The California State University Board of Trustees and executives are violating state law when they give CSU executives a one-year paid leave after their departure from the system, charges a suit filed by California Faculty Association President John Travis.
The suit attempts to stop a practice that has already given away six-figure payments of public dollars to an unknown number of former employees at the same time CSU continued making contributions on their behalf into the California Public Employees’ Retirement System (CalPERS).
CFA hopes to recapture funds for the CSU system by showing that the Executive Transition Program, which went into effect in 1992, violates California law that prohibits state employees from double-dipping in publicly funded retirement systems.
“Either the payments made under the Executive Transition Program constitute illegal gifts of public funds in violation of Articles 16 and 6 of the California Constitution, or they qualify as a publicly-funded retirement system,” reads the suit. If they’re not illegal gifts, then receipt of CalPERS benefits for the same service would constitute double-dipping “in violation of Section 20303(a) of the government code.”
Two of the defendants named in the case are Peter Smith and David Spence. Smith, the former president of CSU-Monterey Bay, received a salary of $157,932 after he left his position, while payments were made to CalPERS on his behalf. He also received a six-figure salary as assistant director general of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization in Paris.
David Spence, the former executive vice chancellor of the CSU system, received a $173,952 transitional salary after he left his position, plus CalPERS payments. At the same time, he earned a six-figure salary as executive director of the Southern Regional Education Board in Atlanta.
The lawsuit asks the court to determine whether payments under the Executive Transition Program constitute gifts of public funds. “Such a declaration is necessary and appropriate at this time in order to prevent further misuse of scarce public resources through the making of unlawful gifts,” says Travis.
The suit also seeks to prevent the system from “squandering the limited public resources of the state of California” in the future.