Moving to defend traditional public pension plans, trustees of the California Public Employees' Retirement System are poised to fight a renewed effort to offer 401(k)-style programs to state and local government workers.

The latest pension overhaul plan by Assemblyman Keith Richman, R-Northridge, would provide a less generous guaranteed pension for newly hired schoolteachers, firefighters and other public employees, but in return offer a voluntary 401(k)-type plan, also known as a defined-contribution plan.

Originally, Richman proposed a constitutional amendment, ACA 23, requiring workers hired after July 1, 2007, to be enrolled in a mandatory hybrid plan. Under his retooled proposal, employees could elect to sign up for a defined-contribution program.

Currently, public pensions guarantee a set benefit based on salary and years of service. If Richman's proposed amendment made the ballot and was approved, public employees would still receive a set benefit but could supplement it with investments of their own.

Despite the changes, a key CalPERS panel today will recommend that the 13-member state retirement board oppose Richman's measure. The board opposed last year's proposal.

Richman said trustees are dismissing his proposal without fully researching it: "It is astounding to me that they didn't do an actuarial determination of the cost of this proposal. How can they make a decision without adequate information?"

CalPERS officials said the change would create a two-tier pension benefit, hamper future investment returns and boost retirement contributions by the state, cities and other local government agencies.

The proposal is "playing politics with retirement security of our members. Our members aren't getting rich from our retirement benefits," Nick Smith, CalPERS representative for state Controller Steve Westly, said during the fund's benefits committee meeting Wednesday.

Two of Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's representatives also balked at the Richman plan, saying it is premature to push for legislation without analyzing the financial impact on state and local governments.

"This measure still fails to address a very fundamental question: What constitutes an adequate retirement in a total compensation environment?" said trustee Michael Navarro, the governor's director of the Department of Personnel Administration.

Last year, Schwarzenegger criticized rising pension costs for the state and local governments and backed efforts to replace guaranteed retirement programs with self-directed private accounts for all future public employees. But the governor retreated after an outcry from labor unions.

Although Schwarzenegger vowed to revisit the issue this year, political experts say major pension reform proposals won't be high on the Legislature's or the governor's agenda, especially during an election year.

"Each side of the debate needs (the support of) public employees. It's in no one's best interest to wage a scorch-and-burn attack on CalPERS or any of the affiliated pension funds," said Barbara O'Connor, director of the Institute for the Study of Politics and Media at California State University, Sacramento.

Dan Schnur, a leading Republican strategist, said CalPERS will be quick to remind lawmakers about the political hit Schwarzenegger took last year.

"The fallout from last year's initiative wasn't to just keep the issue off the special election ballot but probably to keep it too radioactive to seriously confront it for a couple of years," he said.

Richman remains undeterred. Unlike last year's proposal, his latest measure attempts to answer critics by spelling out guarantees for death benefits for employee families and assuring that current retirement systems such as CalPERS would administer the new programs.

Richman and other advocates complain that the state, cities and other local government entities are on the hook for more than $30 billion in unfunded future pension obligations.

The Pacific Research Institute, a San Francisco-based conservative think tank, said in a report this week that 120,000 state workers - mostly under 50 - would receive as much as twice the retirement benefits under a defined-contribution plan compared with the traditional pension.

"You can control where you're investing. They can get higher rates of returns," said Anthony Archie, co-author of the study.

Moreover, workers can keep their contributions if they leave public employment, he said.

CalPERS officials said the study used unrealistic demographic information and followed an overly aggressive investment strategy.

The Richman plan changes the formula to calculate benefits.

Rank-and-file workers, for example, would receive 1 percent - instead of the current 2 percent - of their highest annual pay for each year of service. It sets up a voluntary 401(k)-style plan in which employers would match employee contributions. The match would be capped at 4 percent of the worker's salary.

In addition, workers who retire early would pick up health care costs until they reach 55 for police officers and firefighters and 65 for other public employees.