Public Employees Benefit Reform Act.

The California Foundation for Fiscal Responsibility re-filed its proposed ballot measure last week. If successful, it would create a two tier pension system for public employees in California, with new hires by all CalPERS participants being in the new, far less generous second tier.

The president of this group is Marcia Fritz. Their attempt to do this in 2007 did not make it to the ballot. She thinks she can do it this year if she can raise $2 million. She has some hopes that Meg Whitman may take up the cause on her behalf. She might be right.

The proposed formula would change POFF (Peace Office Fire Fighter) benefits from the current 3% at 50 to 2.3% at age 58.

It would also change Public Safety retirement (Park Rangers and similar) from the current 2.5% at 55 to 1.8 % at 60.

Other retirees would be tied into the federal standard. Those who are under Social Security would be based at 1.25%. Those who do not contribute to social security would get no more than 1.65%.

Pensions would cap at 75%, would be based on a 3 year average instead of the current 1 year, and would exclude longevity, uniform allowances and bonuses as well as overtime (which we don't get credit for now anyway).

It would also require that any future retirement enhancements go to a vote of the public.

This is a big deal. I think that, in the current economic climate, it has a very real chance of passing IF it makes it to the ballot. If Ms. Fritz can get her $2 million, it will almost certainly get to the ballot. In general, POFF employees (other than "prison guards") have a pretty good connection to the voting public. The opposition will come from many arenas. Some people just plain resent the fact that public employees get decent pensions. Some people have no problem with the concept but don't think the public treasury can continue to support the level of pensions that exist now. Some people just don't want to spend public money on anything.

This will not have a major direct impact on current employees, especially those getting close to retirement. Many people will still gravitate towards public employment just on general principles. New hires, however, will have to work much longer for a much less generous pension. This will certainly result in some recruitment and retention problems for state jobs in general and especially for the less glamorous jobs (like "prison guards") in particular.

Strategically, this could be one of those things that CCPOA wants to oppose, but not too loud. If it looks like "those greedy bastard prison guards" are working too hard or spending too much money to hang on to their current admittedly good pensions, it could be counter-productive.