Starting in Rhode Island and then nationally, Raimondo championed using government workers' retirement savings to enrich her Wall Street backers and further her own political ambitions.
As you suggest, DC plans do not provide anywhere near the retirement security as DB/pensions. Indeed, 401ks were never intended to replace pensions. So transitioning to DCs is no "easy" fix. As to public pensions being "incredibly rich" I don't think you'd feel that way if you had worked your entire life at a lower government salary, with a pension promised to you upon retirement. Ask a retired teacher about his/her "rich" pension-- you might be surprised to learn it's probably about the same as Social Security. Don't get me wrong, there are abuses in public sector pension payouts and I'm all for ending those. But, as my forensic investigations have revealed, if pension investments were properly managed, there is adequate funding to pay all benefits promised.
There is an "easy" fix to all of what you are complaining about: Have public-sector employees transition to Defined Contribution plans, and then make those plans comparable to similar plans offered in the private-sector. Once we transition to DC plans, employees can make decisions about whether to buy a Vanguard low-cost ETF or a retirement-date fund and hold it for life or, invest in riskier options with less transparency like PE or hedge funds. But most importantly, they will be the ones making those choices, not the state's treasurer - people like Gina Raimondo - that you are complaining about. From the standpoint of an individual who is not privileged to have a DB pension, it seems incredibly rich to have public-sector workers enjoy the luxury and security of a DB pension and then have them turn around and complain that an elected official is managing those pension assets.
California did the same. Excellent report.