complaint says that Measure B opponents smuggled "false and misleading" statements into their argument against Measure B.[16]

The six statements/phrases that Measure B supporters sought to have removed on the grounds that these statements are false were:

  • "It could eliminate disability retirements for police and firefighters injured on the job and unable to perform their previous duties, it increases by thousands of dollars the amount widows and seniors pay for promised health care, and the City admitted that Measure B may not be constitutional because it violates employees’ vested rights."
  • "But city officials never even tried to offer taxpayers a way to achieve any savings that would stand up in court."
  • "City workers recently took 10%-18% pay cuts."
  • "Employees proposed dozens of legal pension reforms that would have increased retirement ages, reduced benefit levels and lowered COLA’s. Police and fire even proposed to cut pensions back to 1962 levels."
  • "politicians unsuccessfully tried to declare a fiscal emergency"
  • "This pattern of inaccurate financial projections, meant to scare voters..."

External links

Suggest a link

Additional reading:


Flag of California.png

This article about a local California ballot measure is a stub. You can help people learn about California's local ballot measures by expanding it.