To: letters@latimes.com
From: James McRitchie <jm@corpgov.net>
Subject: CalPERS: Not Quite Clean Enough
Cc: Paul.Jacobs@latimes.com
Date: Thu, 12 Feb 1998 14:11:37 -0800
Congratulations. Your editorial and the articles by Paul Jacobs on CalPERS will contribute to needed reforms to limit contact between Board members and those pitching investments, disclose campaign contributions, and
perhaps even reduce gifts and junkets which have become all too routine.
However, please don't be lulled into complacency. Board members at CalPERS are a little like subatomic particles; they behave differently when observed. The Board reformed its closed session policies only after press coverage, an oversight hearing by Senator Schiff, and pressure from
members.
Additional questions could be asked. Why has CalPERS' administrative budget increased by 50% in two years? Are dozens of $475 coat racks symbolic of other excesses? If CalPERS corporate governance programs really pay, why doesn't the fund invest more in targeted companies? Have "excess" funds been given to employers in violation of federal law? What percent of employees covered by CalPERS actually ever receive a pension? Why are pensions portable under ERISA but not CalPERS? Why doesn't CalPERS seek to bid on administering the State's dental, vision and Savings Plus programs?
CalPERS assets are twice the State budget. State Senators represent 750,000 Californians each and receive considerable press. Yet, press coverage was dismal last year when almost 1 million CalPERS members were eligible to vote. With so little information available, only 20% bothered. The LA Times could do a great service by continuing its coverage of CalPERS, especially during elections, when members have an opportunity to hold Board members individually accountable.
James McRitchie
concerned CalPERS member
Contact: 
jm@perswatch.net