Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Divestment topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Faculty, unions and retirees press CalPERS to review holdings in Palanteer, Axon, Tesla and SpaceX
Summary
Faculty and union members urged CalPERS to reassess investments they say enable immigration enforcement and harmful policing technologies, while other speakers criticized continued Tesla and SpaceX exposure. Trustees acknowledged concerns and staff said due diligence and reporting processes guide decisions.
Several public commenters used the Investment Committee’s public‑comment period to press CalPERS to review and, in some cases, divest holdings in companies they described as enabling human‑rights harms or presenting governance and financial risk.
Who spoke and what they said: Joanna Nunes, an assistant professor at Sacramento State, told trustees she could not be “at peace knowing my pension is being invested in corporations like Palanteer Technologies,” which she said supplies technology that supports immigration enforcement. “Corporations whose technology enable the reign of terror being unleashed on immigrants, black and brown people like my parents and my neighbors,” she said, arguing the firm’s products “provide the infrastructure needed to track, abduct, arrest, and kill people in our communities and abroad.”
Jessica Martinez, also a Sacramento State faculty member and CalPERS participant, urged the board to review holdings in Palanteer and Axon through a fiduciary lens; she cited economists’ warnings that large‑scale deportation policies could harm long‑term economic growth and asked trustees to consider broader economic and social risk, not only short‑term performance.
Other comment themes: A separate set of speakers urged divestment from Tesla, citing safety concerns, regulatory exposure, and alleged governance problems; others criticized SpaceX and flagged the firm’s governance as an investor risk if shares enter broad indexes. Healthcare workers from clinics acquired by private operators told trustees they are seeing cuts to retirement contributions, increased premiums, and staffing and safety pressures, and asked CalPERS to engage with owners about patient care impacts.
Staff response and follow-up: Trustees thanked commenters and staff noted that the fiduciary requirement is to evaluate investments based on risk and return. Some speakers said they believed staff had commissioned analyses that were not yet public; staff explained that certain confidential or closed‑session materials must be handled per law but that AB2833 and other reporting disclosures provide a level of transparency on fees and holdings. Staff committed to continuing due‑diligence practices and to bringing formal policy proposals through the board process when appropriate.
Why this matters: Public comments reflect active stakeholder pressure on CalPERS to reconcile investments that stakeholders say undermine social or climate goals with the fund’s fiduciary duty. Trustees heard repeated calls to disclose and account for the economic, social and reputational risks associated with certain private and public holdings.
What’s next: No formal divestment motions were filed during the meeting. Commenters asked for continued public reporting and dialogue; trustees and staff agreed to follow up through normal governance and reporting channels.
