Protest SFPOA To Stop Bullying City Workers-POA Bullying SF City Workers To Seize Pensions

SF Employee Retirement System Board member Herb Meiberger speaks with SF city workers about the efforts to turn the pension funds over to hedge fund operators. The San Francisco Police Officers Association SFPOA , IFPTE Local 21 Bob Muscat and the Management Employees Association MEA are trying to seize control of the pension funds in order to turn it over to hedge fund operators. They have launched a slander campaign against Herb Meiberger and are getting money and support from hedge fund operators who want control of the city worker pension funds. The demanded the Herb Meiberger resign and be replaced by another policeman who is a member of the SFPOA which already has Brian Stansbury on the board. Stansbury has been involved in a racist illegal arrest of SF public defender Jame Tillotson for defending her young African American men in the Hall of Justice.
Meiberger talks about the role of hedge fund speculator Wendy Paskin Jordan who Mayor Lee appointed to the board and her numerous conflicts of interest and personally profiteering from the city pension plan. He also discusses the role of criminal Wells Fargo bank who was involved in stealing city worker homes and has been continued to be supported by SFERS board members Driscoll, Brian Stansbury and Al Casciato along with Wendy Paskin Jordan.
Casciato who was a captain with the police department retired with a pension of $208,973 a year and the POA, MEA and Bob Muscat of IFPTE Local 21 have supported proposition C which attacked the lower paid workers by cost shifting their costs of pensions and healthcare. Meiberger's presentation was made on December 16, 2016 to SF city workers.
For additional media:
http://herbmeiberger.com
http://1021.seiu.org/page/-/ReElectHerbMeiberger-SFERSBoard.pdf
Additional media:
http://www.stoplhhdownsize.com/What_Price_for_a_Seat_at_the_Retirement_Board_Table.pdf
http://www.ibtimes.com/san-francisco-hedge-fund-proposal-raises-conflict-interest-questions-1700230
http://www.pionline.com/article/20140609/PRINT/306099987/buffetts-suggestion-to-pension-fund-trustee-dont-invest-in-hedge-funds
https://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2016/12/02/18794329.php
http://www.wsj.com/articles/teachers-union-and-hedge-funds-war-over-pension-billions-1467125055
http://blog.sfgate.com/cityinsider/2014/12/15/financial-questions-dog-former-sf-first-lady-wendy-paskin-jordan/
http://code.socialdashboard.com/news/investment-by-san-francisco-pension-official-raises-questions-about-favors
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bjznPAFcCNE&feature=youtu.be
http://youtu.be/dCz5eMvYPBA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Exbl3wwBx9Y
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p6VTO4UHrjk
https://soundcloud.com/workweek-radio/ww12-23-14-sf-public-pensions-with-david-sirota-ca-dir-secret-confernce
http://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/Ties-questioned-for-financial-adviser-and-former-5959036.php
http://www.aft.org/sites/default/files/allthatglittersisnotgold2015.pdf
For more information on Herb Meiberger
http://herbmeiberger.com
Production of Labor Video Project
http://www.laborvideo.org

SF Union Bureaucrats Pushed Illegal Attack On SF City Pension COLA That Was Later Overturned By Court

Retirees get voter-OKed pension cut overturned
CalPERS, CalSTRS and other government pensions
« Small CalPERS fund on autopilot 1,736% fundedCalifornia ‘automatic IRA’ study part of big trend »
Retirees get voter-OKed pension cut overturned
A retiree group won a big victory last month. Reversing a superior court ruling, an appeals court overturned part of a voter-approved San Francisco pension reform in 2011 that ended higher payments to retirees when investments have “excess earnings.”

But the feisty retiree group, Protect Our Benefits, is unhappy because the appeals court ruled higher payments can be ended for city workers who retired on or before Nov. 5, 1996, when the supplemental cost-of-living adjustment was first approved by voters.

“The appellate court has denied the POB petition for rehearing,” Larry Barsetti, chair of Protect Our Benefits, said in a message last week on the website of the retiree group.

“Unless they made any changes to their ruling that we haven’t seen yet, as is possible with these things (and we won’t know that until we get the formal written denial from them, possibly Monday April 27th), the next step is to petition the California Supreme Court and attempt to have the ruling regarding the pre-1996 retirees overturned,” Barsetti wrote.


Barsetti

Retirees, scattered and no longer union members, might seem unlikely to be formidable, particularly when battling a cost-cutting pension reform backed by all 11 county supervisors, business and labor groups, and 69 percent of San Francisco voters in 2011.
The reform, Proposition C, was the milder establishment alternative to deeper pension cuts in Proposition D by Jeff Adachi, one of the 16 candidates for mayor on the San Francisco ballot that year, including the incumbent and winner, Mayor Ed Lee.

“The epitome of greed,” Gary Delagnes, president of the San Francisco Police Officers Association, told SF Weekly in 2012 when the retiree group began its legal challenge. Barsetti is executive secretary of Veteran Police Officers Association.

And it was the police association’s own retiree group, VPOA, that Barsetti said last week was “instrumental” in the birth of Protect Our Benefits, a political action committee financed by donations that has spent more than $225,000 on attorney fees.

Barsetti said an estimate that the supplemental COLA targeted by Proposition C would cost $300 million over the next two decades came from an actuary hired by a wealthy supporter of the measure.

“We don’t think it’s anywhere near that,” he said.

Of the nearly 27,000 San Francisco Employees Retirement System members receiving benefits last year, Barsetti said about 8,300 retired before voters approved the supplemental COLA on Nov. 5, 1996.

Retirees in the city-run pension system receive a basic COLA of up to 2 percent, depending on inflation. San Francisco voters approved a supplement on Nov. 5, 1996, that could boost the COLA to 3 percent of the pension amount.

The money for the supplemental COLA comes from pension fund investment earnings “in excess of the expected earnings on the actuarial value of assets” in the previous year.

The city pension system currently assumes investments will earn 7.5 percent a year, the same as California’s three large state retirement systems, which critics say is too optimistic.

Skimming investment earnings looks dubious after a recession and stock market crash left most public pensions underfunded. Growing pension costs are causing concern that too much money is being diverted from government programs and services.

But in the past, for example, “excess earnings” paid for a “13th check” pension bonus in San Jose and two CalPERS programs, the Investment Dividend Disbursement Account and the Extraordinary Performance Dividend Account.

All three of those programs have been discontinued. But 20 county retirement systems operating under a 1937 act can still use “excess earnings” for retiree bonuses, retiree health care or lowering employer contributions.

Barsetti’s response to criticism of skimming “excess earnings” is that the San Francisco pension system is different. Pension increases must be approved by voters, rather than bargained by unions and then approved by elected local or state lawmakers.

After initial voter approval in 1996, the supplemental COLA was strengthened by a vote in 2002 making the supplement permanent, not reducible once granted. Another vote in 2008 increased the supplement from 3 to 3.5 percent of the pension amount.

“I believe that the people who are paying the bill should have a vote,” said Barsetti.

Enjoying a surplus, the San Francisco pension system went without employer contributions from 1996 to 2004. The city became the model for requiring voter approval of pension increases in San Diego in 2006 and Orange County in 2008.

Big investment losses and a civil grand jury report in 2009 on soaring pension costs led to San Francisco voter approval of Proposition C in 2011, part of which required full or 100 percent pension funding the previous year to provide a supplemental COLA.

Because of retroactive salary and annual inflation adjustments, said the civil grand jury, pensions exceeding their highest salary on the job were being received by 60 percent of police and 55 percent of firefighters retired since 1998.

Last year the pension system was 94 percent funded using market value assets. This year employer contributions for police are 37 percent of pay, firefighters 44 percent and miscellaneous 19 percent. The aggregate employee contribution is 11 percent.

(In contrast, the California Public Employees Retirement System plan for state workers was 72 percent funded. Employer contributions are 47 percent of pay for the Highway Patrol, 25 percent for miscellaneous, and employee contributions are 6 to 11 percent.)

The grand jury report in 2009 said San Francisco employer costs, $178 million the previous year, were expected to soar to $520 million in 2011. The latest actuarial report expects employer costs to be $527 million this year, while employees pay $304 million.

In the court battle over Proposition C, the city said switching the supplemental COLA from “excess earnings” to a requirement that pensions be fully funded “clarified” voter intent in 2008 when the supplement was increased to 3.5 percent.

A superior court judge, agreeing with the city, said the “legislative history” of the previous votes showed that the supplemental COLA was tied to whether the pensions were fully funded.

“Indeed, were the Retirement Fund not fully funded in 1996, 2002 or 2008, it seems quite unlikely that the voters would have approved or extended supplemental COLAs, as they did,” the judge said.

In a 3-to-0 ruling March 27, a state appeals court overturned the superior court decision. The 2008 ballot materials “do not mention full funding,” said the panel, and Proposition C is clearly a pension cut violating “vested rights” under long-established contract law.

The appeals court also said retirees before Nov. 6, 1996, have no vested right to the supplement. The “contractual basis of a pension right” is an exchange for services, said the court, and those retirees left service before the supplement was offered.

Reporter Ed Mendel covered the Capitol in Sacramento for nearly three decades, most recently for the San Diego Union-Tribune. More stories are at Calpensions.com. Posted 27 Apr 15

SF Labor Tops Support Attack On Public Workers In Supporting Proposition C To " fix the City's broken pension and health benefit system and saves taxpayers $1.3 billion over ten years."
Arguments For Proposition C Arguments Against Proposition C
http://www.smartvoter.org/2011/11/08/ca/sf/prop/C/
Consensus and $1.3 billion in savings: YES on C Prop C is the consensus plan created and passed unanimously by the Mayor and Board of Supervisors with community-wide input from city employees, business and civic leaders, legal and pension experts. Prop C is the comprehensive plan that will fix the City's broken pension and health benefit system and saves taxpayers $1.3 billion over ten years.
Only Prop C Reforms Pension AND Health Benefits Prop C is the only comprehensive plan that produces additional cost savings by reforming both pension AND health benefits for public employees.

Prop C saves taxpayers millions every year by requiring all current city employees to contribute more to their own retirement plans and by reorganizing the Health Service Board which chooses medical plans for city employees. Prop C is Fair to Our Most Vulnerable Workers Prop C is the consensus plan that ensures all city employees share the burden in bad economic times and enjoy the benefits in good times.

Prop C generates taxpayer savings by raising the retirement age, banning pension spiking once and for all, capping benefits and creating a sliding scale to determine employee contributions based on income to ensure fairness.

Vote Yes on C Written by consensus, comprehensive in scope, and fair to taxpayers and workers, Prop C saves $1.3 billion over ten years and secures a brighter future for all San Francisco families.

Mayor Ed Lee Supervisor Sean Elsbernd Supervisor John Avalos Supervisor David Campos Supervisor David Chiu Supervisor Carmen Chu Supervisor Malia Cohen Supervisor Mark Farrell Supervisor Jane Kim Supervisor Eric Mar Supervisor Ross Mirkarimi Supervisor Scott Wiener San Francisco Chamber of Commerce San Francisco Labor Council San Francisco Firefighters Local 798 San Francisco Police Officers Association Dennis Kelly, President, United Educators of San Francisco* San Francisco Planning and Urban Research (SPUR) Human Services Network

• For identification purposes only; author is signing as an individual and not on behalf of an organization.


Rebuttal to Arguments Against
Vote YES ON C--It's 250 pages of needed reform Across the country cities face the cruel realities of the economic downturn. There was a time when city coffers boomed and San Francisco voters improved city employees' pension benefits, but those times are behind us. Now the decision we face is which reform proposal to adopt. Prop C will save the city $1.3 billion by reforming our pension and health benefits structures, a solution crafted in conjunction with the affected parties. Alternatively, there's Prop D, which ONLY reforms pension benefits, it's incomplete and was crafted in a backroom by a politician who intends to use the issue as a platform on which to run for higher office. Proponents of D say it isn't perfect--WE AGREE Even proponents of the competing measure, Prop D, admit that it's not perfect. We agree, in fact we think it's deeply flawed. It's so poorly written that if adopted legal experts say it will get tossed out in court. If this happens San Francisco gets ZERO savings at a time when we need it most. Additionally, the competing measure only addresses pension reform. It does nothing to address San Francisco's $4 billion unfunded retiree health care obligation. Save San Francisco $1.3 billion - Vote YES ON C for the comprehensive, consensus employee benefit reform solution. Mayor Ed Lee Supervisor Sean Elsbernd Dennis Kelly, United Educators of San Francisco* San Francisco Chamber of Commerce San Francisco Labor Council San Francisco Firefighters Local 798 San Francisco Police Officers Association San Francisco Planning and Urban Research (SPUR)

• For identification purposes only; author is signing as an individual and not on behalf of an organization.

Labor Council, Chamber of Commerce, and Warren Hellman Unite to Fight Jeff Adachi’s Prop D
http://sfcitizen.com/blog/2011/08/31/our-city-family-labor-council-chamber-of-commerce-and-warren-hellman-unite-to-fight-jeff-adachis-prop-d/

Well here’s the news of the day – it’s the launch of YesOnCNoOnD.com

And look who’s the headliner of this Fellowship, it’s “Civic Leader” Warren Hellman, who used to play for the other team, so to speak.

Anyway, all the deets, below.

That Warren sure loves his banjo:



Click to expand

“PAULSON, FALK TO CO-CHAIR YES ON PROPOSITION C PENSION REFORM CAMPAIGN – Top Labor Leader, Top Business Leader Tapped To Lead Consensus Coalition

SAN FRANCISCO, August 31, 2011 – San Franciscans United For Pension And Health Reform today selected Tim Paulson and Steve Falk to serve as co-chairs of the campaign supporting Proposition C and opposing Proposition D on the November ballot.

Paulson is executive director of the San Francisco Labor Council, comprised of 150 local unions and representing 100,000 workers, and Falk is president and CEO of the San Francisco Chamber of Commerce, a 1,500-member organization representing the business community.

“We are pleased that San Francisco’s top labor leader and top business leader are working together to lead this coalition’s campaign for pension and health reform,” said Thomas P. O’Connor, president of Fire Fighters Local 798. “Unions and the business community don’t agree on everything, but on Proposition C, San Francisco is united.”

Falk praised Proposition C, which was developed with input from the community, introduced by Mayor Ed Lee, and passed unanimously by the Board of Supervisors.

“Proposition C saves taxpayers at least $1.3 billion over the next decade,” said Falk. “This measure is fiscally responsible and it will help keep us solvent.”

Paulson emphasized the measure’s fairness.

“Proposition C provides a safety net for hardworking city employees who earn lower wages,” said Paulson. “It keeps pension contributions stable for those making less than $50,000 a year. Those who make more pay more.”

O’Connor drew a contrast between Proposition C and Proposition D, a rival pension measure.

“Proposition C has widespread support because it was conceived in the light of day, with a public process that encouraged input and ideas from everyone,” said O’Connor. “On the other hand, the backers of Proposition D bought their way onto the ballot with signature gatherers who were paid five dollars a signature and repeatedly got caught on tape lying about what the measure would do.”

Today, San Franciscans United For Pension And Health Reform also announced the other members of its campaign committee. In addition to Paulson, Falk, and O’Connor, the committee includes other business and labor leaders, along with the measure’s sponsor at the Board of Supervisors:

Warren Hellman, Civic Leader
Gary Delagnes, President of the San Francisco Police Officers Association
Sean Elsbernd, Member of the Board of Supervisors
Steve Fields, Co-Chair of the Human Services Network
Larry Mazzola, Business Manager and Financial Secretary Treasurer of UA Local 38
Rebecca Rhine, Executive Director of the Municipal Executives Association
Bob Muscat, Executive Director of IFTPE Local 21
Sean Connolly, President of the Municipal Attorneys Association

Please visit http://www.yesoncnoond.com for more information.”

SF police union POA gives campaign funds to Republican Party
http://www.sfexaminer.com/sf-police-union-gives-campaign-funds-republican-party/
The main entrance of the San Francisco Police Officers Association office in San Francisco August 31, 2016. (Jessica Christian/S.F. Examiner)
By Jonah Owen Lamb on November 7, 2016 4:16 pm
Francisco may be small and outnumbered in one of the country’s most liberal cities.

But their effort to help elect Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump, among other candidates, has been aided this year by one of The City’s most powerful unions.

San Francisco has no sitting Republican elected officials, yet its powerful police union has given campaign funds to the party whose candidate is far from popular in the country’s progressive capital.

As of the latest reporting period, from Sept. 25 through Oct. 22, the San Francisco Police Officers Association Political Action Committee gave the Republican Party Central Committee $2,500 and another $2,500 in non monetary contributions.

The SFPOA PAC and the union’s Issues PAC are the only two political action committees run by the union that have spent money on this election listed on the Ethics Commission website.

While the union has not endorsed Trump or Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton for president, the Republican Party of San Francisco, like its counterparts across the country, is backing Trump for president.

“The SFPOA gives to candidates who 1. support us on key law enforcement issues and 2. have a chance of winning. In San Francisco, nine times out of 10, that means supporting Democrats. Occasionally the SFPOA will give some contributions on the other side of the aisle as well,” Nathan Ballard, a political consultant, said on behalf of the union.

Howard Epstein, vice chairman of communication for the county party, said the party and the union have worked before in the past since the party is strongly supportive of law enforcement. This cycle, said Epstein, the money was used on slate mailers, none of which included national races.

Meanwhile, the union is spending big to support and defeat several statewide initiatives and city measures.

Sam Popkin, a political science professor at UC San Diego and author of the forthcoming book “The Republican Crackup and the Future of Presidential Politics,” said the filings show the POA is showing itself to be more moderate than other police unions.

“For police unions that shows that they understand the complications of being a police union in a progressive city,” Popkin said. “If they did not endorse Trump, I look at that as a positive.”

Police unions weren’t always conservative unions, but in the 1960s they tipped more right because of leftward drift of politics, he said. Now police unions in cities that are often liberal represent the status quo and the propertied classes, added Popkin.

The San Francisco Police Officers Association Issues PAC has spent $27,500 on efforts to defeat Proposition 62, which would repeal the state’s death penalty.

Proposition 66, which would make it more difficult to appeal death penalties, has been given $30,000 in cash support this period and $50,000 in non monetary contributions to efforts to pass this proposition and defeat Prop. 62. In all, the union’s PAC spent $117,500 in support of Prop. 66.

The union’s PAC also spent $15,000 in opposition to Proposition 57, which would open up the possibility of parole for nonviolent felons and give juvenile court judges the power to choose when to charge juveniles as adults. The PAC gave $5,000 in non monetary contributions.

Locally, the union’s PAC spent $6,000 on Proposition Q, which would ban encampments on city sidewalks and authorize city officials to remove them 24 hours after offering shelter. It gave $5,000 in non monetary support for that measure.

Black SFPD leader resigns from union, says leadership is reactionary
http://www.sfexaminer.com/black-sfpd-leader-resigns-union-says-leadership-reactionary/
Sgt. Yulanda Williams. (Mike Koozmin/2015 S.F. Examiner)
By Jonah Owen Lamb on November 18, 2016 1:24 pm

The leader of San Francisco’s black officers organization resigned from the powerful Police Officers Association on Friday, accusing the the union of failing to address minority issues and promoting recalcitrant and backward approaches to police reform and minority concerns in and outside of the Police Department.

The resignation and condemnation of the union’s leadership, including President Martin Halloran, came from Officers For Justice President Sgt. Yulanda Williams, who noted that the union’s purported lack of sensitivity in recent years is compounded in the fact that no women or people of color are on the union’s executive board.

“Your organization does not demonstrate sensitivity or a willingness to adjust its value based upon the needs of other ethnicities within this department,” wrote Williams. “As an organizational union leader this is unacceptable conduct and leads to confusion and dysfunction.”

She continued, “As a dues paying member of 27 years, and a woman of color, I can no longer endure the SFPOA’s exhibitions of insensitivity, narrow-mindedness and refusal to respect other philosophical viewpoints.”

Williams and the POA have been at odds for some time — she was one of a handful of officers who spoke publicly at the District Attorney’s Blue Ribbon Panel about what she said was a backward culture — but the last straw came after Halloran said to Williams in June that if she doesn’t like how the union is run she is free to leave in November, one of the two times of year one can renew their membership.


Now she has done just that.

While she did not mention it in her letter, Williams told the San Francisco Examiner that the union’s donation to the Republican Party — and by extension to Donald Trump’s election as the head of that party — is one more reason for her to separate herself from the union until new leadership takes the helm.

The POA, which previously criticized Williams for speaking before the panel, said in a statement the organization is committed to promoting diversity.


Members of the San Francisco Police Officers Association, including president Martin Halloran, fourth from right, at a Jan. 20 Police Commission meeting in solidarity with officers who shot and killed Mario Woods. (Ekevara Kitpowsong/Special to S.F. Examiner)

“We do not agree with many of the statements made by Yulanda Williams in her resignation letter,” wrote Halloran in a statement. “We are certain that the vast majority of our members, including officers of color, do not agree with her either.”

The statement continues, “We are committed to diversity in our ranks. Just yesterday I received a call from Rev. Amos Brown, thanking us for our support of Chief Toney Chaplin and for our support of the NAACP — so we are confused by her claims.”

For much of the past two years the union has been at odds with some of the efforts to reform the Police Department and even bullied several supervisors for their possible support of a resolution comparing San Francisco to Ferguson, MO.

In mid July, the Blue Ribbon Panel on Transparency, Accountability, and Fairness in Law Enforcement said the POA essentially runs the department through a culture of “us against them” by attacking any opponents.

“The findings from this report show that the San Francisco Police Department, for all practical purposes, is really run by the POA,” said Judge LaDoris Cordell at the time.

View William’s resignation letter here: yulanda-resignation