No On Prop C and D Picket

I was at the Yes on C and No on D event. It is sad that these picketers have been misled by a faction within SEIU that is using this issue to divide there own union. If you read what they hand out and listen to their complaints they obviously have no idea about what the facts are surrounding these issues.

The really sad part is they spend there time trying to divide the labor movement instead of picketing Jeff Adachi and his campaign. It just shows that this picket is not about Prop C or D(because we all know Prop D would be so much worse for all public workers).

This is in response to a prior comment from "I was there." What that writer doesn't seem to know is that the protest is from much more than a faction in SEIU - a whole community of retirees, disaffected rank and file workers left out of the process and other community groups were there to protest this anti-labor, anti-retiree measure, which we understand very well. In fact the leaflets being handed out in front of the kick-off were much more informative than anything we have seen thus far. People who accuse others of being divisive because they defend themselves come from a mind set that continues to attempt to manipulate language to mis-lead the public and to suppress all opposiiton to their own goals. In this case, not allowing City retirees into meet and confer union meetings so that we could defend our interests was a huge step backward for labor. Changing the supplemental Cost of Living payout system so that this COLA is given very seldom to current retirees is a blatant attack on the most vulnerable. There is so much more to be said because WE DO understand this measure in depth. However: some groups endorsing No On C are: RECCSF (city retirees) Protect Our Benefits (city retirees) Peace and Freedom Party; the Green Party; the SF Tenants Union; Richmond Democratic Club; Claire Zvanski and Karen Breslin who are Commissioners of the Health Service System Board; Sharon Johnson, former Commissioner of the HSS Board and many others. SEIU 1021 West Bay Retiree's Chapter voted to opposed Prop C and D and we too were there!

If you understand the information why were you lying on Saturday? The information that was handed out was full of errors and the information being spouted by the megaphone was also not true. Prop D is always worse than Prop C for all city workers not matter what their salary level. Yet, your group continues to state that Prop C is less progressive.

Finally, you and your group do not protest at Adachi' events. Why not?

Ms. Walker the supplemental COLA that you talk about is not being eliminated. It was voted on in Prop B in 2008 and has only been in effect for a few years. It is being changed to only allow these extra pension bonuses for retirees when the pension fund is fully funded. That was the intent of the law when it was originally passed in 2008 and no one predicted a situation like last year where the pensions fund were under funded yet the stick market returns were so high that you received a bonus COLA on top of your normal COLA(which is not being changed in any way). That extra COLA you got was an extra $170 million payment the city had to make.

Again, you are using misleading facts and statements. I understand that you want your regular COLA and a bonus COLA every yer no matter what but the fact is that this was not the intent of the law passed by voters in 2008 and you are not losing you supplemental COLA. You will get it when the pension fund is fully funded. It makes perfect sense.

I think you had better learn to listen or at least not attribute statements to me that someone else may have said. In addition it is you who needs to get your facts straight so I would appreciate it if you stopped projecting your ignorance and motives on me. I never said or wrote that the supplemental COLA was being eliminated! Prop B did not introduce the supplemental COLA by the way. It was approved by the voters many years ago and modified by the voters in 2002. In 2002 it was made permanent. This COLA has always been based on excess investment earnings of the SF Retirement System. Prop B of 2008 changed the supplemental COLA from 1 percent to 1.5 percent and compounded the flat COLA. Currently our prop B COLA supplemental cannot be given unless the SF Retirement System is fully funded. The Retirement System uses a system now that calculates the supplemental COLA based on the money market value and actuarial value and both have to be at a certain level. The SF Retirement System is very careful about when they give this COLA out as it stands. What Prop C does is base the COLA payout system on the money market value which has a different meaning than "fully funded". Referring to the charts prepared by the SF Retirement System actuary - and all of these charts are estimates, retirees would not receive the supplemental COLA for 5 years after this next payout if Prop C passes.This particular estimate is based on the kind of earnings we have currently which is a recovery from 2008 and in reality retirees could receive it even less often. The system is working fine as it is using the current payout method which gives the supplemental COLA out more often than using the money market value proposed by Prop C. The current payout system is not harming the system. The SF Retirement System is a model system and is the second best funded in the USA. The bottom line is that retirees and workers are being used a scapegoats for the downturn in the economy from which the SF Retirement System has recovered. What preceded this downturn is that the Retirement System had enough excess earnings to allow the City and County not to pay into it - this went on for 6 to 7 years. Before you accuse me or anyone of giving out mis-information, I suggest you check with Gary Amellio the Director of the R. System or Claire Murphy the former Director. In addition, you have no way of knowing what the voters intended - very poor boundaries who ever you are. Also, that you do not identify yourself kind on lines up with the rest of your statement - bogus! We are against Prop D but since all of the Prop C proponents will be out there fighting Prop D we are concentrating on its' twin evil Prop C. Surely you know by now that this entire deal was negotiated without the consent and presence of any retiree group, which was a particularly disgusting thing to do to the seniors of this community! Please do not respond unless you have the maturity to indentify youself.

I received a phone call from a retiree ally who said that since I was discribing the negative effects of C on seniors I should also add that for retirees living on very limited incomes, the supplemental COLA is not something "we want, no matter what". 4,500 City Retirees receive $20,000 per year or less. There are thousands who receive $25,000 or less and these folks need the COLA to keep up with rising costs ie to even survive. Even with Social Security folks in this catagory are labeled as poor or very poor by HUD standards for example. C also includes the changes in the Health Service System Governance which would take the decision making power out of the hands of the members' representatives and hand it over to the City. Right now the board is 4 member reps. and 3 City management reps. Prop C would reverse this and also change the voting from a 2/3 ratio to a simple majority. Retirees have been attending the HSS meetings for years and it is very safe to say that if the governance of the Health Service Board was changed, rates would go up, cheaper and less comprehensive healthplans would be chosen and the City could then select a director to do its' bidding. One of the members' fears is that City Plan I could then be eliminated, something the City has wanted to do for a long time. City Plan I is especially necessary to folks living out of the State and those with serious medical conditions requiring certain specialists who are limited in number. This is the poison pill in C that seniors fear, not just the changes to the COLA payout system. When you add in the fact that Social Security COLAs have not been given for several years, to the changes Prop C would make (and we are sure that increased health care costs would be a part of this) City retirees would be hard hit by this combination of factors. Again, I heard no one at that rally mis-representing the facts by the way and I have not seen here in any of the responses, proof that this was taking place. In addition, the retiree leaflet was not handed out - just the more general leaflets and I had not written any of those. Who ever has been accusing me of various negative behavior is lying. FYI: The COLA payout system in C would be based on the system being fully funded at market value, not money market value as I wrote. Adachi's D requires that the Retirement system be fully funded on an actuarial basis. Both cause the COLA to be given less often ie as I wrote earlier the SF Retirement's charts state using the market value the COLA would not be given for 5 years (this year excepted) and using Adachi's method in Prop D, the delay might be longer. There is more to be said about how negative C is and C does favor the higher paid workers compared to D but retirees are advocating for NO on both C and D!

Please tell us when and where we can picket/protest against Adachi's Prop D. We'll be there. Every retiree group is opposed to both Prop C and D. What specifically did we say or do that you call a "lie"????? Prove it or keep quiet! Neither at the "Labor" rally together with the pro-labor ? Chamber of Commerce no one seems to have bothered to tell the people there what Prop C is. You have an obligation to at least explain to your volunteers what they are campaigning for. Of course, they should ask. Saying "pension reform" says nothing. It's like saying bombing Iraq was "Iraq Reform." Why is there $1.6 billion for a tunnel but no money to sustain the pension fund? Of course, half of the $1.6 billion comes from the feds. So may'be you don't care... But the city has to pay the other half. Why is there money for the America' Cup yacht race with a city giveaway of two piers and land for a condo to help our poor billionaires? billionaires in the race?

Jeff Adachi
Campaign Headquarters Open House Party
Sep 29 2011 - 5:30 PM to 9:30 PM
851 Van Ness

Here aremMore Adachi events you can protest. Why aren't you there?

Noe Valley Farmers' Market (Noe Valley)
Oct 1 2011 - 08:00 AM to 1:00 PM

Marina Voter Outreach and Lit Distribution
Oct 1 2011 - 10:00 AM to 2:00 PM
3735 Buchanan

DogPAC of SF Public Forum
Oct 1 2011 - 2:00 PM to 4:00 PM
290 Dolores

Inner Sunset Farmers' Market (Inner Sunset)
Oct 2 2011 - 09:00 AM to 1:00 PM

CMAC and the Recording Academy's Mayoral Candidate's Forum
Oct 3 2011 - 6:00 PM to 9:00 PM
1805 Geary Blvd

It is obivious both of these propositions (C and D) come from the neo-liberal agenda which is the downfall of this country. Why labor is trying to push a measure that is worse for the average worker than D is beyond comprehension. Yes the changes to the HSS Board's governance in C affects all city workers and retirees, who will find their costs skyrocketing. The City's healthcare system is in good shape and the SF Pension System is the 2nd best funded in the USA. The funding of this system has been as high as 134 percent and this is within the last ten years. The City and County of SF took advantage of this superior funding by not having to pay into the system BUT instead of saving this money for a rainy day spent it on pet projects. City workers pay into this system and have done so for years. Part of this money is invested which is where some of the excess comes from. Wealthy, corporate America really wants to destroy defined benefit systems such as San Francisco has and force workers to invest in 401 K's. The crisis we read about in the papers is the crisis the wealthy feel - they are looking around for cash cows of all sorts. Wall St. is in trouble, the housing market is in trouble so they attack public pension funds, Social Security, Medicare and the like. Labor should stop this, not feed it! VOTE NO ON C AND D - stop corporate greed in SF.

Anyone who says that Prop C is worse for the average City worker than Prop D has not idea what is contained in the measures. Prop D always will result in a much larger pay cut than Prop C even for those making $51,000 a year. Don't believe the misinformation put out by the Adachi campaign that Prop C is worse for the average worker!