League of Women Voters of California Education Fund
	San Francisco County, CA November 4, 2008 Election
	Proposition G Allowing Retirement System Credit for Unpaid Parental Leave City of San Francisco Charter Amendment - Majority Approval Required Pass: 202,011 / 62.47% Yes votes ...... 121,354 / 37.53% No votes See Also: Index of all Propositions

Arguments For Proposition G

Arguments Against Proposition G

In 2003, our City's charter was amended to provide paid parental leave for City employees. As the amendment was written, employees who took parental leave before the amendment was passed were ineligible to earn retirement credits for their unpaid time off. This charter amendment is a solution for City employees who started their families prior to July 1, 2003. These employees will have the opportunity to buy back unpaid parental leave time and earn retirement credits for that time period. This charter amendment makes sure ALL San Francisco employees benefit from the 2003 charter amendment, regardless of when they chose to build a family. Proposition G has NO cost to the taxpayers and applies to both male and female employees. It is a solution that benefits everyone. Join us in voting YES on Proposition G to bring fairness and equality to our City employees. Supervisor Alioto-Pier Supervisor Ammiano Supervisor Chu Supervisor Dufty Supervisor Maxwell Supervisor McGoldrick Supervisor Mirkarimi Rebuttal to Arguments For The City frequently changes the benefits that it offers to its employees. If the City intended to extend the July 1, 2003 paid parental leave benefits to employees who had taken unpaid parental leave prior to July 1, 2003, the City would have specifically provided for the retroactive application of the paid parental leave charter amendment. It is inappropriate to use an amendment to the City's pension plan to provide retroactive pension entitlements that did not exist before the City improved the parental leave benefits for its employees. Proposition G looks to the City's pension plan to remedy a problem created by a change in the City's personnel policies. It also promises that there will be no additional pension cost passed on to the City as a result of the proposed pension changes. The City's retirement board cannot guarantee that the Proposition G benefit changes will not cost the City money over the long term. Do not open the door to relying on the City's pension plan to solve problems created by changes in City personnel policies. Vote NO on Proposition G. Aaron Peskin, President, Board of Supervisors Sean R. Elsbernd, Supervisor District 7

Proposition G would fundamentally change an underlying premise of the City's retirement plan + that City employees earn retirement credit based on the employees' paid service to the City. This measure creates the first circumstance under the City's retirement plan where an employee could purchase time not actually worked as service for retirement purposes. Further, the use of the City's retirement plan to cure a perceived disparity created by the City's personnel policies is a misuse of the retirement trust. The City frequently changes or improves benefits available to its employees. This proposal creates a precedent whereby the voters could be asked to remedy a disparity in benefits that result from future changes to employee benefits by again requiring the City's retirement plan to retroactively recognize pension entitlements that did not exist before the change in employee benefits. The concept of "no cost to the City" is a fiction. If this proposal is approved, the retirement board cannot guarantee that over time there will be no additional cost passed on to the City as a result of these purchases, even though the retirement board will make every effort to establish the cost to purchase these periods of unpaid parental leave using sound actuarial methods. Do not undermine the integrity of the City's retirement plan by using it to remedy problems created by changes in the City's personnel policy. Vote NO on G. Aaron Peskin, President, Board of Supervisors Sean R. Elsbernd, Supervisor District 7 Rebuttal to Arguments Against Working mothers are a majority in the United States, with nearly two-thirds of women back on the job by their child's first birthday. Yet we still have not caught up to support the unprecedented diversity of roles modern women take on in a single day. The "disparity" that the opponents refer to as "perceived" is absolutely real. As a working mother, I cheered when the 2002 voter mandate repaired the inequity in our City's retirement plan, only to find that some working families had been left out. Proposition G does not represent the first time our City has honored those who serve their communities by allowing them to buy back time. When San Franciscans leave for the military, we rightfully allow them to purchase time back towards their retirement. Having a baby and starting a family is no less noble. We will not have real equality until a woman's retirement is not jeopardized by pregnancy. Regardless of what Proposition G's opponents may claim, Proposition G specifically amends the City's charter to state that only when "all costs are received by the Retirement System" from the employee will retirement credit be awarded. Proposition G sets no new precedent, costs taxpayers NOTHING and provides working families with the retirement equity they deserve. Just like the University of California and the California Public Employees' retirement programs, Proposition G repairs this gap in our City's retirement policy WITHOUT additional cost to taxpayers. Support working mothers, fathers and families. YES on Proposition G. Supervisor Alioto-Pier