Tag: 2011

Proposed New Jersey Bill Would Halt State Aid to Municipalities Not Complying With 2011 Pension Reforms

New Jersey State House

A New Jersey assemblyman proposed on Thursday a piece of legislation that would block state money to cities that aren’t complying with the state’s 2011 pension reform law.

From NJ.com:

[Assemblyman Declan] O’Scalon said he is proposing the legislation after reports surfaced that Newark had not been collecting payments that employees are legally required to pay toward their health care premiums.

Under the revised pension reforms Gov. Chris Christie signed in 2011, all public workers were required to contribute more toward its healthcare premiums, but state officials said earlier this year that Newark has not been compliant.

The city said in October that it took several months to update its payroll system in the wake of the law and that they did not know why the payments weren’t collected last year.

“It was long overdue, but it has come to light that the City of Newark has been ignoring the law since it was put into place,” O’Scalon said in a statement.

“The result is that the Mayor, Council members, and all employees in Newark pay less than the law requires – and worse, what common sense and fairness demand.”

The legislation would also dock the pay of elected officials and top finance department heads in municipalities that are not compliant, according to O’Scalon.

The proposed legislation would also establish noncompliance as grounds for impeachment or removal of the mayor of city officials, O’Scalon said.

O’scalon’s remarks arrive months after the state agreed to give Newark $10 million in transitional aid to address its budget crisis.

“Newark is a city that is facing tough issues and is legitimately going to need continued help from the state, but the local elected officials must lead by example,” O’scalon said.

The legislation will be officially introduced by the end of the year.

 

Photo credit: “New Jersey State House” by Marion Touvel. Licensed under Public domain via Wikimedia Commons

Christie Administration Says 2011 Pension Reform Law Was Unconstitutional

Chris Christie

Chris Christie’s lawyers submitted a court filing yesterday urging a judge to dismiss lawsuits from unions alleging that Christie broke the law when he reduced the state’s pension payments earlier this year.

Christie himself signed a law in 2011 mandating that the state make payments into the pension system. But now, Christie’s lawyers have said that the 2011 reform law was unconstitutional to begin with. From the Asbury Park Press:

In a 122-page court filing submitted Tuesday, in response to four lawsuits filed by unions objecting to the reduced $681 million contribution that’s in this year’s budget, Christie’s lawyers argue, in essence, that one of the key concessions the governor made to get Democrats on board with his signature legislative achievement isn’t legal.

Democrats such as Senate President Stephen Sweeney have said the portions of the 2011 pension reforms that made retirement-system contributions a contractual obligation and gave unions the right to sue if they weren’t made were an important provision they wanted in exchange for agreeing to increase workers’ contributions for pensions and health care.

In the court filing, Christie’s administration says three separate sections of the state constitution — the debt limitation clause, the approprations clause and a governor’s veto power — overrule the pension reform’s effort to mandate pension contributions as a contractual right.

The court filing says the final word about appropriations rests with a governor, not lawmakers or judges, unless the state’s voters approve of such a change in a November referendum. As such, the state asks a judge to dismiss the unions’ lawsuits.

“Plaintiffs ask New Jersey to keep a commitment that the state was constitutionally incapable of making. The constitution forbids the Legislature from placing an unwilling populace in an eternal fiscal stranglehold. The Legislature may not incur long-term financial obligations that create an enforceable right to an appropriation without first obtaining permission from the citizenry whose budgetary options, preferences and needs will thereafter be constrained.”

Read the entire court filing here.