Posted by Tracy Grondine on April 17, 2017 at 5:06 PM
SAN JOSE, Calif., April 17, 2017—The Retirement Security Initiative (RSI) today called reform to Arizona’s Corrections Officers Retirement Plan (CORP) a huge win for the state’s correctional employees and taxpayers. The legislation, authored by State Senate President Pro Tem Debbie Lesko and signed into law by Governor Doug Ducey, will help ensure the long-term solvency of CORP’s pension plan while saving the state billions of dollars.
Passed by the Senate and House with strong bipartisan support, the reform package, SB1442, will repair CORP’s structural flaws, provide greater retirement security, slow the accrual of new pension liabilities, lower pension costs and significantly reduce future taxpayer risk.
With only 53 percent funding and an accumulated $1.4 billion debt, the long-term solvency of CORP’s pension plan was threatened. Over the last 15 years, the aggregate employer contribution rate had grown from 3.2 percent to 20.76 percent of payroll.
“The CORP plan, as it was structured, was not sustainable and failing the vast majority of employees it was designed to benefit,” said RSI Executive Director Pete Constant, who helped lead reform efforts. “Overall, this reform protects the promises made to current members of the plan, while providing retirement security for new employees.”
The new reform, which adopts a defined contribution plan for new correction officers, will help current employees and retirees in the existing CORP pension plan by capping liability and improving the plan’s solvency, while ensuring adequate retirement security for all employees regardless of tenure.
Taking into account employees’ demographics and career behavior, SB1442 allows new employees to be 100 percent vested within three years of service, improves the portability of benefits and creates more retirement planning choices. Prior to reform, the plan had been failing 80 percent of all plan members who left the job before vesting, forfeiting their full benefits.
Last year Arizona lead the nation with a comprehensive reform package to the Public Safety Pension System. Emulating last year’s successful process, Sen. Lesko convened a pension reform working group that brought together employees, employers, taxpayer advocates and pension experts to examine and address CORP’s structural pension issues.
“We congratulate Sen. Lesko and are proud that this effort, too, had the support of employees, employers and taxpayer groups,” said Constant. “It’s a job well done and demonstrates to other state and city governments that meaningful pension reform is possible through collaborative stakeholder engagement.”
Posted by Tracy Grondine on February 07, 2017 at 4:41 PM
SAN JOSE, Calif., February 7, 2017—Leaders of the Retirement Security Initiative today testified before Nebraska Legislature’s Retirement Systems Committee in support of LB30, a pension measure that would reform Omaha and Lincoln police and fire pension systems. The bill, sponsored by Committee Chairman Sen. Mark Kolterman, would transition new-hire employees from the currently-used defined benefit structure to a cash-balance retirement program.
Testifying at the hearing were RSI Board Member Dan Liljenquist, who successfully spearheaded pension reform efforts during his time as a Utah State Senator, and RSI Executive Director Pete Constant, a former San Jose City Council member and retired police officer.
Both Lincoln and Omaha fire and police pension systems are in dismal financial shape, according to the RSI experts. Without substantive reform offered by LB30, both systems will continue to deteriorate, jeopardizing government finances and public workers’ retirement benefits.
“The situation in Lincoln and Omaha is that they’ve been chronically underfunding their plans,” Liljenquist told committee members during the hearing. “Couple that with high assumption risks and low market returns for years and the plans are in dire straits.”
The Omaha Police and Fire public pension system is roughly $630 million in debt and Lincoln’s Police and Fire pension fund is an estimated $190 million in debt. “The structure of the plans and the new normal of what the markets are doing make it very expensive,” Liljenquist continued.
Neither the Lincoln nor the Omaha pension plans have kept up with funding levels to keep them sustainable (Omaha is funded at roughly 50 percent, Lincoln at 80 percent), instead relying on high assumed market returns. In Lincoln, the average rate of return for the past 15 years has been 5.2 percent, compared to its 7.5 percent assumed return. During the same time, Omaha has been guaranteeing 8 percent returns, while average actual returns have been only 4.8 percent. To help make up for the difference both cities have continually poured taxpayer dollars into the systems.
“Pumping more money into a system is not a plan, it’s triage,” said Liljenquist. “It’s like stumbling across a chemical spill in your backyard. First you have to cap that spill and then work overtime to clean it up. LB30 does that.”
LB30 would transition new hire employees from the current defined benefit structure to a cash-balance program that uses lower assumed return rates and cuts future risk in half. The reform would not affect current employees and retirees. Adopting the cash-balance plan for new employees would help ensure that retirement promises that were made to current employees and retirees can be kept.
"For Lincoln and Omaha to honor the promises made to their active police officers and firefighters and retirees, reform of some sort must happen,” Constant told committee members. “If they want to be able to recruit from the millennial generation and Gen Z, pension portability and sustainability are essential.”
According to Constant, neither the Lincoln nor Omaha pension systems, as they are currently structured, are sustainable and leave employees and retirees vulnerable to retirement insecurity.
“The plans have significant funding problems,” he told members. “When pension plans hit a funding ratio like Lincoln’s and Omaha’s and carry significant debt, taking no action threatens their very solvency.”
For more information on the pension crisis facing Lincoln and Omaha, click here for in-depth analysis by the Platte Institute and Reason Foundation.
Posted by Tracy Grondine on January 11, 2017 at 8:07 AM
SAN JOSE, Calif., January 10, 2017—In comments today to Connecticut Office of Policy and Management Secretary Ben Barnes, the Retirement Security Initiative said that the state’s recent bargaining agreement to revise its pension plan is commendable, but doesn’t go far enough to address the state’s $15.9 billion pension shortfall. The agreement with the State Employees Bargaining Agent Coalition attempts to modify the funding calculation and amortization schedule for the State Employee Retirement System by lowering the pension plan’s assumed return to 6.9 percent.
“While we commend you for your commitment to fully funding pension payments to resolve the unfunded liability, a 6.9 percent rate of return is overly optimistic and is highly likely to result in underfunding the plan,” said RSI Board Member and former San Jose Mayor Chuck Reed in his comments to Barnes.
Instead, RSI recommended that contributions be based on a more realistic rate of return that is closer to the 5.4 percent rate that was achieved by the state from 2001 to 2014.
“If you proceed based on the 6.9 percent number,” continued Reed. “Either more money should be put into the plan by the state and the employees, or plan redesign and benefit changes should be implemented to reduce costs to close the funding gap that will likely be created by assuming a 6.9 percent rate of return.”
According to RSI, the 6.9 percent assumed rate is unrealistic and could lead to Connecticut taxpayers shouldering the burden for decades to come.
“The funding gap between a 6.9 percent rate of return and a 5.5 percent rate of return will be $3.8 billion, which is more than $100 million per year from 2016 to 2046,” continued Reed. “To avoid that shortfall, we would strongly suggest getting as close to the 5.5 percent number as possible.”
Posted by Tracy Grondine on January 09, 2017 at 7:14 AM
SAN JOSE, Calif., January 9, 2017— A second decision by the California First District Court of Appeal that rejects a rigid interpretation of the California Rule of vested rights get Californians one step closer to saving the state from financial disaster, according to the Retirement Security Initiative. The ruling, in Cal Fire Local 2881 v. CalPERS, states that although an employee has a vested right to a pension, their only right prior to retirement is to a "substantial or reasonable pension." A different panel of judges issued a similar ruling in Marin Association of Public Employees v. Marin County Employees’ Retirement Association in August 2016.
“Pension reformers in California have been advocating for years that some reasonable modifications to future pension benefits accrued for future work by current employees could be permissible under the California Constitution,” said RSI Board Member and former San Jose Mayor Chuck Reed. “It now seems it may be possible to do so.”
The Appeals Court quoted the California Supreme Court on vested rights to explain its ruling:
“Although vested prior to the time when the obligation to pay matures, pension rights are not immutable. For example, the government entity providing the pension may make reasonable modifications and changes in the pension system. This flexibility is necessary ‘to permit adjustments in accord with changing conditions and at the same time maintain the integrity of the system and carry out its beneficent policy.”
The case arose out of legislation enacted in 2012, the Public Employees’ Pension Reform Act (PEPRA), in which the opportunity for an employee to buy additional years of service credits was eliminated. Plaintiffs alleged they had a vested right to continue what is referred to as “buying airtime” because it had been permitted for years.
Plaintiffs claimed they had a vested contractual right to purchase up to five years of airtime service credit that is not subject to elimination or destruction by legislative amendment or repeal “even before the benefit has been accessed or the time for retirement has arrived.”
The Appeals Court rejected plaintiffs’ assertion that “Public employees obtain a vested right to the provisions of the applicable retirement law that exist during the course of their public employment. Promised benefits may be increased during employment, but not decreased, absent the employees’ consent.”
The Appeals Court noted that “California law is quite clear that the Legislature may indeed modify or eliminate vested pension rights in certain cases.”
“The big question for pension reformers is whether or not the California Supreme Court will agree,” said Reed. “The Marin County case has already been accepted by the Supreme Court and this case is likely to go there as well.
“If the Supreme Court agrees with these appellate court decisions, the legal door will be open for Californians to begin to take reasonable actions to save pension systems and local governments from fiscal disaster,” concluded Reed.
Posted by Tracy Grondine on November 02, 2016 at 7:41 AM
How Would Retirement Fare Under a Clinton, Trump Presidency?
SAN JOSE, Calif., Nov. 2, 2016 — The Retirement Security Initiative (RSI) today published an interview with Marc Goldwein, senior vice president of the Center for a Responsible Federal Budget, on how retirement issues are faring in the 2016 election. In the interview, Goldwein discussed the two major presidential candidates’ policies on social security, retirement issues, debt reduction and taxes.
“Unfortunately, retirement hasn’t been a big issue this election,” said Goldwein in the interview. “The candidates are talking very little about retirement, whereas it should be one of the top things being addressed. This is especially true given the unsustainability of the Social Security program.”
It is estimated that Social Security, the major source of income for most retirees, will run out of funds to pay full benefits beginning in 2034. According to Goldwein, neither Hillary Clinton nor Donald Trump adequately address the problem.
“Both candidates have their heads in the sand on Social Security policy,” said Goldwein. “Donald Trump’s plan is to keep the system on its current path to insolvency. Hillary Clinton’s plan expands benefits in targeted ways…but otherwise she doesn’t change the program’s benefits or touch the age requirement. Both candidates are doing tremendous disservice by taking so many things off the table.”
It would seem that public employees would have their pensions to make up for the retirement uncertainty. But, as more public pensions go underfunded, putting at risk public employees’ savings, that payoff may not be so certain. What, if anything, do the presidential candidates’ policies do to address retirement needs?
“Neither Hillary Clinton nor Donald Trump have concrete plans to fix some of our most pressing retirement issues, like unsustainable pensions, holes in the Social Security program for low-income wage earners, access to retirement savings plans, and the list goes on,” said Goldwein. “What should have been a priority in the political debate, has unfortunately been put on the backburner in this presidential election.”
As for how each of the candidate's policies would impact historic levels of public-held debt (estimates show up to $5 trillion in U.S. pension debt), Goldwein said that neither of the candidate’s economic plans would slow and reverse the national debt.
“Hillary Clinton’s plan would keep national debt on the path we are headed, increasing it by a small amount: an additional $9.2 trillion in the next decade,” said Goldwein. “And while this is certainly the wrong direction, Donald Trump’s plan is catastrophically worse. It would add $5.3 trillion on top of the already $9 trillion over the next decade, putting the U.S. in unprecedented debt.”
To read more of Golwein’s interview, click here, or visit: http://www.retirementsecurityinitiative.org/retirement_and_the_2016_election.
Underfunded pension systems are one of the biggest challenges facing state and local budgets, resulting in an estimated $1 trillion to $5 trillion in total U.S. pension debt. Goldwein’s interview is part of an ongoing RSI series of pension and retirement analysis from the country’s leading policy and fiscal thought leaders. Previously in the series, RSI spoke with the Rockefeller Institute’s Donald Boyd on investment risks being taken by pension funds and their potential consequences.
Posted by Tracy Grondine on October 26, 2016 at 8:40 AM
SAN JOSE, Calif., Oct. 26, 2016 — The Retirement Security Initiative (RSI) is urging Pennsylvania lawmakers to vote “Yes” on fundamental pension reform legislation that would save state taxpayers billions of dollars and safeguard retirement benefits for public workers. The bill, which passed a conference committee late Tuesday night, now heads to the Senate and House chambers for a yes-or-no vote.
The push to overhaul Pennsylvania's pension system comes as the state faces more than $63 billion in pension debt, which is twice the size of the state’s annual budget. According to RSI, the Commonwealth’s pension debt has skyrocketed due to continued poor decision-making, including system underfunding, risky investment assumptions and unfunded benefit increases. Pennsylvania ranks 49th among states for underfunding its pensions and is among one of the largest states nationally to underfund benefit increases, a factor that will ultimately cost the state approximately $50 billion in higher benefit payments over 30 years.
“Pennsylvania’s pension funds went from a $20 billion surplus in 2000 to a $63 billion deficit in 2015,” said RSI Board Leader and former Utah State Senator Dan Liljenquist. “For every day that lawmakers ignore this dire situation, it increases the taxpayers’ debt by $1 for every man, woman and child in Pennsylvania, or in other words $1,500 per year for a family of four.”
Legislation now before lawmakers would create a new plan for the State Employees’ Retirement System and the Public School Employees' Retirement System beginning in 2018. Employees would be given three retirement savings options from which to choose, including two defined benefit/defined contribution hybrid plans and a straight 401K-style defined contribution plan. The bill does not affect current employees and exempts state police officers, corrections officers and certain other enforcement officers from the hybrid DB/DC or DC plans for new employees.
According to the Pew Research Center, the proposal mitigates approximately 60 percent of risk if pension investments underperform, saving taxpayers more than $10 billion if returns were 6 percent. Further, employer contributions under the proposed plan are expected to be $2.6 billion lower over 30 years than contributions under the current plan.
"This pension reform package is a solid win for taxpayers and public workers,” said Liljenquist. “Not only would the cost to taxpayers be cut $4.3 billion over the next 30 years, but employees will no longer face an uncertain future where growing pension costs threaten the solvency of their retirement plan, putting at risk their hard-earned savings.
“For these reasons alone, it's critical that Pennsylvania lawmakers today vote ‘Yes’ on pension reform,” urged Liljenquist.
Posted by Tracy Grondine on October 13, 2016 at 4:34 AM
“It’s the Wild West Out There”
RSI Releases Pension Q&A With Rockefeller Institute’s Donald Boyd
SAN JOSE, Calif., Oct.13, 2016 — The Retirement Security Initiative (RSI) today announced a new series of pension analysis from the country’s leading policy and fiscal thought leaders. To kick off the series, financial expert Donald Boyd, director of Fiscal Studies at the Rockefeller Institute of Government, shared his assessment of the growing pension funding crisis in an interview with RSI.
Underfunded pension systems are one of the biggest challenges facing state and local budgets, resulting in an estimated $1 trillion to $5 trillion in total U.S. pension debt. RSI’s new series will examine how the U.S arrived in this predicament and what steps can be taken going forward to ease the overwhelming financial burden on governments.
The just-released interview with Boyd examines investment risks being taken by pension funds and their potential consequences, as well as the flawed institutions that helped lead to this situation. It concludes with possible policy changes that would make it more difficult to wind up in this situation again.
"A typical 75 percent funded pension fund runs about a one in six chance of falling below 40 percent in the next 30 years,” says Boyd in the interview. “Portfolios are risky enough that even with full payment of contributions, bad returns could drive funding this low. This is a crisis level.”
Although some de-risking is occurring, Boyd doesn’t expect a big shift. "Incentives in the system encourage risk taking, and there are no rules to counter those incentives - it’s the Wild West out there,” he says. “There are virtually no rules - no police – for public pensions.”
To tame the ‘Wild West,’ rules and other institutions will be needed, says Boyd. For example, liabilities and annual costs in government and pension plan financial statements should be measured with discount rates that reflect the characteristics of the liability; discount rates used to determine contributions should be based on market interest rates rather than a plan’s portfolio; and plans and governments should clearly disclose information, along with measures of risk, in comprehensive annual financial reports and in municipal bond disclosures.
To read more of Boyd’s interview, click here.
The Retirement Security Initiative (RSI) is an advocacy organization focused on protecting and ensuring the fairness and sustainability of public sector retirement plans. RSI marshals and organizes a broad range of resources to help policymakers learn about pension issues and explore policy options. Learn more at www.RSINow.org.
About the Rockefeller Institute:
The Nelson A. Rockefeller Institute of Government is the public policy research arm of the State University of New York. The Institute conducts fiscal and programmatic research on American state and local governments. Journalists can find useful information on the Newsroom page of the Web site, www.rockinst.org.
Posted by Tracy Grondine on August 18, 2016 at 6:53 PM
SAN JOSE, Calif., Aug. 18, 2016—A game-changing decision this week by the California First District Court of Appeal is good news for pension reformers, according to the Retirement Security Initiative (RSI). In Marin Association of Public Employees v. Marin County Employees’ Retirement Association, the Court rejected rigid interpretation of the California Rule of vested rights, ruling that although an employee has a vested right to a pension, their only right is to a ‘reasonable pension,’ one without benefit spiking.
“Pension reformers in California have been advocating for years that some reasonable modifications to future pension benefits accrued for future work by current employees could be permissible under the California Constitution,” said RSI Board Member and former San Jose Mayor Chuck Reed.
The Court summarized its ruling:
“ . . . while a public employee does have a ‘vested right’ to a pension, that right is only to a ‘reasonable’ pension—not an immutable entitlement to the most optimal formula of calculating the pension. And the Legislature may, prior to the employee’s retirement, alter the formula, thereby reducing the anticipated pension. So long as the Legislature’s modifications do not deprive the employee of a ‘reasonable’ pension, there is no constitutional violation.”
The case arose out of legislation enacted in 2012, the Public Employees’ Pension Reform Act (PEPRA) in which some actions to spike pension benefits were prohibited in future years of service. Plaintiffs alleged they had a vested right to continue spiking practices that had been in place for years.
The Court described the Plaintiffs’ position as stated in their opening brief:
“[P]ublic employees earn a vested right to their pension benefits immediately upon acceptance of employment and . . . such benefits cannot be reduced without a comparable advantage being provided.”
The Court rejected Plaintiffs’ rigid interpretation of the California Rule of vested rights and upheld PEPRA based on a series of California cases often cited by opponents of pension reform as prohibiting any modification of benefits for current employees.
“The big question for pension reformers is whether or not the California Supreme Court will agree,” said Reed. “If it does, the legal door will be open for Californians to begin to take reasonable actions to save pension systems and local governments from fiscal disaster.”
Posted by Tracy Grondine on June 30, 2016 at 8:02 PM
SAN JOSE, Calif., June 30, 2016—“The Retirement Security Initiative applauds Chicago Public Schools for stepping up to its obligation to fund the Chicago Teachers’ Pension Fund even as it pursues its position that Chicago teacher pensions should be funded by the State, just like every other school district in Illinois. We have previously named Mayor Emanuel as an RSI pension hero, and his continued progress on finding new resources and working collaboratively with labor on this challenge is notable.
“The City of Chicago has reached a consensual resolution with its police, fire and laborer pension funds on funding payments and is in the process of finalizing a consensual resolution with its municipal worker pension fund, the last unresolved pension fund of the City to reach a constructive resolution of the pension funding issues.
“Chicago embodies the spirit of what RSI is trying to accomplish: address the pension funding challenge head on and put in place reforms and or funding to assure retirement security for public sector employees.”
Posted by Tracy Grondine on June 30, 2016 at 1:47 PM
SAN JOSE, Calif., June 30, 2016—“The Retirement Security Initiative commends Congress for its bipartisan efforts to pass the Puerto Rico Oversight, Management and Economic Stability Act and President Obama for swiftly signing the legislation into law. RSI also acknowledges board member Richard Ravitch for his unwavering commitment to the people of Puerto Rico as an advocate on their behalf.
“With nearly $44 billion in unfunded pension liabilities, Puerto Rico’s public retirement debt is deeply entangled with its total $72 billion debt. Puerto Rico’s pension debt is staggering, and when compared with U.S. state pension systems, it ranks among those with the largest debts and likely the biggest ever for pensions of its size and scale.
“To avoid similar crisis situations in other U.S. municipalities and states, it’s important that governments make tough decisions today. There are tremendous risks with delaying the adoption of sound pension policies. Ignoring pension reform is bad for everyone involved, especially pensioners and ultimately taxpayers. Puerto Rico’s past pension reform efforts came entirely too late to fix the problem.”