To: opinion@sacbee.com
From: James McRitchie <jm@corpgov.net>
Subject: High Living at PERS
Date: Fri, 13 Feb 1998 18:26:22 -0800
"High Living at PERS" must end but the Bee is right, Board members shouldn't be prohibited from all contact with those doing business at PERS. However, when investments are under current consideration by the System, Board members should be prohibited from all contact with the businesses representatives outside the formal context of Board or committee meetings. In addition, there should be full disclosure of all campaign or charitable contributions to, or on behalf of, Board members and of gifts valued at over $40. Disclosures should be made by Board members, as well as by the businesses.
Additional questions could be asked. Why has the PERS administrative budget increased by 50% in two years? Are dozens of $475 coat racks symbolic of other excesses? If PERS 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 as alleged by Charlie Oates? 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?
Board members at PERS are a little like subatomic particles; they appear to behave differently when observed. The Board only reformed its closed session policy after the Bee published Paul Schnitt's articles on the Hicks Muse deal. Keep up the coverage.
James McRitchie
Contact: 
jm@perswatch.net