Back to States List

Iowa

Iowa has four main public pension systems: the Iowa Public Employees’ Retirement System (IPERS), the Municipal Fire and Police Retirement System of Iowa (MFPRSI), the Judicial Retirement System (JRS), and the Peace Officers’ Retirement, Accident, and Disability System (PORS). The Iowa Legislature created the IPERS Investment Board to establish policies and hire professional service contractors for IPERS’ investments.

  • The IPERS Investment Board consists of 7 voting members and 4 nonvoting members
    • The voting members are: 1 Ex Officio (State Treasurer); 6 appointed by the Governor, (3 who are members of IPERS  (an active member who is an employee of a school district, area education agency, or merged area; an active member who is not an employee of a school district, area education agency, or merged area; and a retired member of IPERS) and 3 who are not members of IPERS and have substantial institutional investment experience or substantial institutional financial experience).
      • The nonvoting members are 2 state representatives and 2 state senators
    • According to its 2023 Annual Comprehensive Financial Report, IPER’s general investment consultant is Wilshire.
  • The MFPRSI Board consists of 9 voting members and 4 nonvoting members
    • The voting members are 4 representatives of the active and retired fire and police membership (four); 4 representatives of the cities; and 1 private citizen. Individuals are appointed to the Board by the police and fire associations and by the Iowa League of Cities. The 8 voting members select a private citizen to serve as the 9th voting member.
    • According to its 2023 Annual Comprehensive Financial Report, MFPRSI’s general investment consultant is Marquette.

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 IPERS’ proxy voting records for directly owned securities through pension fund portfolios. This data was obtained by a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request since Iowa does not publicly disclose this information to its pensioners. The 1792 Exchange encourages Iowa to publish its proxy voting records instead of keeping its pensioners in the dark about how the state votes on ESG issues with their money.

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%

Columbia Funds

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

39%

Fisher Funds

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

67%

Invesco Funds

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

34%

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%

SPDR Funds

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

17%

TCW Funds

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

76%

UBS Funds

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

48%

Vanguard Funds

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

6%

Golub Funds

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

89%

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%

Wasatch Funds

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

19%

Asset Manager Voting

Pro-ESG

22.3%

Anti-ESG

1.7%

Anti-Fossil Fuels

23%

Anti-Pollution/Waste

27%

Animal Rights

12%

DEI

24%

Weapons/Defense

15%

Human Rights

32%

Income Equality

36%

Political Speech/Lobbying Spending

32%

Health Care

9%

Race/Gender targets on Boards

40%

Non-Pecuniary

19%

ESG-Focused Governance

17%

Abortion

14%

Pro-Fossil Fuel

1%

Equality not DEI

1%

Controversial Cause Support

2%

Geopolitical Rivals/China

1%

State Voting

Pro-ESG

65%

Anti-ESG

0%

Anti-Fossil Fuels

65%

Anti-Pollution/Waste

43%

Animal Rights

50%

DEI

73%

Weapons/Defense

40%

Human Rights

66%

Income Equality

100%

Political Speech/Lobbying Spending

76%

Health Care

50%

Race/Gender targets on Board

100%

Non-Pecuniary Corporate Purpose

29%

ESG-Focused Governance

38%

Abortion

80%

Pro-Fossil Fuel

0%

Equality not DEI

0%

Controversial Cause Support

0%

Geopolitical Rivals/China

0%

Generate Reports
Clear
Toast