CalPERS muzzles critics. The following editorial appeared in the Sacramento Bee on May 25, 1999. The editorial references a “technical violation of board rules” by then Chairman William Crist. Actually, it was a clear violation of the rules, which prohibited changes to candidate statement after submission. No candidate in the history of CalPERS had ever been allowed to change anything in their statement, not even correct small grammatical errors. With the permission of staff, Mr. Crist was allowed to change his statement to address ethical concerns about him that I had raised in my statement. The election was not overturned because CalPERS rules required proof the results of an illegally conducted election would have been different had the rules not been violated. Proof might be obtained in a case of ballot stuffing but not candidate statement rewriting. How can you prove results would have been different in a fair election?
Addendum to CalPERS muzzles critics. Two of those later named in a bribery scandal also voted to muzzle candidates. (As bribery case continues, CalPERS reaps profits from tainted investments, Sacramento Bee, July 24, 2014.) The growing corruption I alluded to in my campaign was real.
Now I am delighted to learn Michael Flaherman, the only CalPERS director elected by members who stood against the effort by the CalPERS Board to muzzle critics, is running in the upcoming election. See Critic of Wall Street Fees to Leave Calpers Board and my comments in the May 19, 2017 WSJ. If elected, Flaherman will be independent and effective. He has my endorsement, without reservation. Continue Reading →