The State Worker

Jon Ortiz chronicles civil-service life for California state workers

Pension proposal fight a war over words

03/10/2014 2:22 PM

03/11/2014 10:49 AM

Mayor Chuck Reed’s public pension-change initiative is all but dead for this election cycle, but the court fight over its wording is alive. At stake: whether Reed can come back with a similar measure in in two years.

The latest combatant, a Washington D.C.-based public pension-fund trade group, entered the fray with a Monday filing in Sacramento Superior Court.

The National Conference on Public Employee Retirement Systems says Attorney Kamala Harris “accurately and fairly” described Reed’s proposal, which under certain circumstances would give state and local officials authority to freeze current employees’ accrued pension benefits and then downgrade them going forward.

Reed sued Harris last month, saying the measure’s summary, which would appear on signature-gathering materials, uses “false, misleading words and phrases” intended to create “prejudice against the measure.” His lawsuit focuses on one summary sentence: “Eliminates constitutional protections for vested pension and retiree healthcare benefits for current public employees, including teachers, nurses, and peace officers, for future work performed.”

Reed objects to “eliminate,” “vested” and Harris’ reference to jobs generally held in high esteem by voters.

The pension-fund association says Reed’s objections are nonsense. The jobs referenced are among the largest groups Reed’s proposal would impact, according to the Monday court filing. “Vested” rights includes future benefits, it says, and Reed used “eliminate” and “vested” in a co-authored opinion piece about the measure on the conservative Fox & Hounds blog.

“Having previously used the word ‘eliminates’ to tout this very aspect of the initiative to their constituency, Petitioners now apparently fear that the voters at large will not embrace such a dramatic elimination of constitutional protections,” the association argues in its court filing. “That fear does not, however, justify this Court’s intervention to replace a perfectly accurate word, here, ‘eliminates.’”

Reed, a Democrat, said in a telephone interview that the last argument takes the words in his blog column out of context: “I don’t deny ‘eliminate’ is a word,” he said, “it just doesn’t apply to what we’re doing.”

A court hearing to debate the issue is set for Friday. Meanwhile, a mid-April deadline is bearing down on the mayor to collect more than 800,000 signatures from registered voters to qualify his proposal for this November’s ballot, and he hasn’t reported any money to launch a campaign. It’s likely that potential donors have concluded that the current ballot language is too toxic to support the initiative. Reed cannot begin collecting signatures until he’s done fighting over the summary language.

Reed stopped short of saying a 2014 effort is dead, but he acknowledged, “Practically, you cannot get 800,000 signatures in a month.”

So the lawsuit means less to this year’s effort but is crucial to reviving it in 2016, which Reed has always held out as a possibility.

“This has to be dealt with,” he said, “before we can move on.”

Reed v. Harris Amicus Brief

About This Blog

Jon Ortiz launched The State Worker blog in 2008 to cover state government from the perspective of California government employees. Every day he filters the news through a single question: "What does this mean for state workers?" Join Ortiz for updates and debate on state pay, benefits, pensions, contracts and jobs. Contact him at or 916-321-1043. Twitter: @TheStateWorker.


Join the Discussion

The Sacramento Bee is pleased to provide this opportunity to share information, experiences and observations about what's in the news. Some of the comments may be reprinted elsewhere on the site or in the newspaper. We encourage lively, open debate on the issues of the day, and ask that you refrain from profanity, hate speech, personal comments and remarks that are off point. Thank you for taking the time to offer your thoughts.

Terms of Service