Back to States List

Colorado

Colorado has two main public pension systems: the Public Employees’ Retirement Association (PERA) and the Fire and Police Pension Association (FPPA).

  • The PERA board represents all eligible state employees; the board consists of 16 members: 1 Ex Officio (State Treasurer); 3 appointed by the Governor; 4 appointed by the School Division employees; 3 appointed by the State Division employees; 1 appointed by the Local Government Division employees; 1 appointed by the Judicial Division; 2 appointed by PERA retirees; 1 non-voting member appointed by the DPS Division retirees and employees.
    • PERA discloses its specific proxy voting records on this website.
  • The FPPA board represents Colorado firefighters, police officers, and other first responders and consists of 9 members: all 9 members are appointed by the Governor and confirmed by the Senate.

Colorado uses Glass Lewis for its proxy advisory services.

The “By Asset Manager” and “Asset Manager Voting” tables show the proxy voting records of the state’s asset managers who manage the pensions’ stock market portfolio through index, exchange-traded, or mutual funds. Since these are externally managed funds, the asset managers typically retain and exercise proxy voting privileges. This data is used to calculate the state’s pro-ESG and anti-ESG scores to see how the state leverages its externally managed funds in proxy voting.

The “State Voting” table shows the state’s proxy voting records for directly owned securities through PERA’s pension fund portfolios. The 1792 Exchange commends PERA for publicly disclosing this information online for its pensioners.

Both tables are important to show a comprehensive picture of the state’s proxy voting record.

By Asset Manager

BlackRock Funds

Percentage of times Mgr. voted “for” pro-ESG proposals:

7%

Invesco Funds

Percentage of times Mgr. voted “for” pro-ESG proposals:

34%

Lazard Funds

Percentage of times Mgr. voted “for” pro-ESG proposals:

49%

Nuveen Funds

Percentage of times Mgr. voted “for” pro-ESG proposals:

41%

PGIM Funds

Percentage of times Mgr. voted “for” pro-ESG proposals:

42%

Principal Funds

Percentage of times Mgr. voted “for” pro-ESG proposals:

46%

Prudential Funds

Percentage of times Mgr. voted “for” pro-ESG proposals:

38%

State Street Funds

Percentage of times Mgr. voted “for” pro-ESG proposals:

18%

State Street SSGA

Percentage of times Mgr. voted “for” pro-ESG proposals:

19%

UBS Funds

Percentage of times Mgr. voted “for” pro-ESG proposals:

48%

Blackstone Funds

Percentage of times Mgr. voted “for” pro-ESG proposals:

84%

William Blair Funds

Percentage of times Mgr. voted “for” pro-ESG proposals:

72%

Baillie Gifford Funds

Percentage of times Mgr. voted “for” pro-ESG proposals:

29%

Mondrian Funds

Percentage of times Mgr. voted “for” pro-ESG proposals:

47%

Asset Manager Voting

Pro-ESG

23.9%

Anti-ESG

1.3%

Anti-Fossil Fuels

27%

Anti-Pollution/Waste

36%

Animal Rights

18%

DEI

29%

Weapons/Defense

13%

Human Rights

37%

Income Equality

41%

Political Speech/Lobbying Spending

38%

Health Care

13%

Race/Gender targets on Boards

48%

Non-Pecuniary Corporate Purpose

15%

ESG-Focused Governance

21%

Abortion

18%

Pro-Fossil Fuel

1%

Equality not DEI

1%

Controversial Cause Support

2%

Geopolitical Rivals/China

1%

State Voting

Pro-ESG

36%

Anti-ESG

0%

Anti-Fossil Fuel

24%

Anti-Pollution/Waste

5%

Animal Rights

0%

DEI

54%

Weapons/Defense

40%

Human Rights

49%

Income Equality

42%

Political Speech/Lobbying Spending

59%

Health Care

6%

Race/Gender targets on Boards

100%

Non-Pecuniary Corporate Purpose

100%

ESG-Focused Governance

22%

Abortion

20%

Pro-Fossil Fuels

0%

Equality not DEI

0%

Controversial Cause Support

0%

Geopolitical Rivals/China

0%

Generate Reports
Clear
Toast