A former state government union leader who lost an election for a seat on the CalPERS Board of Administration in October has withdrawn a challenge he filed alleging state officials and pension board members helped his opponent win.

J.J. Jelincic, a past board member and investment officer at the $380 billion pension fund, lost to Henry Jones, the incumbent, by a 66 percent to 34 percent margin.

Jelincic filed a formal protest over the result on Nov. 4. He withdrew the challenge Monday, a day before an initial hearing with the Office of Administrative Hearings, according to a letter his attorney filed with the office.

In his protest letter, Jelincic said state Treasurer Fiona Ma, CalPERS board members and the pension fund’s staff sought to influence the election by publicizing a judge’s 2011 finding that Jelincic had sexually harassed three women while he was employed at CalPERS.

The formal protest started a process in which Jelincic would have had to prove the alleged violations were significant enough to overturn the election’s result. He called for a new vote.

Jones’ attorneys called for the challenge to be rejected, saying Jelincic provided no evidence of the wrongdoing alleged and failed to specify violations of CalPERS board election procedures.

Among Jelincic’s allegations was a claim that Ma violated a state election law when she used the Treasurer’s Office letterhead on a letter encouraging him to drop out of the race over the harassment finding. The letter was co-signed by Democratic state Sen. Connie Leyva and by Theresa Taylor, a CalPERS board member and former vice president of SEIU Local 1000.

Meanwhile, unions through a pair of political action committees spent more than $442,000 to help Jones.

Jones’ attorneys, with the firm Kaufman Legal Group, said the law Jelincic cited doesn’t apply to CalPERS elections. Since CalPERS elections are not public elections, they’re governed by the pension fund’s election procedures, not the state’s elections code, according to the attorneys’ filing with the hearings office.

The 2011 sexual harassment complaint came from three lower-level CalPERS employees who worked with Jelincic at the pension fund. They said he looked them up and down, made inappropriate noises when they walked by and commented inappropriately on their attire and appearance.

On Aug. 21, two other women spoke at a CalPERS board meeting about the harassment.

Several board members responded with supportive comments to the women. Jelincic said in his letter that the discussion, held in a public building, violated state law. He said Jones, who is the board’s president, shouldn’t have let the conversation go on.

Jones’ attorneys said the regulation Jelincic cited applies only to candidates, and Jones didn’t comment on his opponent at the meeting. Moreover, Jelincic didn’t complain to CalPERS about the meeting, as the regulation requires.

Jelincic, in a written statement on his decision to withdraw, disputed Jones’ attorneys’ position that the state’s elections law doesn’t apply.

Regarding several of his allegations, he said, “surely these actions completely contradict the spirit of the regulations.”

Jelincic didn’t provide any evidence for his claim that CalPERS staff members tried to get news outlets to publicize the harassment findings, Jones’ attorneys said.

Even if Jones did violate election procedures, his alleged violations were not significant enough to account for the margin of votes by which he won, his attorneys said.

“Jones received nearly double the number of votes as Jelincic,” Jones’ attorneys said. “This was not a close election by any measure.”

Jelincic said in his statement on the withdrawal that he didn’t protest the election to overturn the result, despite the language in his protest letter saying that was the objective. He said he wanted to spotlight what he views as problems with the election process, including the use of phone and internet voting, to improve it in the future.

Jones, reached by phone Tuesday, said he was frustrated that the election had been drawn out — and by the legal expenses of fighting the challenge — but that he is glad he can now turn his full attention to the board.

“Now that this is behind us, I’ll continue to work for the members to make sure their retirement is there and allow them to be fully engaged with the governance of the board,” he said.

This story was originally published December 4, 2019 at 5:30 AM.