Republish
State Supreme Court ducks key pension issue
We love that you want to share our stories with your readers. Hundreds of publications republish our work on a regular basis.
All of the articles at CalMatters are available to republish for free, under the following conditions:
-
- Give prominent credit to our journalists: Credit our authors at the top of the article and any other byline areas of your publication. In the byline, we prefer “By Author Name, CalMatters.” If you’re republishing guest commentary (example) from CalMatters, in the byline, use “By Author Name, Special for CalMatters.”
-
- Credit CalMatters at the top of the story: At the top of the story’s text, include this copy: “This story was originally published by CalMatters. Sign up for their newsletters.” If you are republishing commentary, include this copy instead: “This commentary was originally published by CalMatters. Sign up for their newsletters.” If you’re republishing in print, omit the second sentence on newsletter signups.
-
- Do not edit the article, including the headline, except to reflect relative changes in time, location and editorial style. For example, “yesterday” can be changed to “last week,” and “Alameda County” to “Alameda County, California” or “here.”
-
- If you add reporting that would help localize the article, include this copy in your story: “Additional reporting by [Your Publication]” and let us know at republish@calmatters.org.
-
- If you wish to translate the article, please contact us for approval at republish@calmatters.org.
-
- Photos and illustrations by CalMatters staff or shown as “for CalMatters” may only be republished alongside the stories in which they originally appeared. For any other uses, please contact us for approval at visuals@calmatters.org.
-
- Photos and illustrations from wire services like the Associated Press, Reuters, iStock are not free to republish.
-
- Do not sell our stories, and do not sell ads specifically against our stories. Feel free, however, to publish it on a page surrounded by ads you’ve already sold.
-
- Sharing a CalMatters story on social media? Please mention @CalMatters. We’re on X, Facebook, Instagram, TikTok and BlueSky.
If you’d like to regularly republish our stories, we have some other options available. Contact us at republish@calmatters.org if you’re interested.
Have other questions or special requests? Or do you have a great story to share about the impact of one of our stories on your audience? We’d love to hear from you. Contact us at republish@calmatters.org.

State Supreme Court ducks key pension issue
Share this:
The state Supreme Court could have addressed a fundamental issue in California’s public employee pension crisis – whether the so-called “California rule” makes it impossible to reduce benefits.
However, the court punted this week, ruling that since the Legislature and former Gov. Jerry Brown legitimately eliminated a way that workers could pump up their pensions in 2012, called “airtime,” it didn’t need to weigh the constitutionality of the California rule.
The rule, stemming from a 1955 Supreme Court decision, essentially says that once someone is hired by a public agency, whatever pension plan was in effect at the time can never be altered for that employee.
The 2012 pension reform lowered potential benefits for future employees of state and local governments, but not those of current employees and retirees. However, it did eliminate the long-standing ability of workers to buy “airtime” – up to five years of service credit that would increase their pensions.
A firefighter union sued, claiming that the right to buy airtime was protected by the California rule, but lost at the trial and appellate levels, tossing the issue to the Supreme Court.
Brown and many other officials, citing rapidly rising pension costs, hoped that the court would find, as did an appellate court, that the California rule is invalid, thereby allowing governments to negotiate reduced benefits for future work and thus lower costs. Their pleas, however, fell on deaf ears in the Supreme Court, as its very narrow ruling showed.
With the California rule still in place, pension costs will continue to escalate sharply to make up for severe investment losses that the California Public Employees Retirement System (CalPERS) and other pension trust funds experienced during the Great Recession a decade ago, plus increases in the number of retirees and higher benefits.
CalPERS has scarcely two-thirds of the assets it needs to cover promised pension benefits even though it says in a report issued late last year that payments by government employers have nearly tripled from $6.9 billion in 2009 to $19.9 billion in 2018. Payments by employees, who do not pay for unfunded liabilities, increased only from $3.9 billion to $4.4 billion per year.
Local governments have been hit the hardest. CalPERS says mandatory pension payments for police officers and firefighters will average 49 percent of their pay this year, with top rates for 24 local governments hitting 70 percent or more.
It’s widely expected that average police and fire pension costs could top 75 percent within a few years and hit 100 percent in some local governments. Local officials have pleaded with CalPERS and the Legislature to do something about the situation, but so far have failed.
Meanwhile, hundreds of cities and counties have asked their local voters in the past two election cycles to approve tax increases – sales taxes, mostly – to meet their rising pension costs, although they typically do not cite pensions as the reason. Instead, officials vaguely promise the extra revenue will be used to enhance popular police, fire and parks services.
Were the economy to turn sour again, some cities could be forced into bankruptcy. High pension costs were major factors in the recent bankruptcies of three California cities – Vallejo, Stockton and San Bernardino – and in the Stockton case, the presiding federal bankruptcy judge declared that pension benefits could be reduced despite the California rule.
Stockton didn’t take that option, but if the situation deteriorates, bankruptcy courts might become the next judicial battleground over the California rule.
Dan WaltersOpinion Columnist
Dan Walters is one of most decorated and widely syndicated columnists in California history, authoring a column four times a week that offers his view and analysis of the state’s political, economic,... More by Dan Walters