Why are these men smiling? New Haven Peace Commission Chair Al Marder (left) and East Rock Alderman Ed Mattison were on opposite sides of a proposal before the Board of Aldermen Monday night in favor of pension fund divestment from corporations that profit from nuclear weapons production. But they say they’ll be on the same side of another divestment resolution when it comes to the board.
Several members of the board engaged in passionate debate about whether the resolution, put forward by the city’s Peace Commission, was worth debating, or, worse, would hurt the board’s credibility. That’s because the board has no control over how city workers’ pension funds are invested (or divested) —” that power belongs to the city’s Pension Board.
Mattison was opposed for another reason as well. “It’s important for the board to maintain its credibility, that the things we do somehow fit into some serious effort to change something,” he said. “There’s no national effort to divest from large American manufacturers involved in nuclear weapons, so the city, in a sense, is going it alone. I think that’s an irresponsible thing to do.”
Other members of the board, like Dolores Colon (pictured), argued just as passionately in favor of the resolution, harking back to the city’s support of a similar resolution urging divestment of funds in U.S. companies that operated in apartheid South Africa. That was part of a national movement that hastened the fall of apartheid.
Marder was positively beaming after the vote, which was a lopsided 18 in favor, 6 opposed, with two abstentions. The resolution identifies the “Dirtiest Dozen” corporations that profit from the design or manufacture of nuclear weapons. It calls on the board to “request” (a change from the original “instruct”) that the city’s pension boards to determine whether any city pension funds are invested in any of these companies, and if so, to divest from them.
In response to Mattison’s critique, Marder responded (pictured, shown confabbing with Westville Alderwoman Ina Silverman), “How does a national movement start? It doesn’t start spontaneously everywhere; we have to start it. This is historic, and I’m very proud of the Board of Aldermen.” New Haven, of course, has a long history of taking positions on national and international issues that critics say are outside the purview of alderpersons and mayors —” issues like the Vietnam War, the war in Iraq, and apartheid.
The vote Monday night was on the original proposal brought by the Peace Commission (with a one-word change from “instruct” to “request” to reflect acknowledgement of the autonomy of the pension board). A substitute proposal suggested by Mattison and others was more general. It called on the city to appoint a committee, consisting of members of the pension boards and other city officials, to develop a socially responsible investment policy. Mattison said that proposal will now come up for a vote at a future meeting. He intends to support it, and the Peace Commission supports it as well.
Jerome Sagnella, payroll and pension administrator for the city, and chairperson of CERF, the City Employees’ Retirement Fund, says CERF has investments totaling $1.6 million in several of the “Dirtiest Dozen” —” Alliant, Boeing, General Dynamics, IBM, Lockheed Martin, Mitsubishi, Raytheon and Seimens.
He said the only divestment issues that have been passed are against South African apartheid in the 1980s and against investment in Sudan recently, because of the ongoing genocide in Darfur. He called these two issues egregious cases of human rights violations, in which there really is no other side.
But, speaking as an individual, he said, “Regarding nuclear weapons, you could have a situation with equally compelling arguments on both sides. How do you decide who’s right and who’s wrong? Iran, India — ¬¶some people think now is the worst time to get involved with this; other people think this is the best time.” He added that there are many other controversial issues where proponents or opponents may want the pension boards to divest holdings according to a political or ethical position. But he cautioned against that, saying, “You’re almost playing God. We have to be very careful. And trustees are legally liable for how they invest the fund —” they could be sued, or the fund could go into a state of paralysis if you straightjacket it too much.”
