Press Releases

Dave Low Statement on AG's Title & Summary of "The Pension Reform Act of 2014"

Contact: Steven Maviglio, 916-607-8340


Statement of Dave Low, Chairman, Californians for Retirement Security on AG's Title & Summary of "The Pension Reform Act of 2014"


"We are disappointed that the Attorney General's title and summary of the Reed measure doesn't speak to the main motivation of its proponents: to slash the retirement benefits and retiree health care of current and future employees. The title should have prominently noted the elimination or cuts to pensions and retiree health care that this measure authorizes.  It should also have noted the proposal's provisions to invalidate negotiated contracts.  While the title and summary describes the repeal of Constitutionally vested rights to pensions and retiree health care, Teachers, nurses, and firefighters -- by far the largest groups of municipal public employees -- deserve to have voters know exactly how their retirement security will be put at risk with this measure."


Statement on San Jose Pension Decision by Dave Low, Chairman, Californians for Retirement Security

Contact: Steven Maviglio, 916-607-8340

Statement on San Jose Pension Decision by Dave Low, Chairman, Californians for Retirement Security

"Breaking the promise by eliminating the vested benefit rights of police officers and other public employees is a non-starter in the courts and with the public. Chuck Reed spent more than $3 million in taxpayer dollars in a quixotic legal battle, which will be the tip of the iceberg of the legal costs that will result if his proposed statewide measure moves forward. Nearly 400 other leaders across the state have negotiated nearly 600 new agreements with unions to face solve their fiscal challenges. It's time for Chuck Reed to stop declaring legal and political war on police, firefighters, teachers, and other political employees and do the same."

# # #


LAO: Reed's Pension Measure May Cost "Billions"

Contact: Steven Maviglio

Californians for Retirement Security



SACRAMENTO -- San Jose Mayor Chuck Reed's proposed ballot measure to slash pension benefits for public employees could potentially cost state and local governments "billions of dollars," according to an analysis issued today by the nonpartisan Legislative Analysts Office (LAO)

The measure has "increased annual costs—potentially in the hundreds of millions to billions of dollars—over the next two decades for those state and local governments choosing to increase contributions for unfunded liabilities," concluded the LAO. 

The LAO also noted "costs could exceed tens of millions of dollars initially" for state and local governments to develop retirement system funding reports and to modify procedures and information technology. 

Lastly, the LAO concluded "there is significant uncertainty as to the measure’s fiscal effects on state and local governments" and that "Many of these provisions could be subject to a variety of legal challenges, including suits alleging that the measure impairs contract obligations under the U.S. and/or California Constitutions."

Dave Low, Chairman of Californians for Retirement Security, a 1.6 million member coalition of public employees and retirees, said the LAO's assessment raises significant questions about the financial impact of this measure.

"It's clear from this assessment that this poorly-crafted measure will not only add to the retirement crisis in our state by eliminating vested retirement benefits for teachers, nurses, firefighters, school bus drivers and other public employees, but also cost our communities and state billions of dollars," said Low. "This measure would be a financial disaster for taxpayers and retirees alike."

Low noted that two measures that local communities have passed to slash the retirement benefits of public employees already have cost taxpayers millions of dollars in legal costs. In Reed's own city of San Jose, $5 million has been budgeted to pay for lawyers to defend Measure B. San Diego, which passed a similar pension measure, has spent millions on legal fees defending its initiative and short-term implementation costs have been pegged at $27 million.

When evaluating a similar pension measure In 2012, the LAO also noted slashing pension benefits would have significant short-term costs to state and local governments for "two or three decades." It also said long-term savings would be offset "by increases in other employee compensation costs."




Contact: Steven Maviglio, 916-607-8340

Only 36 Percent Support in New Statewide Poll

Sacramento – According to a new statewide poll released today conducted by the Washington, D.C.-based GarinHartYoung Research Group, San Jose Mayor Chuck Reed’s proposed ballot measure to give cities the ability to slash the retirement benefits of existing public employees has the support of only 36 percent of California voters. 

“Survey results show that California voters have little appetite for a ballot proposal that would reduce retirement benefits for current public employees,” notes pollster Fred Yang in a memo about the poll. “The fact that this initiative calls for the modification of retirement benefits only for years of services not yet performed makes little difference to voters. Moreover, even with a neutral reading of the ballot, this measure fails to garner over 36% of the vote in the initial trial heat.

“In fact, additional factual information about the ballot proposal, as well as messages for and against the initiative, does little to move California voters. Fact-based statements about the tenets of the proposal fail to sway undecided voters, and at no point does the proposal garner more than 36% of voter support.

Ballot messaging fails to sway key voters, including those who would be most critical for the ballot's success. After hearing more details about the initiative, as well as messages in support and opposition, the ballot succeeds in convincing the majority of only one segment of the California electorate. Republican men support the initiative with 51% of their vote but only 39% of Republican women are supportive as well. No other segment breaks this majority mark in support: 

Only 37% of whites, 32% of Hispanics, and 25% of African Americans support the proposal, as do only 43% of men and 30% of women, 34% of voters under age 50, and 38% of voters age 50 and over.

“California voters see the negative consequences of reducing retirement benefits for public employees, and the negative consequences of this ballot proposal specifically. Three in four (75%) voters believe that, should this initiative pass, public employees “could lose the benefits that there were depending on,” and 65% believe that “workers could end up with insufficient retirement benefits.” The vast majority of the electorate also believes that the state of California could become entangled in expensive, taxpayer funded lawsuits should this ballot proposal become law.”

These poll results are consistent with previous polling on the issue. A poll by Oakland, Calif.-based FM3 pollsters in February (, noted “California voters overwhelmingly oppose the idea of cutting retirement benefits for current public employees,” rejecting the basic premise of the Reed measure by a 63-33 percent margin.

A Field Poll in July 2012 ( found “California voters have mixed feelings about the pension benefits received by most state and local government workers.  They are about evenly split as to whether these pension benefits are too generous (37%) or about right (36%). Another sizable segment (17%) thinks they are not generous enough.”

The poll was commissioned by Californians for Retirement Security, a statewide coalition representing 1.6 million teachers, firefighters, police officers, school employees and other active and retired public employees.

# # #


Mayors to Chuck Reed: Drop Pension Measure

Contact: Steven Maviglio, 916-607-8340 


Dozens of Local Elected Officials From Throughout State Announce Opposition 

SACRAMENTO – More than two dozen mayors, county supervisors, city council members and other elected officials from throughout California today urged San Jose Mayor Chuck Reed to end his effort to put a measure on the November 2014 ballot that would slash retirement security for millions of California’s teachers, firefighters, police officers, school employees and other public workers.

Nearly 20 mayors and vice-mayors signed the letter, including: Pete Aguilar (D-Redlands); Rusty Bailey (No Preference-Riverside); Scott Bartley (D-Santa Rosa); Connie Boardman (R-Huntington Beach); Aja Brown (D-Compton); Gary Davis (D-Elk Grove); Marie Gilmore (D-Alameda); Steve Hardy (D-Vacaville); Joe Krovoza (D-Davis); David Lim (D-San Mateo); Evan Low (D-Campbell); Gayle McLaughlin (D-Richmond); Andre Quintero (D-El Monte); Gina Papan (D-Millbrae); Jean Quan (D-Oakland); Jason Scott (R-Corona); Tony Spitaleri (D-Sunnyvale); Jim Wood (R-Oceanside); Vice Mayor Jim Wood (D-Healdsburg); and Vice Mayor Gilbert Wong (D-Cupertino). Collectively, the bipartisan list represents nearly three million Californians.

“Like most Californians, we believe pension matters are best decided locally at the bargaining table rather than the ballot box,” wrote the mayors. “Our cities have been successful in doing just that – as have the overwhelming majority of those in California.”

According to the CalPERS, more than 386 jurisdictions have negotiated more than 538 changes to pension benefits, producing hundreds of millions in savings through higher employee contribution levels, reduced employer costs and reduced benefits. “We believe that engaging our public servants in constructive dialogue rather than political battles is a more effective way of achieving balancing budgets,” wrote the elected leaders.

“We also are extremely concerned about several specific provisions of your measure that will likely increase costs to California’s cities by hundreds of millions of dollars. We believe those dollars are better spent on local services and attracting and retaining quality public employees, providing services to our city than in reducing their retirement security.

“Last year, Governor Brown and the Legislative enacted sweeping pension measures that will save our communities and the state nearly $100 billion. Combined with the actions we are taking in our communities, we believe this will address the concerns about retirement benefits that your measure proposes to address. As a result, we urge you to withdraw your measure and engage with us in constructive dialogue with public employees to address the pension challenges facing our communities.”

Other officials signing include: San Francisco County Board of Supervisors President David Chiu and Sonoma County Supervisor Mike McGuire; City Council members Erin Carlstrom (D-Santa Rosa), Victor Gordo (D-Pasadena), Mark Johannasen (D-West Sacramento), Kevin McCarty (D-Sacramento), and Dan Wolk (D-Davis).

Mayor Miguel Pulido (D-Santa Ana), one of the five mayors listed of a proponent of Mayor Reed’s measure when it was submitted, also has withdrawn his support.

# # #



WHEELS COMING OFF THE WAGON OF REED'S PENSION SCHEME: Democratic Mayor Drops Off Ballot Measure, PR Firm Ends Contract, Measure Rewritten

Sacramento -- San Jose Mayor Chuck Reed's measure to slash the retirement benefits of current teachers, firefighters, police officers, school employees has lost the support of a key Democratic mayor and is experiencing other major setbacks even before it has received its title and summary from the California Attorney General's Office.

Late yesterday, Reed pulled his original version of the ballot measure, submitting a new version of the initiative with what he calls "substantive" changes in the filing. Santa Ana Mayor Miguel Pulido no longer is listed as a proponent, replaced by a city council member from Vallejo on the filing. Pulido was one of the four Democratic mayors that Reed announced when he introduced the measure. No other mayors -- Democratic or Republican -- have since endorsed Reed's effort. The Mayors of California's largest cities also are conspicuously absent from the measure.

Meanwhile, in a related development, Mercury Public Affairs, which had been handling the rollout of the ballot measure, is no longer working on it.

"It is clear that the wheels are coming off the wagon of Mayor Reed's pension scheme," says Dave Low, chairman of Californians for Retirement Security, a 1.6 million member group representing public employees and retirees. "Even though Reed made cosmetic changes to it, the measure's weaknesses -- breaking the promise of retirement security to current public employees, increased short-term costs to state and local governments, and legal issues-- remain the same. These are flaws that even the millions of dollars of dark money from out-of-state Chuck Reed is counting on can't fix."

Low noted that Mayor Reed is relying on "dark money" from right-wing funders to promote this effort. Reed recently told a San Jose news outlet that "I'm not going to tell you" who is contributing to his effort. However, local news have reported that a $200,000 contribution has been received to promote Reed's efforts from a foundation run by Texas-based Enron billionaire John Arnold.

Low said that public employees already are mobilizing against the measure.

"Less than a year ago, we overwhelmingly defeated Prop 32 with strategic organizing of our supporters," he said. "With the introduction of his measure, Mayor Reed has given our effort to galvanize these voters a kick start. We will muster all the resources we have to defeat this measure if the Mayor continues to move forward with it instead of engaging in constructive dialogue and settling these issues at the bargaining table instead of the ballot box.

# # # 


Union Letter to San Jose Mayor Chuck Reed

Dear Mayor Reed: 

This is in response to your letter inviting dialogue on the ballot measure you have introduced.

As you are aware, there is a retirement crisis in California.  A study released just this week noted that 42 percent of Americans say that saving money for retirement and paying their bills is not possible; 37 percent say they will never be able to afford to retire, continuing to work until they are sick or die. 

Your measure would further undermine the retirement security and health benefits of millions of Californians, and accelerate the race to the bottom for California's middle class. At a time when six million Californians have no retirement plan at all, and million more face the threat of retiring into poverty, your measure would pull the rug out from under hundreds of thousands of middle class Californians with no recourse. 

We represent nearly two million Californians who keep our streets safe, fight our fires, teach our children, keep our water clean, and serve our most vulnerable communities. Your proposed measure would allow employers to unilaterally cut, or even completely eliminate the retirement benefits and retiree health care of those public servants in the middle of their careers.

You assert that your measure requires employers to comply with applicable collective bargaining law. You assert that you do not seek to blame public employees. You assert that you seek dialogue.

We question whether your communication is sincere or simply politically expedient.

First, you misrepresent your measure, which allows employers to unilaterally abrogate collective bargaining after 180 days and publishes the middle class workers who teach our children, build our roads, and keep our communities safe and prepared.

Second, you have participated in numerous forums where unions were denied the opportunity to participate, including the recent "dialogue" on pensions at the ultra-conservative Hoover Institutional at Stanford University where you made your announcement. You have traveled across the nation shopping your measure to out of state extremist organizations and you have attended conferences conducted by the right-wing interests supporting your effort.

The 2013 Public Employees Pensions Reform Act (PEPRA) signed by Governor Brown has already reduced the pensions of many workers, saving the state more than $100 billion. Yet you insist on further abrogating the rights of public employees.

Sadly, your "Ready-Fire-Aim" approach to dealing with our state's pension challenges flies in the face of actions by more than 500 other elected leaders in the state who have settled their differences through mutual agreement. Recent polling indicates that 63 percent of Californians oppose unilateral cuts in the benefits of teachers, nurses and firefighters for example -- the heart of your proposal. That poll also shows only 30 percent of the state's voters support pension issues being dealt with at the ballot box.

The retirement security of Californians is a California issue and the "dark money" behind your efforts leads us to question your motives. According to news reports, you have accepted more than $200,000 from an out-of-state foundation funded by a Texas billionaire, who made his fortune at Enron ripping off Californians through the energy crisis and walked away from bankruptcy with a golden parachute, while other Enron workers lost their life savings. Now, after introducing this draconian measure you decide to invite dialogue.

Your efforts, and the support of your funders would be better spent working to extend retirement options to our friends and neighbors who need it, not hastening the race to the bottom through attacks on what little retirement security remains in this economy.

Meaningful dialogue can only occur in an environment of trust and sincerity. Your choice, to first introduce this draconian and flawed measure and then invite dialogue, shows a lack of both.

Should you drop your measure we would be willing to meet with you and discuss how we can insure that our public retirement systems are sustainably funded, and all Californians can retire with dignity and security.



Alan Wayne Barcelona, President

California Statewide Law Enforcement Association, Special Agent -- DOJ


Cathrina Barros, President

Professional Engineers in California Government


Stuart A. Bussey, M.D., J.D.

President, Union of American Physicians and Dentists


Ron Cottingham, President

Peace Officers Research Association of California


Kimberly Daniels, General Manager

San Luis Obispo County Employees Association


Jon H. Hamm, CEO

California Association of Highway Patrolman


Craig Hinckley, President

Glendale City Employees Association


Mike Jimenez, President

California Correctional Peace Officers Association


Dave Low, Executive Director

California School Employees Association


David Miller, President

California Association of Professional Scientists


Tony Myers, President

California Association of Psychiatric Technicians


Willie L. Pelote, Sr., Political and Legislative Director

AFSCME, California


Deirdre Rodriguez, General Manager

San Bernardino Public Employees Association


Danette Shipley, President

Organization of SMUD Employees


Dr. Lillian Taiz, President

California Faculty Association


Dean E. Vogel, President

California Teachers Association


Yvonne R. Walker, President

SEIU Local 1000


John Youngdahl, Executive Director

SEIU, California


CalPERS Issues Statement on Public Pension Ballot Initiative

Sacramento, CA – The California Public Employees’ Retirement System (CalPERS) issued the following statement in response to a statewide ballot initiative proposal filed today:

“Public employee pensions are deferred compensation, a key part of the compensation of public employees, and a valuable tool for those employers who choose to use them. Public employees work hard during their careers to serve their fellow Californians and virtually all contribute toward their retirement each month. Secure and reliable pensions benefit the California and local economies, aid in recruiting and retaining employees, improve workforce stability and ensure the quality of life for retirees in our communities.

The retirement benefits promised to employees, and guaranteed by the federal and State constitutions, are determined by the employers and the employees, not by CalPERS. The courts have clearly established that California public employees have a vested right to the level of benefits promised to them when they are first employed. This prevents not only a reduction in the benefits that have already been earned, but it also prevents a reduction in the benefits that an employee has been promised for their future service. CalPERS is bound by fiduciary duty to deliver the promised pension benefits according to the U.S. and California Constitutions, statutory law and case law. The California voters placed these protections and duties in our Constitution to ensure that employees’ pensions would be protected by CalPERS as their fiduciary and trustee. CalPERS will continue to support and defend our members’ vested rights, in accordance with the laws of the land and our obligations under the federal and State constitutions.

All Californians deserve a secure retirement. A better solution would be to help those without pensions find ways to save for retirement, not to reduce the pensions of those who already have them. Changes to pension benefit levels should be determined by the employer and the employees, and not at the ballot box. If this initiative were to pass, then all contractual rights in California could be in jeopardy. Fairness and the rule of law are the foundations of a society that honors and respects the promises made by that society to its public servants.”

CalPERS is the largest public pension fund in the U.S., with more than $265 billion in assets. We administer health and retirement benefits on behalf of 3,064 public school, local agency and State employers. Our members number more than 1.6 million in our retirement system and more than 1.3 million in our health plans.


CalSTRS Statement on Proposed Pension Reform Act of 2014 Ballot Measure

WEST SACRAMENTO, CA – In response to the proposed Pension Reform Act of 2014 ballot initiative allowing employers to alter the future retirement benefits of current public employees, the California State Teachers’ Retirement System’s Chief Executive Officer Jack Ehnes, issued the following statement:

“This initiative, which raises legal concerns that CalSTRS currently is exploring, threatens the retirement security of existing and future educators, who have provided many years of service to California’s students. 

“California’s educators are overwhelmingly women, do not participate in Social Security, retire on average around age 62, generally do not receive employer-funded health care benefits after age 65, and earn a retirement income that replaces only about 56 percent of their salary. Any further reduction in the already modest benefits of educators significantly jeopardizes decades of hard-earned retirement income California’s teachers have come to depend upon.

“The contributions paid by CalSTRS members, employers and the State are sufficient to cover the ongoing costs of the benefit program. Instead, CalSTRS most pressing issue stems largely from the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression and remains unresolved. Legislative action to address the CalSTRS $70 billion unfunded liability is still the most fiscally responsible approach needed to uphold the state’s promise to California’s educators. On behalf of CalSTRS, I would like to express profound disappointment that the proponents of the initiative distort this issue to increase uncertainty for public servants about their retirement future.”

The California State Teachers’ Retirement System, with a portfolio valued at $165.9 billion as of August 31, 2013, is the largest educator-only pension fund in the world. CalSTRS administers a hybrid retirement system, consisting of traditional defined benefit, cash balance and voluntary defined contribution plans. CalSTRS also provides disability and survivor benefits. For 100 years, CalSTRS has served California’s public school educators and their families, who today number 862,000 from the state’s 1,600 school districts, county offices of education and community college districts.


Is a Texas Enron Billionaire Funding Chuck Reed's Pension Ballot Measure?

To:        Interested Parties
From:    Steven Maviglio, Californians for Retirement Security
Re:        Is a Texas Enron Billionaire Funding Chuck Reed's Pension Ballot Measure?

On KPCC's "Airtalk" radio show this morning (, San Jose Mayor Chuck Reed was asked by show host Larry Mantle who is funding his ballot measure to slash retirement benefits for millions of California firefighters, police officers, teachers, and other public employees. Specifically, he was asked if Texas Enron billionaire John Arnold, who, according to the Sacramento Bee, already has provided money to Reed for this effort, was going to write checks.

His answer?

"I've never met John Arnold."

Sorry, Mayor Reed. That wasn't the question. But nice dodge.

He also was asked about GOP operative Charles Munger, Jr.'s role in his campaign. He couldn't say the same of him, because he was caught chatting up a storm with him at the conservative Hoover Institution at Stanford last week. So his answer?

"He's never written a check."

And what about former GOP Chairman Duff Sundheim, who has been active for many years trying to raise money for an anti-pension initiative.

"He's never written a check."

So who's funding Chuck Reed's ballot measure? He won't tell us. 

And the dark money fueling his effort continues to avoid the light of day.


Los Angeles County Democratic Party Statement Regarding the Proposed Initiative Attack on Public Employees

OCTOBER 17, 2013

This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it

Los Angeles County Democratic Party Statement Regarding the Proposed Initiative Attack on Public Employees

LOS ANGELES - Los Angeles County Democratic Party Chair and California Democratic Party Vice Chair Eric C. Bauman released the following statement regarding San Jose Mayor Chuck Reed's statewide initiative proposal attacking public employees:

"Here we go again: another out-of-state right-wing bankrolled full-frontal attack on our public school teachers, nurses, firefighters, and police officers.  This time, San Jose Mayor Chuck Reed and his extremist friends, like former Enron executive John Arnold of Texas, have gone too far with their proposed initiative that slaps the faces of the hardworking people who have dedicated themselves and, in many cases, risked their lives in serving our communities.  Moreover, Arnold alone has already spent hundreds of thousands of out-of-state dollars on this proposal in our state.

"We can't break our promises to these public servants midway through their careers by changing the rules of the game on their security.  We can't allow another out-of-state extremist scheme assault California's best.  This initiative proposal is inherently unfair, unreasonable, and unwise.  On behalf of the Los Angeles County Democratic Party, I urge California voters to reject this initiative proposal." 


Chuck Reed's Pension Scheme: The Reaction

October 16, 2013
To: Interested Parties
From: Steven Maviglio, Californians for Retirement Security
Re: Chuck Reed's Pension Scheme: The Reaction

Pundits, state officials, academics, and other community leaders had strong reactions yesterday to a proposal by San Jose Mayor Chuck Reed and a handful of small city mayors to break the promise made to teachers, firefighters, police officers, school employees, and other public employees about their retirement. Here's a sampling:

Jack Pitney, Clarement McKenna government professor, in the Sacramento Bee:

“It’s an election that Brown is going win by a substantial margin. It’s hard to see an election where the governor wins and voters pass something like this...For the unions it’s Armageddon. For the other side it’s just a video game.”

Bruce Cain, Stanford University, Political Science professor, in the San Jose Mercury News

"You start picking on police and fire, they can sway public opinion, People are grateful to have others willing to put their lives on the line to protect them."

"Poll is Bad News for Reed's Ballot Measure," San Jose Mercury News Political Column, "Internal Affairs" on FM3 (Dave Metz) pension poll:

"The Oct. 7 polling memo showed 63 percent of those surveyed oppose "allowing public employers to unilaterally cut retirement benefits for current employees." Just 33 percent were in support, and only 13 percent "strongly," compared with 43 percent "strongly" opposed. Opposition appeared broad across party, age, gender, racial and geographic lines. What's more, the polling suggested a 44-percent plurality favored maintaining current government worker pensions. A majority favored solving pension matters at the local rather than state level, and through bargaining rather than ballot measures. Whose polling is on the money? ... We have no reason to doubt Metz. Ironically, he's also the fellow who does polling for San Jose on potential tax measures and budget-balancing trade-offs."

CalPERS in Reuters News Service:

"The courts have clearly established that California public employees have a vested right to the level of benefits promised to them when they are first employed. This prevents not only a reduction in the benefits that have already been earned, but it also prevents a reduction in the benefits that an employee has been promised for their future service."

Robert Sapien, San Jose Firefighters Union President, in the San Jose Mercury News:

"After wasting millions on legal fees, all the while knowing that his Measure B was unlawful, Reed now wants to change the Constitution so that he can break promises made to city workers." 

Steve Smith, California Labor Federation, on Capital Public Radio:

“They could undo those promises with a single stroke of the pen unilaterally. They can do it based on a politician’s whims or political agenda.”

# # #


Statement on Filing of Pension Measure by San Jose Mayor Chuck Reed

Statement of Dave Low, Chairman of Californians for Retirement Security (CRS) on the filing of a ballot measure to slash retirement to California's public employees. CRS is a coalition representing more than 1.6 million teachers, firefighters, police officers, school employees, and other active and retired public employees.

"This extreme proposal, advanced by a career politician and funded by a former Texas-based Enron trader, breaks the promise of a secure retirement made to millions of Californians, many of whom are ineligible for Social Security and have an average pension of $26,000 per year. It will allow public employers to unilaterally cut the retirement benefits promised to current teachers, firefighters, police officers and school bus drivers -- a promise upheld by the Supreme Court that politicians and hedge fund managers want to change to allow employers to reneg on it. 

"If it is put on the ballot, it will energize the same coalition that defeated Proposition 32 by a record margin in 2014. Californians have constantly shown their distaste for measures put on the ballot by Texas interests and secret out-of-state contributors, and we expect this flawed proposal to be no different."


Pension Poll Shows Voters Oppose Cutting Existing Pension Benefits, Statewide Ballot Measure

TO: Interested Parties

FROM: David Metz, Fairbank, Maslin, Maullin, Metz & Associates

RE: California Voter Opposition to Cutting Retirement Benefits for Current Employees

DATE: October 14, 2013


Fairbank, Maslin, Maullin, Metz & Associates recently conducted a survey of California voters to assess their support for proposed changes to public employee pensions in California.  The survey results show that California voters overwhelmingly oppose the idea of cutting retirement benefits for current public employees, as shown below in Figure 1.

Figure 1: Support for Allowing Public Employers to Unilaterally Cut Retirement Benefits for Current Employees

Inline image 1

Opposition to unilateral cuts in public employee retirement benefits cuts across all segments of the California electorate.  Opponents include:


Texas Billionaire John Arnold and San Jose Mayor Chuck Reed Named "Demon Goats" on Pension Website

Texas Billionaire John Arnold and San Jose Mayor Chuck Reed Named "Demon Goats" on Pension Website
SACRAMENTO ­­_ San Jose Mayor Chuck Reed and Texas billionaire John Arnold, who are backing statewide efforts to slash retirement benefits for millions of Californians, have been named "Demon Goats" on the website published by Californians for Retirement Security. The coalition represents more than 1.5 million teachers, firefighters, school employees, police officers and other current and retired public employees.
Dave Low, chairman of the group, says Reed and Arnold were named because they have stepped up their attacks on the pensions and are targeting current public employees.

Read more: Texas Billionaire John Arnold and San Jose Mayor Chuck Reed Named "Demon Goats" on Pension Website


Page 2 of 7