This time, we hope Gov. Jerry Brown gets his way — and fast. The Sacramento Bee reports that Brown’s office sent a letter to California Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye earlier this month asking her to expedite a challenge of his pension-reform law that placed needed limits on some benefits for public employees hired after 2013.
In particular, the lawsuit, Cal Fire Local 2881 v. California Public Employees Retirement System, challenges a provision of the Public Employees’ Pension Reform Act of 2013 ending the practice of “air time” purchases.
“Air time” refers to fictitious years of public service used to calculate the size of their pensions. Prior to the passage of PEPRA, government workers could purchase as much as five years of credit for public service they didn’t necessarily do, thereby manipulating a system intended to provide a pension in exchange for actual public service.
Brown’s office made the unusual move of taking over the state’s defense from Attorney General Xavier Becerra last year, arguing that “[e]nding the costly, imperfect practice of selling additional ‘service credit’ untethered to service was necessary to re-align pension benefits with public service, eliminate a cause of premature retirements, and address a well-established source of unfunded liabilities never intended by the Legislature.”
Now, as the keys to the governor’s mansion are close to switching hands, Brown seems concerned about how the next governor will handle the case.
“As the end of Gov. Brown’s term draws closer, we respectfully urge the court to calendar this matter for argument as soon as practicable,” the July 6 letter from Brown’s legal affairs office reads, as reported by the Bee.
John Cox has spoken of the need to tackle the state’s pension issues. But Gavin Newsom told the California Professional Firefighters union that he would honor the so-called “California Rule” even if overturned by the courts.
So, Brown has reason for concern, because the California Rule, in a series of court decisions, has come to mean that once a public employee receives a pension benefit it can never be reduced unless replaced by something that is equal or even better.
While governments should honor benefits for time already worked, they should have the flexibility to modify benefits moving forward. Tying the hands of governments to adjust to new financial realities doesn’t serve the public and doesn’t even serve public employees in the long-term.
It is also in keeping with lower-court decisions in the air time case.
“While plaintiffs may believe they have been disadvantaged by these amendments, the law is quite clear that they are entitled only to a ‘reasonable’ pension, not one providing fixed or definite benefits immune from modification,” the Third Division of the First District Court of Appeals ruled.
While problems persist, ending air time purchases and other forms of pension spiking is critical to reining in out-of-control pension costs. We urge Cantil-Sakauye to take Brown up on his request and allow the case to be heard soon.
