Scott Peters Lies About Role in Pension Scheme – But Independent Auditors Catch Him
Peters issues statement in 2014 that deceives voters the same way he was found “negligent” for illegally deceiving bondholders in 2004
San Diego – Scott Peters’ pattern of deception continued Monday with his campaign issuing a statement with the outrageous claim that Peters had nothing to do with the pension crisis that almost bankrupt San Diego. Peters even goes as far as trying to leave San Diegans with the impression that he “wasn’t on the City Council” that created the crisis.
Independent auditors, however, document the truth about Scott Peters’ significant role in San Diego’s pension crisis.
FACT: Peters Voted FOR the Pension Scheme (2002)
In a stunning refutation to his deceptive statement Monday, Scott Peters was on the City Council and voted in November 2002 for the now-infamous pension spiking scheme that raided the city’s retirement funds while spiking city officials’ pensions to unsustainable levels. (San Diego City Ordinance 19121) In fact, independent auditors found Scott Peters engaged in an “illegal act” by underfunding the city’s pension system while spiking pension benefits.
FACT: Auditors Catch Scott Peters Deceiving Public on Pensions (2004)
Peters’ deceit and denial on pensions is nothing new. In fact, independent auditors found Scott Peters “negligent” for issuing “false and misleading” financial statements that attempted to hide the city’s pension crisis. Scott Peters approved $262 million in fraudulent bond disclosures that masked the city’s billion-dollar pension deficit from investors.
As a result of Peters’ deception, San Diego lost its credit rating and spent millions in legal and accounting fees before settling over the charge of securities fraud with the Securities and Exchange Commission.
FACT: Peters Continues Pattern of Deception and Denials (2004-present)
The DeMaio campaign released a compilation of numerous media citations of Scott Peters flat-out denying San Diego’s pension crisis and deceiving the public about his votes for spiking. The citations span a decade of deceit and denials.
“No matter how many lies he tries to tell today, the facts are irrefutable that Scott Peters voted to spike the pensions of city officials and then was found negligent by outside auditors for trying to hide his pension scheme from the public,” said DeMaio campaign spokesperson Dave McCulloch.
Peters’ statement came in response to the DeMaio campaign releasing its “Who Wants to Be A Millionaire” ad that documents the outrageous pension payouts Scott Peters helped create with his 2002 vote. View the Ad on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8bg1KxYLYNA
Tomorrow: Peters Pension Scheme Week continues…with another startling revelation on the crisis Scott Peters caused by spiking government pensions.
Comments 11
“Scott Peters’ pattern of deception continued Monday with his campaign issuing a statement with the outrageous claim that Peters had nothing to do with the pension crisis that almost bankrupt San Diego.”
Does anyone have the wording of the statement in question?
HQ: It sounds like the DeMaio campaign has a statement. Not seeing anything here…
http://www.scottpeters.com/in-the-news
We’ve asked.
T.A.,
I scanned the Peters’ campaign website and couldn’t find anything. DeMaio’s release doesn’t quote Peters’ statement either. If anyone knows exactly what Peters said, I would certainly be interested in reading it.
http://timesofsandiego.com/politics/2014/08/11/new-demaio-tv-ad-attacks-peters-city-pensions/
“Scott Peters wasn’t on the City Council when the pension problem began, but he was on the council that ended it. As council president, Peters worked with Mayor (Jerry) Sanders to enact a plan that will save the city $22 million per year and Carl DeMaio himself praised it at a City Hall news conference,” the spokesman said.”
Peters was on the Council. The Peters campaign is flat-out lying.
UB,
Thanks for finding the statement.
Peters is correct in saying he wasn’t on the Council that started the Pension problem. It was the 1996 City Council that passed Manager’s Proposal I that allowed the City to intentionally underfund the pension while raising benefits. So his statement is technically correct. However, Peters fails to mention that he was on the Council that continued (and it could be argued made worse) the Pension problem by passing Manager’s Proposal II in 2002.
As for the plan that saved the City $22 million, Peters is again correct and Jerry Sanders actually commended Peters for his efforts. Ironically, and in contrast to DeMaio’s ad, this pension reform actually ended (or at least seriously limited the opportunity for) pension spiking.
Hypocrisy Questioned claims Peters “actually ended or at least seriously limited the opportunity for pension spiking.”
WRONG.
Only DeMaio’s Prop B in 2012 had anything to do with ending pension spiking.
Peters voted for Pension Spiking with every vote he cast in favor of the Appropriations Ordinance which includes over 100 specialty pays and ad-on pays that city employees used to spike pensions.
DeMaio’s Prop B eliminated the pensionable status of specialty pays and moved the city to 401(k).
Nice try HP….nice try. Peters is caught on this one, and I presume we’ll see DeMaio play the pension card FAR FAR better than Bilbray in 2012.
Details,
Actually the Peters/Sanders fix eliminated, for the purpose of pension computation, many of those specialty pays. More importantly in terms of eliminated the games that were played to spike pensions, it changed the formula so that pensions are based on the average of the last three years salary instead of only the single highest paid year. But most important of all, in terms of savings to the City, this deal was negotiated with the Union and therefore affects all employees, not just the new hires who are the only ones affected by Prop B.
And back to your point that simply by voting for the annual budget, Peters was complicit in voting for pension spiking: If that is your contention, then you must agree that every previous Council Member and Mayor were equally complicit. I would like you to tell Pete Wilson that he is responsible for pension spiking or, even better, go on the Roger Hedgecock show and tell the host that it is his fault.
Just to refresh your memory, Peters talked about pension reform just like, in 2012, he talked about entitlement reform. When pressed for a plan, Peters offers general but math-challenged statements.
Do you know who championed the voter-led pension reform? DeMaio
Not only did Scott Peters blow it, he’s a toddler at the big kids table when it comes to fixing the mess he supported. I’m glad he now recognizes that.
Brian, et al,
Was that this “championed” pension reform?
http://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/politics/Carl-DeMaio-Scott-Peters-National-Journal-Pension-Double-Dipping-San-Diego-258926391.html
How precisely does the GOP celebrate the rightful withdraw of John Walsh for having committed the exact same offense as it’s candidate in the 52CD?
Brian,
I didn’t realize that you had posted the same comment on two different threads. Since you did, I guess I should also post my response on this thread as well:
Brian,
I am sorry that I tried to interject facts in the middle of your rant. I will endeavor not to do that again.
By the way, when are you going to answer Sam Ward’s question above?
By the way, part II, The Peters/Sanders plan saved the City tens of millions of dollars while Demaio’s voter-led “pension reform” has actually cost the city millions. Don’t believe me, ask any actuary.
Let me add one more, since it has been more than a week since you said DeMaio had a plan to reform Medicare and Social Security: Can you please enlighten us as to what that plan is, because as far as I can tell, Medicare and Social Security are the last thing Mr. DeMaio wants to talk about.
@Details Details…
Substantiate your allegation, please. Your comment will remain in moderation for the time being.