Political hypocrisy? Rein-in pension candidate would see pension boost
| Saturday, Feb 06 2010 12:00 PM
Last Updated Saturday, Feb 06 2010 12:00 PM
Images
Former state legislator Phil Wyman, candidate for the 16th Senate District.
Supervisor Michael Rubio
If Republican Phil Wyman is elected to the 16th Senate District seat in November, he will be able to pad a unique employment benefit enjoyed by only a handful of active legislators.
It's the same Wyman who criticized "fat pensions" for new state employees in announcing his run for office this year.
Voters ended the Legislators' Retirement System in November 1990 and Wyman said he's "fully supportive of that."
But he started his 17-year legislative career in 1979 and was grandfathered into the state pension system. He currently receives a gross monthly pension, before taxes are taken out, of $3,343.38, according to California Public Employees' Retirement System documents.
And, said CalPERS spokesman Edd Fong, Wyman would be entitled to re-activate that pension if he is re-elected to office.
Fong said Wyman would stop receiving pension checks and start paying into the system again.
But, after he left office, Wyman would be able to recalculate his entire benefit based on the final salary he earns in office and his additional years of service, Fong said.
Wyman's monthly payment could grow sharply.
FORMULA
The formula used to calculate pensions in the Legislators' Retirement System is arcane and final benefits can be reduced by the beneficiary to, for example, fund payments to a spouse or dependent child, Fong said.
But the most critical variables the pension benefit are based on can be clearly stated.
A vast portion of the benefit for state legislators with more than 15 years of service is based on their final salary in office and the number of years they served.
The Legislators' Retirement System pays retired members 3 percent of their salary for every year of service.
Benefits are capped at two-thirds of the final salary, Fong said.
Salaries for non-leadership legislators in 2002, when Wyman last served, were set at $99,000 a year.
Wyman earned the pension with 17 years of service in the state Assembly and Senate and credit for three years of military service.
But another term in the state Senate would add four years to Wyman's tally and the 3 percent benefit would be calculated off his new pay.
Currently a non-leadership senator makes $116,000, according to the California Citizens Compensation Commission.
ON THE BOOKS
Wyman, 64, said he spent years in office building a reputation for being a strong advocate for taxpayers' rights.
He opposed any increases in legislative pay and tax increases, he said.
Wyman believes the pensions that are causing problems in California are the "overly generous" benefits handed out to public employees at "significantly" lower ages.
It is in the taxpayers' interest to send him back to Sacramento, he said.
His pension payments would be suspended and his long years of public service would power him, Wyman said, into the leadership of the Republican Party.
"It's better to pay me and have me do some work," he said.
And after he retires?
Wyman would not say whether he would reject any increase in his pension benefit created by being elected to office.
"That which is on the books is on the books," he said.
RUBIO
The Democrat that Wyman is likely to face in the November general election is Kern County Supervisor Michael Rubio.
Rubio, with five years as a county supervisor under his belt, has been vested into the Kern County Employees Retirement System and is entitled to receive 3 percent of his current salary for every year of service at age 60.
But Rubio, 32, said he won't take the pension if he wins election this year. The benefit is so small that his investment in it would earn more muscle in the marketplace.
"I will pull the money that I have paid in to it and invest it in my own private retirement," he said.
And, if Rubio defeats Wyman, he will not get a publically funded retirement.
These days a California senator only earns Social Security benefits for their service.
"I'll just have to be more disciplined and create my own retirement," Rubio said.
Rubio said he did not know what retirement benefit he might have received from working as a staffer for state Sen. Dean Florez, D-Shafter, for three years.
PENSION DEBATE
Wyman's case illustrates the risks that discussions of public pensions pose for politicians in what is shaping up to be a raucous election year.
Local politicians have been attacking the lucrative 3-at-50 and 3-at-60 benefits awarded to state and local unions across California early in the past decade.
But some of those politicians, who are running in races this year, have come up the political ladder -- working for state and local leaders as government employees who have access to publically funded pension plans or serving in elected positions that earn them a pension.
Michael Turnipseed of the nonprofit Kern County Taxpayers' Association, has been attacking public pensions for years.
He said the pensions "are so over-inflated that they're going to cripple government's ability to provide services."
Political candidates, Turnipseed said, are going to have to explain to voters how they are going to rein in public pensions when they get one of those pensions themselves.
"Most of the people running will have a pension of some kind," he said. "If you're getting one, are you going to vote against your own personal financial interests to solve the problem?"
-- Stay tuned for other stories about pensions earned by candidates running for the many political contests this year.
