Peduto seeks city pension fund divestment in gas, guns and private prisons |

Peduto seeks city pension fund divestment in gas, guns and private prisons

Bob Bauder
Pittsburgh Mayor Bill Peduto.

Pittsburgh Mayor Bill Peduto wants city pension fund overseers to pull investments from companies dealing in fossil fuels, firearms and for-profit prisons, a strategy financial experts say could weaken the funds and result in lower annual returns.

Peduto last week penned a letter to the Comprehensive Municipal Trust Fund board requesting a pull out from the three economic sectors. Market experts say using pension funds to accomplish policy goals is risky business and can cause a loss in annual returns.

“The employees of the City of Pittsburgh and the residents we serve are being negatively impacted by the stressors of climate change, senseless acts of gun violence that are perpetrated upon our residents and public safety officials, and an incarceration system that is enabling systemic inequality,” Peduto wrote. “These are areas that our financial means should not perpetuate.”

Pension board Chairman Ralph Sicuro said he was aware of the risks.

“I have great concerns over that, and I have a fiduciary responsibility as does every member on the board to make decisions in the best interest of the fund,” he said. “If there are alternatives to any potential investments we have that will do as well, then I’m open to a potential change, but right now my position is that we need to do what’s in the best interest of the fund.”

Pittsburgh City Council in 2010 addressed underfunded pension plans by dedicating $735 million in parking tax revenue over 30 years to avoid state takeover of the funds. Pittsburgh at the time had about 30 percent of funding needed to cover about $1 billion in pension payments for future and retired police officers, firefighters and municipal workers.

The Peduto administration has increased annual pension funding since the mayor took office in 2013. As of March, Pittsburgh had about 58 percent of the cash necessary to cover $1.3 billion in pension liabilities, according to the pension board website. The invested portfolio totaled about $463.2 million.

Sicuro said he’s instructed fund advisers Marquette Associates Inc. to gather information on how much is invested in those companies and issue a report during the board’s September meeting. He was unsure if the board would vote on the issue during the meeting.

This isn’t the first time Peduto has sought to pull pension funds from fossil fuel companies. In 2017, he reiterated his position that the city should divest of that industry by 2030 as part of a commitment to reduce its carbon footprint.

Chris Fiore of the Chicago-based economic consulting firm Compass Lexecon and co-author of a 2017 report on fossil fuel divestment, told the Tribune-Review that it could cost the city $358,000 to $478,000 in annual pension fund returns.

“It’s purely a symbolic move that has no impact on the climate,” he said at the time.

Peduto was in New York on Wednesday and unavailable for comment.

Dan Gilman, his chief of staff, said the administration believes it can develop a divestment strategy that would not harm the funds.

“Climate change, gun violence and and the profitization of our criminal justice system are fundamental issues that all cities and governments and individuals should be taking on. At times there is a financial cost to that and it’s one that we believe is well worth it,” Gilman said.

“We believe there are ways to invest in renewable energy and other investments that wouldn’t cost taxpayers money,” Gilman added. “We do have a fiduciary responsibility to the taxpayers and our employees, but also a moral and social responsibility to the taxpayers as well.”

Bob Bauder is a Tribune-Review staff writer. You can contact Bob at 412-765-2312, [email protected] or via Twitter .

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.