Why Were Ventura County Residents Blocked From Voting on Pension Reform in the Midterm Elections?
"The taxpayers bear a large burden…for the government employees' pension and these pensions are much more generous than is available to them," says Richard Thomson, president of the Ventura County Taxpayers Association (VCTA). "The question you have to ask is what's so special about government employees that they shouldn't have to assume some of their own risk—like the taxpayer—for their retirement."
On Tuesday, voters across the county will venture to polling stations for the midterm elections. In Ventura County, California, residents will be able to have their say on a variety of local issues, but there is one initiative they won't be able to cast their ballot for—that measure is pension reform.
Like so many retirement systems across the country, Ventura has seen it's pension fund go from having a healthy surplus to being over a billion dollars in debt. To avoid having their county become the next Stockton or Detroit, the Ventura County Taxpayers Association crafted a reform measure that would move the county from a defined benefit to a defined contribution system.
But shortly after it was approved to appear on the ballot, a local judge preemptively ruled the measure illegal and ordered it stricken from the 2014 election—thus ending Ventura's hopes to change their costly pension system.
The roots of Ventura's failed attempt at pension reform were planted in 1947 when residents elected to create the Venture County Employees Retirement Association (VCERA). After the Great Depression, states thought it beneficial to establish retirement systems that could provide aging workers with modest benefits when they could no longer work.
In California, a 1937 law gave counties a choice—they could become part of the statewide retirement system or create their own. Twenty counties, including Ventura, chose the latter and became known as '37 Act counties. This designation is important because if Ventura could elect change, it could provide a blueprint for other counties to enact reform without having to go through the arduous legislative process in Sacramento which often stalls because of union pressure to squash any form of pension reform.
According to the judge's ruling, even though voters elected to create a pension fund decades ago, the law provides them no way to exit the system through a vote. Reformers would have to either repeal or amend the law through state legislation to change their costly pension programs.
The decision was a setback for the VCTA, who had hoped a midterm victory could expedite change to VCERA's growing mountain of debt. In 1999, pension payments accounted for just one percent of the total budget—today that number is 17 percent. As retirements eat up a bigger portion of the budget, the amount residents have had to kick in to cover pension obligations has also increased.
Taxpayers pay $153 million per year to the pension system—that's triple the number they paid out over a decade ago. In the next five years, that number is expected to climb to $226 million.
Some of the rise in costs can be attributed to demographics. Retirees are living longer and drawing more in pension payments. Unrealistic investment targets have also hampered growth in the retirement system. While Ventura assumes the standard 7.75 percent return on retirement investments, the county has seen just a 5.82 percent return in the last five years.
In addition to these factors, the county also has the distinction of having some of the highest retirement benefits in the state—thanks to a practice known as spiking—in which retirees can manipulate their final pay with supplemental benefits to boost their pensions.
A 1997 state supreme court ruling known as "The Ventura Decision" upheld this practice which legitimized pension spiking throughout the state. A recent Los Angeles Times study found that 84% of Ventura retirees receiving more than $100,000 a year in pension benefits are getting more than they did on the job.
"When you look at compensation and pensions…we're right up there if not higher than anybody else," states Bill Wilson, a member of the VCTA who has also served on the county retirement board for over 16 years.
Under the defined benefit model, the government worker contributes just a small fraction of their payroll toward the retirement fund. According to a 2014 actuarial report done by Segal Counsulting, Ventura county workers contribute 7.20% percent of their paycheck, while public safety employees contribute 15.93 percent. The taxpayers match those contributions and pick up the payments for any debt that has accrued.
The same Segal actuarial report spells out average county worker benefits. After 35 years of service, the average county employee in Ventura with an $85,000 salary could expect to retire with $74,375 in annual benefits on top of their social security and 401(k) pay. The average public safety employee making $125,000 salary can expect to walk away with an annual pension of a $101,250 after 30 years of service.
The reform would have changed this structure by enacting a defined contribution plan whereby the county would contribute four percent for general county employees and 11 percent for public safety workers. The measure would have only applied to new employees hired after July 2015. The Reason Foundation—which publishes Reason TV—provided analysis of the reform for the VCTA and estimated that the measure would save the county $460 million over the next 15 years and would reduce pension liabilities by $1.8 billion.
While the measure was wildly popular with local residents, labor groups vehemently opposed reform. They turned out in large numbers to county board meetings to voice their opposition and even showed up at signature drives to intimidate people from signing the petition to place reform on the ballot.
Though the measure won't appear on this year's ballot, the VCTA will continue to push for statewide reform. Growing public support for reform and recent court rulings that may allow cities like Stockton and Detroit to restructure their pension debt could be the tipping point necessary to bring about change.
"Once people realize what is at stake here, they're going to support it," says Wilson.
Approximately 11 minutes.
Produced by Alexis Garcia. Camera by Garcia, Paul Detrick, and Alex Manning. Music by MobyGratis, Incompetech, and Free Music Archive.org.
Scroll down for downloadable versions and subscribe to Reason TV's YouTube channel to get automatic notifications when new material goes live.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Oooh, I know, I know! Because fuck you, that's why?
Fat chance the CA legislature (the D clubhouse) is ever going to allow Ventura to make the pub sec employees pay up; that'd cost union votes statewide and the alternative is the Ventura taxpayers get the shaft.
Does Ventura vote the D ticket? If so, you guys got what you wanted.
"Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard." - H. L. Mencken
We here in California are getting EXACTLY what we voted for. When Jerry Brown, our past and future Governor signed in public worker unions back in his first run at destroying this state, he sets the seed for its destruction. Remember, the Russian and Mexican didn't do this to us. We did.
Yeah Jerry Brown. Proof positive that marijuana causes memory loss.
Judge Kent Kellegrew is an employee of Ventura County and therefore a beneficiary of the pension fund affected by the initiative. He and all other local judges should have recused themselves from the case. It was not ethical for him to hear a case in which he has a financial interest.
Kellegrew is up for a retention vote today. Let us hope that Ventura County taxpayers vote this unjust judge out.
So, 15 years ago the pension contribution, by the city was 1%, TODAY it's 17%, and the factored in investment return is 7.75% but they are, TODAY earning only 5.82%.
Hmmm, could the issues TODAY be because, in the past, when investment returns were greater than the 7.75%, the city diverted money to other vote-buying matters that they are loathe to eliminate, TODAY?
Having a pension system of your own means you get to benefit, in the good times and you have to suck it up in the lean, and it has been lean for several years.
Why does anyone think this has become such an issue since the "financial meltdown" of 2008. Before that, we hardly heard about pension contributions because the pension providers were riding great investment returns and pocketing (figuratively) the benefits of greater-than 7.75% profits.
Plus, not sure about Ventura, but many cities that have these kinds of pensions have opted out of Social Security, so they won't be getting SS on top of their pension and the "spiking" only happens if one can maneuver through the civil service promotional labyrinth to get that boost in pay, right before retirement - not as easy as they make it sound.
"Before that, we hardly heard about pension contributions because the pension providers were riding great investment returns and pocketing (figuratively) the benefits of greater-than 7.75% profits."
Well, it's kinda hard to find stuff from that long ago, but how about:
"Abolish California's Public Employee Pensions
Posted on 07 October 2008."
[...]
"We have been warning readers about the pension crisis for a few years now. In a nutshell, the problem is the following: California public employee unions ? which are virtually unregulated despite the fact they operate in the uncompetitive public sector ? have pretty much taken over California's state and local governments"
http://www.ecoworld.com/busine.....sions.html
So, no, to those who watch such matters, the theft has been quite clear for quite a while.
Theft? Well then why aren't the police arresting all those terrible public employees for stealing "your" money?
I always laugh at articles, like the one you linked to. The theme being that the larcenous public employee unions get everything they want from the government employees YOU elect, who are powerless to stop them.
I've got news for you, it ain't that way at all and, if there is a looming problem with the pensions that will have to be paid, it is because of those politicians promising future benefits, in lieu of current raises, while failing to account for how much they need to put away for when those promises need to be honored, meanwhile spending what they should have put away, on vote-buying schemes.
P.S. October of 2008 is exactly when things were turning down, investment wise, so it still fits that, except for "ecoworld", hardly anyone was complaining until the investments went south.
Gee it's almost as if public employees (judges in particular) were acting as though they were members of a protected and elite class, exempt from the rules everyone else has to play by.
Meaningful pension reform will only happen when the money runs out, and the checks stop.
Governments at all levels should put an end to "spiking." Pension should be based on base salary. Soldiers can't "spike," for example get airborne status or fly. Works fine.
BuckyBall composed by 216 strong neodymium rare earth magnetic beads, is a spherical strong magnet which was exquisitely processed by magnetic balls.