Prop. 57: Measure to Limit Pensions for Ex-Officeholders Draws Heated Opinions

Barbara Lang Betts bristles at the mention of Proposition 57, the November ballot measure that, its backers declare, is designed to put a stop to windfall pension increases for a small number of former state officeholders.

“If this passes,” said Betts, a Sacramento attorney and wife of former state Treasurer Bert Betts, whose scheduled big benefit hike next January would be blocked by the measure, “then no pension in the State of California, public or private, would be safe.”

Betts, 63, state treasurer between 1959 and 1967, never was paid more than $21,499 a year while in office. But because his pension is tied to officeholder salaries plus a generous cost-of-living formula, he is drawing annual retirement benefits of $60,012.

And because the Legislature two years ago passed a major pay raise bill for state officials, scheduled to take effect next year, Betts’ pension in January will rise to $98,856.

Betts referred a reporter’s questions to his wife, who eight years ago successfully won a major pension victory for her husband before the California Supreme Court. It was the Betts case that prompted opponents of high-paying pensions to make a ballot issue out of it.

“He earned it,” declared Mrs. Betts, in a telephone interview, about her husband’s pension.

But state Sen. Wadie P. Deddeh (D-Chula Vista), the author of Proposition 57, calls the handful of imminent pension increases “undeserved . . . unwarranted . . . scandalous.” Deddeh was the author of a similar ballot measure last June that restricts retirement benefits of public officials in the future. The measure passed overwhelmingly.

Besides Betts, according to figures provided by the state Public Employees Retirement System, Proposition 57 also cuts future pension increases for 17 other former officeholders, of which 11 stand to receive substantial hikes next January.

Among these 11 are former Gov. Edmund G. (Pat) Brown, whose annual pension is scheduled to rise to $107,880 from $64,524; U.S. Sen. Alan Cranston, a former state controller, whose entitlement would jump to $98,076 from $59,532, and California Supreme Court Justice Stanley Mosk, a former state attorney general, who would go from $53,712 to $84,636.

Among the 18 individuals affected by Proposition 57, the fattest pension belongs to Richard Nevins, a Pasadena-based member of the state Board of Equalization, California’s major revenue agency, who will collect $181,368 a year, beginning next January when he retires. Proposition 57 can’t change that, but it would cap future big increases for Nevins.

“That’s too much for anybody to receive,” said Ernest Dronenburg of San Diego, another Board of Equalization member and a signer of the California Ballot Pamphlet argument urging passage of the measure.

“I had nothing to do with planning the pension system,” Nevins, 65, told The Times.

Rebecca K. Taylor, research director of the California Taxpayers Assn., a Sacramento-based nonprofit group supporting Proposition 57, said the measure “is not pension reform. It’s correcting a fluke.”

Cost-of-Living Escalator

That “fluke” was shaped by a series of legislative actions in the 1960s and 1970s, the highlight of which gave a handful of state officials a super cost-of-living escalator dating back to 1954--approved in 1963, but repealed in 1967. Proposition 57 wouldn’t take it away.

What these officials would lose, beginning this Nov. 5 if the Deddeh amendment becomes law, would be the link between present pensions and current salaries paid to officeholders. All they would receive in the future would be annual cost-of-living increases.

Only a small number of officials who took office before Oct. 7, 1974, would be affected by the measure; officials elected after this date--when a special legislative session broke the salary linkage--receive pensions based on their highest salary while in office plus an annual inflation adjustment.

Constitutional Guarantees

San Jose attorney Gary B. Wesley, who wrote the opposing ballot argument, agrees with lawmaker Deddeh’s charge that some of the pending pension increases are excessive. But, he says, there is nothing anyone can do about it because of federal and state constitutional guarantees against breaking contracts.

“Sure, they’re exorbitant,” Wesley said. “It was a bad deal the Legislature made. But the deal was made. The benefits were earned.”

When the Legislature in 1974 severed the link between pensions and incumbent salary increases, former state Treasurer Betts sued, essentially arguing Wesley’s logic. In 1978, the California Supreme Court unanimously upheld Betts’ position, allowing him, a handful of his colleagues and a few survivors to receive the higher benefits.

Should Proposition 57 pass, attorney Barbara Lang Betts says she may be back in court. “You cannot pass a law in this country that destroys constitutional rights,” she said.

State Sen. Dan McCorquodale (D-San Jose), chairman of the Senate Public Employment and Retirement Committee, which produced the amendment, said Proposition 57 “is certainly going to be a fine line in the courts.”

But the justice of Proposition 57, McCorquodale said, is unassailable, asserting: “Just the image that you’re paying somebody such a huge retirement, and so much more than their successors, it didn’t seem fair.”

WHAT PROPOSITION 57 WOULD DO

If Proposition 57 passes, it would block 17 former state constitutional officers (plus one retiring at the end of this year) or their spouses from receiving boosts in their retirement checks. Pensions would be capped at current levels--column 1--instead of jumping to presently allowable levels due as of next year--column 2.

Current Jan. 1987 Allowance Allowance Rep. Glenn Anderson, former lieutenant governor $46,668 $76,896 Bert Betts, former state treasurer 60,012 98,856 Mary Bonelli, widow of William Bonelli, former Board of Equalization member 34,944 51,768 Edmund G. (Pat) Brown, former governor 64,524 107,880 Sen. Alan Cranston, former state controller 59,532 98,076 Houston Flournoy, former state controller 56,568 99,912 Alberta Jordan, widow of Frank Jordan, former secretary of state 34,284 56,496 Virginia Knight, widow of former Gov. Goodwin Knight 27,804 46,500 Thomas Kuchel, former U.S. senator and controller 55,920 92,136 Justice Stanley Mosk, former state attorney general 53,712 84,636 Harold Powers, former lieutenant governor 61,116 100,692 Kathryn Reilly, widow of George Reilly, former Board of Equalization member 125,892 125,892 Richard Nevins, Board of Equalization member -- 181,368 Virginia Lynch, widow of former Atty. Gen. Thomas C. Lynch $34,536 $43,164 President Ronald Reagan, former governor 29,208 48,792 Howard Reinecke, former lieutenant governor 13,092 14,064 Wilson Riles, former state schools superintendent $18,348 $22,764 Evelle J. Younger, former state attorney general 29,676 38,196