Author: lpsf

This wasn’t headline news, but should have been: In 2008, Deborah Vincent-James, former executive director of the Committee on Information Technology that qualified prospective city vendors, said in a court deposition that Ed Lee, then the city purchaser, told her to qualify a company called Government Computer Sales as a city contractor, after then-mayor Willie Brown had directed Lee to do an alternate evaluation process, according to a Feb. 14 article in the Chronicle.

The reason she was testifying about this is that the firm for whom Brown and Lee skirted the normal procedure for approving contractors, Government Computer Sales — which had hired a former legislative colleague of Willie Brown’s, Terry Goggin, as a lobbyist — was subsequently found to have done no work on improving the city’s building permit tracking system despite being paid $500,000 in fees for the job. Now it seems the head of the company has disappeared, after transferring a bunch of money to an offshore bank account.

The good news is that Lee has been called to testify as a witness at the trial that’s arisen out of all this. Dare we hope that the seemingly teflon-coated Brown will be forced to do so as well? The bad news is that Vincent-James is dead, according to the Chron — the article left unstated whether she died under suspicious circumstances or not — the $500,000 is gone, and the City and two other companies that may or may not have been innocently caught up in the mess are suing and counter-suing. So we may never get the full story, and taxpayers will likely be on the hook for more legal fees.

But while the possibility of a sitting mayor having to explain his corruption under oath remains enticing, we should perhaps be more concerned with watching the current big pots of honey sitting around that look ripe for raiding by the corrupt.

Current Honeypot #1 is undoubtedly the multi-billion dollar Central Subway project. But at least that boondoggle is highly visible, having been a major point of contention during the recent mayoral campaign. With any luck it may yet be cancelled. Honeypot #2 appears to be the one that Oracle billionaire Larry Ellison wants to get his fingers into, namely the rights to control and develop a bunch of valuable property owned by the Port of San Francisco as part of the America’s Cup deal. Fortunately, that too is attracting a lot of attention and controversy.

Significantly less well known is what may possibly be Honeypot #3 — the “emergency communications network” that the Board of Supervisors just approved last week at a cost of $100 million. Apparently $50 million of the cost will be paid for with “free”, use-it-or-lose-it federal funding, so of course the Board thought nothing of spending the money and letting the American taxpayers foot the bill. The obvious question of course is why it should cost $100 million to enable key people within our 49-square-mile jurisdiction to talk to each other in the event of an emergency.

But it gets better (or worse)…

 As reported by the Examiner's Josh Sabatini (Feb. 8, page 11), "Despite Tuesday's move, The City is still planning to pay for two other emergency radio systems worth tens of millions of dollars -- one is for MUNI and the other is an overhaul of the current push-to-talk radio system used by police and other first responders."

In other words, they’re spending tens of millions of dollars on radios and walkie-talkies. Special ones for different agencies, so that nobody steps on anybody else’s bureaucratic turf. Then a few years from now, we’ll read an article about how much time has gone by since 9/11, and how government personnel still can’t communicate with each other.

But wait, there’s more!

“The network infrastructure would be paid for through grant funding,” the Examiner article continues, “but San Francisco would pay about $260,000 annually for the antenna sites and staffing. The unknown cost is the purchase of radios and in-vehicle modems or computers, and a $43-per-month charge for each user.”

So they’re spending $100 million on an emergency communications system for which they will still have to pay $43 per user per month. And tens of millions more on two other emergency radio systems. Just in case the $100 million contract didn’t produce enough overhead to satisfy everybody on the take, I suppose.

Only Supervisor Kim voted against this travesty. Supervisor Campos was absent, and the other nine Supervisors — most supposed “moderates” — gave it the nod. Please remember this the next time you’re tempted to blame all the fiscal irresponsibility in San Francisco on the “progressives”.

The Libertarian Party of  San Francisco at its Aug. 13. 2011 busines meeting made the following recommendations on the San Francisco ballot initiatives on the November ballot.

 

A School Bonds – Vote NO

B Road Repaving and Street Safety Bonds – Vote NO

C City Retirement and Health Care Benefits – Vote NO

D Retirement Benefits for City Employees – Vote YES

E Amending or Repealing Legislative Initiative Ordinances and Declarations of Policy – Vote NO

F Campaign Consultant Disclosures – Vote NO

G Sales Tax – Vote NO

H School District Student Assignment System – No Recommendation

 

Ron Getty

Vice Chair

Chair Initiatives Committee

Traditionally, folks do not turn out in good numbers to vote in municipal elctions, so all kinds of interesting proposals turn into City law to the surprise of many.  Municipal elections are coming up on November 8, 2011.  Have no doubt that whatever local measures pass into law will affect each and every one of us one way or another.   Please make your voice heard — vote.  The Libertarian Party of San Francisco has made its recommendations — all on the basis of aiming for smaller government responsive to the voters, less bureaucracy, and more individual freedoms.

Pride Week is over, and Libertarians were there.  Over the years, Outright Libertarians have volunteered their time and resources to staff a vendor booth at Pride.  Not only to outreach, but also to listen.  How does a Libertarian respond to someone who says she would never vote Libertarian because she needs the protection from discrimination that government affords.  Not an easy question, and the most sincre response we could offer was to suggest that if she would want to marry her partner, the government would simply say “no.”  How much time does a staff at the booth dedicate to a teen who realizes that what we are saying is not taught at his school — all the time it takes to answer all his questions.  How about the comment that Libertarians are “all white and rich?”  Oh, that’s an easy one–just look closely at who you are talking to!!  So many stopped at the Outright booth, each with a story, a comment, a question.   We are grateful for the opportunity to meet and talk to all of them.

 

Pride Outreach Team

 

 

 

 

 

 

So the other day I called up the Elections Department to check up on the procedures and schedule to run for mayor…

 

 

Turns out that the filing fee you have to pay just to get on the ballot is over $5000! Having to pay $500 to run for School Board or Supervisor was bad enough, and outrageous in its own right, but $5K is completely insane! How many of us have an extra five grand lying around to spend on top of the opportunity cost of taking time out of your life for a political campaign to try to help bring a little sanity to the city you love?

Oh sure, they give you the option of submitting voter signatures instead of paying the fee. But each signature you get (which is not just a signature — signers have to print their names and the addresses where they registered to vote as well as signing, and if any of that information is wrong or invalid, the signature doesn’t count), only reduces that fee by $.50. So I’d have to get over 10,000 signatures to totally offset the fee. Furthermore, they only give you a little over a month in which to gather these signatures. In practical terms, it’s next to impossible — I don’t know of one candidate who’s done it.

The hypocrisy alone is galling. City officials go after businesses with hefty fines for violating their wage control laws, but anyone helping a candidate gather signatures to run for mayor would be effectively working for much less than San Francisco’s government-mandated minimum wage of $9.75 an hour. Assuming you and your helpers were able to get a valid voter signature every 6 minutes (which in my experience circulating petitions is optimistic), you’re still only making the equivalent of $5.00 an hour. At that rate, you’d need to work over 1,000 hours (or 50 hours a week for 20 weeks) just to pay the filing fee to get on the ballot — never mind the money you’d need to run a visible campaign.

Meanwhile, the so-called “leading candidates” for mayor — you know, the sitting politicians, former politicians, and millionaires — who can round up at least 250 wealthy friends and lobbyists-in-waiting willing to pony up $100 or more a piece, can qualify for public matching funds at taxpayer expense. In fact they’re already raking in your cash. According to yesterday’s San Francisco Examiner, the Ethics Commission “expects candidates to gobble up $4.7 million from the general fund by the end of June.”

But if you’re poor and want to run for mayor without having been voted “likely to succeed”, your choices are as follows:

(1) Find one or more wealthy people willing to foot the bill

(2) You and a bunch of your supporters take time out from whatever you normally do to bust your butts for a month working for less than minimum wage

(3) Forget about it

The Democrats who run San Francisco could easily change this if they wanted to. All it would take is a vote by the Board of Supervisors. If they really cared about democracy, equality and representing the poor, these outrageous “pay-to-play” filing fees would be gone yesterday! But to them, those ideals are mere platitudes to which they pay lip service, the way Republicans talk about the Constitution and limited government — and that’s on a good day.

The most we’re likely to see is some handwringing in the Guardian about the influence of money in politics, and then the paper will probably go on to endorse the establishment candidates anyway.

No, if you want to learn their real attitude toward the poor, their real commitment to democracy and a political system not dominated by the wealthy, go down to City Hall and tell them you want to run for mayor, but don’t have $5000 to fork over and can’t afford to take a month off from your job to gather signatures at half minimum wage. See how seriously they take your concerns.

*       *      *

If you’d like to verify the claims I’ve made in this post for yourself, feel free to contact the San Francisco Department of Elections. Their number is (415) 554-4375, or you can email them at Campaign.Services@sfgov.org .

 

 

 

As in 1989-1990, when the Berlin Wall came down and former vassal states and imprisoned peoples in the U.S.S.R. were declaring their independence in rapid succession, it is clear that we are witnessing a momentous historical shift in the Middle East. Since the Soviet empire’s collapse, this has been the region of the world most dominated by authoritarian regimes — many of them, sadly, supported by the United States government.

 

But suddenly a crack has opened, and freedom is rushing in. It began in Tunisia, where events that have led to regionwide uprisings that have as of this date toppled two dictators and look set to topple a third, were set in motion by the mistreatment of an ordinary fruit vendor, Mohamed Bouazizi. Interestingly, it was a confrontation with a low-level government inspector, arrogantly enforcing regulations on the entrepreneur, that provoked him to set himself on fire and become the martyr who rocked the Arab world.

Never doubt the power of a single individual to change the course of history! 

Credit for inspiring the transnational uprisings also goes to the free speech outlet WikiLeaks, which played an important role in exposing the corrupt and self-serving behavior of many regimes through the release of large numbers of secret U.S. government diplomatic cables, along with Al Jazeera, the Qatar-based news service which has been instrumental in spreading fair and timely information about successive revolts to the “Arab street”.

 

Libertarians in the United States, meanwhile, haven’t just been watching and doing nothing. Many of us are speaking out in news forums, participating in protests, and trying to do what we can to organize help for the brave people standing up to tyrants on the streets of Cairo, Benghazi, Sana, and other cities in the Arab world. I took the photos accompanying this story at a San Francisco protest in solidarity with the people of Egypt on February 5.

 

Meanwhile, a larger effort has been launched, spearheaded by super-activist Ernest Hancock of FreedomsPhoenix.com, with the help of national Libertarian Party chair Mark Hinkle, Libertarian leader Mary Ruwart and others, to get libertarian materials into the hands of pro-freedom activists in the Middle East, including Arabic language translations of the International Society for Individual Liberty’s terrific 8-minute animated video on the philosophy of liberty (to watch the English version, click on the graphic that appears on the left side of this page).

 

 

You can help this effort in support of freedom across the Middle East by making a contribution here.

 

---

 

 

 

Well, this item in the Examiner caused a few people to look at me strangely on BART when I burst out in hysterical laughter.

Ballots found floating in a pond at the Palace of Fine Arts! This is too rich for words. Where will elections materials turn up next, floating in the penguin exhibit at the zoo!?

 

According to a story on SFGate, the alleged ballot thief is a registered Republican known for representing himself in court and who has a website complaining about the court system. 

 

So if this Karl Bradfield Nicholas is guilty of the charges against him, it’s possible he is just a lone wingnut and not part of any vote fraud   scheme. It’s easy to see how dealing with the legal system on a regular basis could

make somebody crazy, and some of these Republicans may not be wrapped too tightly to begin with.

 

But that still leaves this other weird story…

…in which a local TV news producer apparently happened across an automatic ballot-counting machine on Wednesday afternoon on a sidewalk in the Tenderloin.

Supposedly just a harmless accident, and no connection to the case of the ballot thief, according to an election commissioner. Maybe so, but I’d like a full explanation anyway, if you don’t mind.

Meanwhile, the votes on the 75 stolen and water-logged ballots may not be counted, according to SF Weekly (http://blogs.sfweekly.com/thesnitch/2010/11/stolen_ballots_fished_out_of_p.php) since the “chain of custody” on them was broken.

That’s all well and good, but anyone who votes at that precinct and can produce a ballot stub that matches the number on one of the stolen ballots should be allowed to re-vote. Lone wingnut or not, innocent voters should not be disenfranchised over this “irregularity” if there is any way to reliably determine whose ballots were affected.

And speaking of integrity of the vote, I’d like to know exactly how the “chain of custody” and vote counting procedures at City Hall work, wouldn’t you? More than that, I’d like to be able to watch them myself. Is there any reason why every step of this process cannot or should not be conducted under the surveillance of video cameras, streaming live to multiple independent websites accessible to the public and members of the media? 

 

Call me paranoid if you want to, but somehow I’m less than 100% confident that elections in this town are being run as tightly and professionally as they ought to be. A requirement that the entire operation take place under the camera lens might be just the thing to reveal any other irregularities we ought to know about!

---

 

 

There is some good news and some bad news coming out of City Hall.  The good news is that the Board of Supervisors will be considering a proposal introduced by Supervisor Bevan Dufty to name the pedestrian plaza on 17th and Castro “Jane Warner Plaza” in honor of a Police Special Patrol Officer who served The Castro well and bravely.  The bad news is the Board of Supervisors might be meeting in the near future to find a way to dismantle the Patrol Specials — because they are cost effective to private clients who pay them?  Go figure.  It seems as if the effots to eliminate the Patrol Specials are from the perspective of a taxpayer, misguided at best and irresponsible at worst.  From the perspective of a Libertarian, these efforts are additionally a blatant assault on the free market.

 

A recent study of the Patrol Specials conducted at taxpayers’ expense by Public Safety Strategies Group LLC (PSSG), a Massachusetts based management consulting firm, reiterates the lack of understanding of the economic challenges facing San Francisco, the true costs of government provided safety services, and the solutions that private safety personnel can provide.  Let alone PSSG’s mischaracterization of the Patrol Specials as mere security guards existing at the sufferance of the SFPD.

 

The Patrol Specials have been part of the City’s Charter since the Gold Rush days, and they are unique in our Nation’s safety alternatives.  Unlike security guards, they are not stationary, but patrol the neighborhoods of the clients that hire them, providing safety to everyone in the area.   Unlike security guards, Patrol Specials receive training equivalent to that of City police.  Most importantly, unlike security guards, they will remain a safety personnel alternative unless and until the citizens of San Francisco vote in a local election to remove them from the City Charter.

 

Taxpayers need to be wary about attempts to remove the Patrol Specials from service to The City.  The fact that Patrol Specials are not paid out of City funds is crucial in today’s economically challenging times.  However, an even more dire reason taxpayers need to support Patrol Specials is the fact that during more affluent times, San Franciscans voted for very generous pay and pension packages for The City’s Police and Firefighters.   The City Civil Grand Jury in their report of June 25, 2010, warned San Franciscans that “Pension and health benefits enjoyed by San Francisco retirees are unsustainable.”  A good chunk of this unsustainable liability stems from Police and Firefighter pensions.  Interestingly, the study by the Public Safety Strategies Group mentioned above chose instead to focus on $303,838 estimated yearly cost to the SFPD, and taxpayers, of the general oversight provided to the Patrol Specials by the SFPD, such as “Liaison annual salary (Sergean) full time, $126,282.”  (Please note the annual salary quoted here!)

 

Libertarians are particularly sensitive to government encroachment in the free market and to restrictions of fair competition.   The SFPD valuable and appreciated service to the public as responders to violent crimes against person and property is not in competition to the Patrol Specials.  The SFPD 10(b) program is.  This is an “overtime program, which allows the use of uniformed police officers as security personnel at special events, sports matches, construction sites, filming sites, dance clubs, department stores.” (Retrieved September 1, 2009 from the San Francisco Government website by the Independent Institute for their report on the Patrol Specials dated December 21, 2009.)   This subsidized overtime (pay at time and a half) program, coupled with efforts to dismantle the Patrol Specials by what appears to be any means necessary, might be construed as unfair competition.  The California Unfair Competition Law (Business and Professional Code Section 17200) addresses not only private firms, but “other organizations and persons”.

 

It is true that entities that hire police officers under the 10(b) program pay a fee, which goes into The City’s coffers.  However, given the generous pay of police officers, and given the fact they are paid overtime for 10(b) program work, renders it doubtful that taxpayers are benefited economically by this program.  Additionally, taxpayers may be viewed as further injured by the monopolistic nature of the program.

 

The Patrol Special’s uniqueness and long history constitute treasures San Franciscans need to support.  The City’s misguided efforts at improving safety by eliminating cost effective safety services need to be discouraged.

 

ADDENDUM Posted October 7, 2010:  To their credit, The City’s Board of Supervisors passed the Resolution to name the plaza on 17th and Castro “Jane Warner Plaza.” 

 

ADDENDUM Posted November 27, 2010:  Jane Warner Plaza is a pleasant spot in the Castro, worthy of a visit.  However, at present it lacks a proper plaque that would do justice to Officer Jane’s dedication to the neighborhood.  So, the San Francisco Patrol Special Police has set up a fund to co-sponsor with the City a memorial plaque.  The fund has been established at the San Francisco Police Credit Union, P.O. Box 22219, San Francisco, CA 94122-0219.  The Patrols, the Libertarian Party of San Francisco, and the folks in the Castro who knew Officer Jane hope you will sent your check made payable to “Officer Jane Warner Memorial Fund.” 

Vote NO on A: Earthquake Retrofit Bond ($46M) Vote YES on B: City Retirement and Health Plans Vote NO on C: Mayor Appearances at Meetings Vote NO on E: Election Day Voter Registration Vote YES on G: Transit Operator Wages Vote NO on H: Elected Officials on Political Cmte Vote NO on I: Saturday Voting Vote NO on J: Hotel Tax Clarification and Increase Vote NO on K: Hotel Tax Clarification / Definitions Vote NO on L: Sitting or Lying on Sidewalks Vote NO on M: Community Policing and Foot Patrols Vote NO on N: Real Property Transfer Tax Vote NO on AA: Vehicle Registration Fee

      
LIBERTARIAN PARTY OF SAN FRANCISCO

NOVEMBER 2, 2010 OFFICIAL BALLOT RECOMMENDATIONS

 

PROP. AA – Vehicle Registration Fee – County Transportation Authority

 

Adds a $10 vehicle registration fee to fund transportation related projects.

 

Vote: Yes – 0  No – 7

 

BONDS

 

PROP. A Earthquake Retrofit Bond ($46,150,000) Mayor Newsom

 

$46 million bond to provide funds for seismic upgrade for some 2,800 multi-story residential buildings built before 974 and deemed to be soft story and likely to collapse in an earthquake.

 

Vote: Yes – 0  No – 7

 

CHARTER AMENDMENTS

 

PROP. B City Retirement and Health Plans – Jeff Adachi

 

Requires City employees to contribute towards their retirement fund

 

Vote: Yes – 6 No – 1

 

PROP. C Mayoral Appearances at Board Meetings – Chris Daly

 

The Mayor will attend one regularly scheduled meeting of the Board of Supervisors each month.

 

Vote: Yes – 2 No – 6

 

PROP. D Non-Citizen Voting in School Board Elections –David Chiu + 8 Sups.

 

Allow parents of children who are not citizens to vote in SFUSD board elections.

 

Vote: Yes – 4 No – 2 No Position – 2

 

PROP. E Election Day Voter Registration – Ross Mirkarimi + 7 Supervisors

 

Allows election day voter registration for local elections only.

 

Vote: Yes – 0 No – 6  No Position – 2

 

PROP. F Health Service Board Elections – Sean Elsbernd + 9 Supervisors

 

To shorten on a one time basis the term of 1 Health board member from 5 years to three years and one member from 5 years to two years so the terms will expire in pairs in the future and can be filled in the same Board election.

 

Vote: Yes – 0 No – 0   No Position – 8

 

 

PROP. G Transit Operator Wages – aka Fix Muni Now – Sean Elsbernd

 

Requires Muni transit workers to negotiate their pay, benefits and work rules locally. Pay will not be based on average of two highest paid transit workers nationally.

 

Vote: Yes – 7 No – 0

 

ORDINANCES

 

PROP. H  Local Elected Officials on Political Party Committees – Gavin Newsom

 

Elected officials would not be allowed to be a member of County Central Committee.

 

Vote: Yes – 0 No – 5 No Position – 3

 

PROP. I  Saturday Voting – By signature gathering

 

Trial program to open 400 Saturday polling booths funds to be voluntarily donated.

 

Vote: Yes – 1 No – 6  No Position – 1

 

PROP. J  Hotel Tax Clarification and Temporary Increase – By signature gathering

 

A 2% increase in the hotel tax to be sun-set in 2014.

 

Vote: Yes – 0   No – 7

 

PROP. K  Hotel Tax Clarification and Definitions – Gavin Newsom

 

The City hotel tax will apply to all hotel rooms regardless of how the rooms are reserved or occupied. On-line or airline reservation of rooms will apply to hotel tax.

 

Vote: Yes – 0 No – 7

 

PROP. L Sitting or Lying on Sidewalks – Gavin Newsom

 

No sit/lie on any public sidewalk citywide. Warnings will be given and those needing medical or mental assistance will be provided that assistance.

 

Yes – 2 No – 5  No Position – 1

 

PROP. M  Community Policing and Foot Patrols – John Avalos + 6 Supervisors

 

Each district police station will implement a beat foot patrol program consulting with local residents and store owners.  Special Note: If this ordinance receives more votes than sit/lie – sit/lie will not be implemented.

 

Vote: Yes – 2 No – 5 No Position – 1

 

PROP. N  Real Property Transfer Tax – John Avalos + 7 Supervisors

 

An increase of the real property transfer tax.

 

Vote: Yes – 0  No – 7

On June 24, 2010, the Civil Grand Jury made the press release below.  The role of the Civil Grand Jury is to investigate departments and agencies of The City and make recommendations.  However, it is up to “We the People” to implement the recommendations at the ballot box.  We either ignore the storm warnings, or we take action.  If the latter, more information can be obtained at the website referenced on the Grand Jury Report:  www.californiapensionreform.com

San Francisco Civil Grand Jury warns of impending ‘pension tsunami’

 

PENSION TSUNAMI: The Billion-Dollar Bubble

During recent periods of economic prosperity our City officials, along with compassionate voters, created relatively generous pensions for many City employees. With the recent downturn in our economy and loss of millions in value from the City’s pension fund, these rapidly increasing costs threaten to jeopardize the City’s financial future. The Office of the Controller estimates that the funding of pension and retiree health benefit costs for fiscal year 2010 is $413 million, which is expected to rise to $1 billion in 2015, approximately a third of the City’s current General Fund. The expected General Fund contribution, which is approximately 61% of the total pension and retiree health benefits costs, will increase annually by $60 million for the next five years.  This shift in resources may drastically impact funding to other basic services, affecting all San Franciscans.

Pension Pie: The typical San Francisco public servant will receive a modest pension after many years of service and the Grand Jury is grateful for their dedication and hard work. However, we note that 24% of retired firefighters, 12% of retired police officers, and 1% of miscellaneous (non-safety) employees receive retirement benefits of over $100,000 a year. The California Pension Reform website designates these as “the $100K Club,” and San Francisco has more than 900 retirees in this category.

Forgotten Proposition H: In 2002, San Francisco voters passed Proposition H, a charter amendment changing the formula for Police and Firefighter retirement benefits and mandating that, should the City’s contribution rate to the pension fund exceed 0%, the City and Safety employees’ representatives should “meet and confer” on a “material pension cost-sharing arrangement.”  The City’s contribution rate has exceeded 0% since fiscal 2004-05, yet the Jury found no evidence that the City and Safety employee bargaining agents established such a cost-sharing arrangement. The Jury has recommended that the City Attorney seek a court order requiring the SFERS Board to comply with the City Charter.

The Swap: Since 2002 the City has “picked up” the employees’ 7.5% pension contributions for members of the Service Employee International Union (SEIU) Local 1021 and other smaller collective bargaining units (at least 9,883 employees). In May 2010, the City and SEIU Local 1021 entered into an agreement that employees pay their own 7.5% contributions, and, in return, that the City increase the employees’ base wage by 6% or approximately $60 million, effective July 1, 2010. This “swap” was described as “cost neutral” for budgetary purposes. However, the City’s negotiation team apparently failed to consider that the $60 million swap would significantly impact the City’s future pension obligations.

Pension Spiking and Pyramiding: Pension Spiking is an end-of-career promotion or an excessive raise to increase or “spike” workers’ final pensionable income during the last year of employment, the base period for calculating the pension amount. The Jury found that seventy-one Firefighter retirees received a 10% or more increase in pensionable income in their final year before retirement — approximately 68% of the total number of Firefighters who retired over the past 22 months. There were few instances of spiking among Police or other retirees for that period. The Jury also found instances of pension-pyramiding among some nursing supervisors, for example. These retirees have been allowed to hold two concurrent jobs, resulting in dual pensions. The Jury recommends that the City take steps to curb abuses from pension spiking and pension-pyramiding by limiting the final pensionable income an employee can claim at retirement.