pension reform | Pension360

Chris Christie’s New Pension Proposal May Trigger Another Wave of Mass Retirements

Back in 2011, when New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie signed into law the state’s first round of pension reforms, a curious thing happened: state workers started heading for the exits. And they weren’t leaving for the weekend—they were leaving for good.

In fact, state workers retired in unprecedented numbers in 2010 and 2011, when the pension proposal was being discussed and passed through the legislature. Under the plan, workers have to contribute more of their paychecks to the pension system.

Now, Gov. Christie has announced he’s planning to propose a new set of pension reforms—and he’s made it clear that the benefits of workers will not come out unscathed.

With that news circulating, New Jersey is reporting that another wave of retirements is already in the making. The Star-Ledger reports:

As Gov. Chris Christie bangs the drum for a second round of pension reform in New Jersey, public officials and union leaders are bracing for another wave of public workers rushing to retire.

Employees in state and local government headed for the door in record numbers at the beginning of Christie’s first term, thanks in part to laws passed by the governor and state lawmakers asking public workers to pay a larger share of their health and pension costs. More than 20,000 retired in 2010, followed by 19,500 the next year.

After slowing the next two years, the pace of public worker retirements is picking up again, according to state Treasury Department figures.

A total of 11,916 employees are scheduled to retire through the end of this month — a nearly 9 percent spike from the same point in 2013. If the pace continues, about 17,000 may file papers by the end of the year. A total of 15,700 public workers retired last year.

The change comes as Christie gets ready to introduce further changes to the pension system, which is facing $40 billion in unfunded liabilities.

The Republican governor, a potential 2016 presidential candidate who rose to popularity partly because of his pension fights with public worker unions, said the previous changes didn’t go far enough. He has put curtailing the costs of public employee benefits at the top of his summer agenda, suggesting the state could go bankrupt without more action.

Union leaders have offered up various explanations for the spike. Some say the retirements are indeed caused by the virtual guarantee that workers will see their benefits decrease if they don’t lock them in by retiring.

But other union officials claim that the surge in retirements can be chalked up to random fluctuations. From NJ.com:

Some union leaders say more public workers may be planning to retire out of fear they could see their pensions and health benefits cut if they don’t get out now.

“There’s a feeling of unease about what’s going to happen,” said Pat Colligan, president of the state Policemen’s Benevolent Association. “People have left the past couple of months because they’re afraid. And there are people who have their finger on the retirement button.”

But Steve Baker, a spokesman for the New Jersey Education Association, the state teachers union, said he’s not convinced this year’s 9 percent increase in retirements was caused by Christie’s warnings, saying numbers fluctuate from year to year.

“They may be on the higher end of the range, but they’re certainly within the range,” he said.

Hetty Rosenstein, director of the state chapter of the Communications Workers of America, said she would be upset if Christie’s talk caused more public workers to retire in the coming months.

“You have people who have dedicated their life to public service,” said Rosenstein, whose union represents more than 40,000 state workers in New Jersey. “It would be really terrible and shameful if people make their retirement decisions based upon fear that after 30 years their retirement isn’t secure.”

Among public workers, retirements for teachers and non-uniformed government workers are both up 12 percent so far this year, while police and firefighter retirements are down 14 percent. Retirements for the State Police dropped from 145 to 83, the figures show.

In the decade before Christie was governor, public workers retired at a rate of 13,656 a year. Since he took office, the clip is at 17,602 — a 29 percent increase.

Bill Dressel, executive director of the New Jersey League of Municipalities, said part of the problem is that Christie has yet to unveil any details of his plan to revise public worker benefits.

“There’s always fear of the unknown,” Dressel said. “There’s not a clear message coming from our state policymakers.”

Christie is currently holding a series of town hall meetings around the state addressing pension issues. He has not announced specific details of his latest pension reform proposal, but he says he will release the proposal to the public by the end of summer.

Christie Says New Pension Reform Plan Coming

Back in 2011, New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie signed into law a pension reform measure designed to eventually fix the funding status of the state’s ailing pension funds.

A big part of that law was ensuring that the state gradually began making bigger annual payments to the System. But that part of the plan hasn’t worked out, as Christie decided this year to take the funds meant for the pension system and allocate them toward balancing the budget—a balanced budget is mandated by the New Jersey constitution.

The move was highly publicized and highly scrutinized. But Christie now says he is drawing up a new proposal for pension reform in New Jersey, and he is putting on a series of town hall meetings to introduce the plan. From NJ Advance Media:

Gov. Chris Christie came to the Jersey Shore today to kick off his “no pain, no gain” summer tour to introduce a pension reform proposal, but details of a plan were scant.

The governor promised to unveil a proposal by the end of the summer to tackle the state’s economic woes, promising that unless the Democratic-controlled state Legislature enact reforms, New Jersey is headed toward bankruptcy.

“We have to pare back benefits, that’s what we have to do,” Christie declared in Long Beach.

“You cannot raise taxes enough in New Jersey to pay for the pension hole that’s been dug over the period of time that these exorbitant benefits that have been promised to people,” he said. “No on in public office, believe me, myself included, wants to come out here and say ‘I have to pare back in public benefits.’”

Christie has said a specific plan is on its way — but it won’t be unveiled yet.

When pressed by a resident at the shore town hall to discuss his plan, Christie said his office is “looking at a bunch of different options right now,” but added it won’t be ready to be rolled out until the end of the summer.

“There are going to be some really difficult things,” he said. “There’s not a lot of places left to do things except to look at a whole different variety of ways to reduce benefits or to increase contributions by employees.”

Raising the retirement age again is also on the table for consideration, Christie said.

“But even then, the bottom line is that there will be a reduction in benefits,” he said. “It’s the only way to do this.”

It appears that details won’t be disclosed for the time being. The one detail that Christie seemed comfortable revealing was that New Jersey pensioners will be looking at smaller benefits moving forward. But come September, it will be interesting to see what Christie’s proposal consists of.

North Carolina Nears Pension Spiking Ban For Top State Officials

The practice of pension spiking has garnered more media attention than ever over the past few years, and that is leading to the practice being examined in the halls of numerous state-level legislatures.

Pension spiking happens when public workers accumulate sick leave, vacation time, bonuses and other benefits until the year before they retire. In their final year on the job, they cash out all those benefits—inflating their final year salary.

Since final year salaries play a big role in calculating a worker’s pension benefits, spiking can increase a retiree’s annual pension by thousands of dollars per year. The practice is currently legal in most states.

Pension360 previously covered the outlawing of spiking in Phoenix, Arizona. Now, lawmakers in North Carolina are on the brink of prohibiting the practice in their state as well. From the Raleigh News and Observer:

The state Senate tentatively approved legislation Monday night that would prevent state agencies and local governments from using the state retirement system to boost the pensions of top officials when they finish their careers.

The bill, approved 44-4, requires the agencies, local governments or the top officials themselves to put the money into the retirement system to pay for the pension spiking. The legislation cleared the House last month with no votes in opposition, making it likely a second approval from the Senate would make it law.

The legislation followed a report in The News & Observer that four community colleges in recent years converted tens of thousands of dollars in perks such as car and housing allowances into salaries for their presidents as they neared retirement.

In November, the N&O’s Checks Without Balances series reported on four community college presidents whose boards allowed for as much as $92,000 in perks to be converted into salary. The colleges are Cape Fear, Central Piedmont, Sandhills and Wilkes.

Their boards used the removal of a state salary cap on the local share of community college presidents’ salaries to convert the perks to salary. As perks, the pay was not eligible for pension purposes, and no contributions had been made out of them to the state retirement system. But when the perks were converted into salary, they became pension-eligible compensation.

Taxpayers support the retirement system through contributions made by state and local governments on behalf of their employees. The employees are also required to contribute a small percentage of their pay.

Two of the four community college presidents – Eric McKeithan at Cape Fear and Gordon Burns at Wilkes – have since retired. Burns, whose $80,000 in perks converted to pay before he stepped down in June, could see his pension bumped up as much as $52,000 a year.

The other two presidents are Central Piedmont’s Tony Zeiss and Sandhill’s John Dempsey. Their boards each converted roughly $40,000 in perks to pay.

There are, however, some worker-friendly provisions in the bill to make it more palatable. From the Raleigh News and Observer:

• It would return the vesting period to become eligible for a pension to five years. Three years ago, lawmakers raised it to 10 years, thinking it would save the state money. But the treasurer’s office found it wasn’t saving much money and was making the state less competitive for job candidates.

• It allows all state and local employees who leave their jobs within five years to recoup their pension contributions plus accumulated interest, which currently is set at 4 percent. Currently, only fired employees can receive the interest. The treasurer’s office says North Carolina is the only state retirement system in the country that does not pay interest in returning the pension contributions to all employees who leave before five years of service.

If officially passed, the law wouldn’t take effect until January 1, 2015. It wouldn’t affect employees who make less than $100,000 a year.

Challengers to Illinois Reform Law Seek Expedited Supreme Court Ruling

Illinois’ pension reform law, passed and signed in December, remains in a legal limbo that has parties on every side of the issue uncomfortable. As a result, the attorneys behind several of the lawsuits challenging the reform law plan to submit motions that they hope will land the case in front of the Supreme Court sooner than later. From the State Journal-Register:

Lawyers challenging last year’s pension reform law said they will make another attempt to get an expedited ruling in the case in the wake of the Illinois Supreme Court’s decision in the retiree health insurance case.

[Attorney Don] Craven said this new motion could enable the pension reform case to get to the Supreme Court earlier than is now considered likely. Before the health insurance ruling, [Judge] Belz set out a lengthy schedule for lawyers on both sides to conduct preliminary work on the cases. Lawyers for the state indicated they want to use six expert witnesses to buttress their case. Aaron Maduff, another attorney challenging the law, said it involved “tremendous, tremendous” preliminary work.

“It’s a huge amount of material,” he said.

At this point, however, the schedule is still in place and a ruling at the circuit court level isn’t expected until next year.

The next hearing in the pension reform lawsuit is scheduled for Sept. 4.

The Illinois Supreme Court ruled earlier this month that it was unconstitutional to charge seniors a premium for their state-subsidized health insurance. The ruling was of particular relevance to the state’s pension reform law because the legal reasoning behind the judgment was that the state is not permitted to diminish retirement benefits protected by the state Constitution.

Some parties believe last month’s ruling was the nail in the coffin for this iteration of state pension reform. But others say the eventual ruling on the reform law won’t be influenced by the previous judgment. From the State Journal-Register:

“The Supreme Court could hardly have been clearer in destroying the police powers argument in the Kanerva case,” said attorney John Myers, who brought another of the pension reform lawsuits. “What the Supreme Court is saying is you have to fund this, now figure it out. That destroys the whole sovereign powers defense, which is, ‘We don’t have to figure it out, we can impair pensions.’ ”

Attorney General Lisa Madigan has said the ruling in the health insurance case does not affect the pension reform case because they involve different legal issues.

Pension benefits are protected in Illinois by the state Constitution. The reform law seeks to end cost-of-living-adjustment increases and raise the retirement age.

Australia Looks to Cut Down Investment Fees After Scathing Report

Pension funds are becoming increasingly allergic to fees eating into their returns, as CalPERS demonstrated this week when it announced a decision to cut hedge fund investments by 40 percent. But the United States isn’t the only country where this concern is taking hold. From the Financial Times:

Australia’s highly regarded private pension system faces sweeping reform following a sharply critical report into the fees charged by superannuation funds, which manage $1.8tn ($1.7tn) of assets.

Although Australia has the fourth largest private pensions savings pool in the world, the operating costs of the country’s superannuation funds are among the highest in the OECD, leaving scope for significant improvements in retirement incomes.

Fees should be cut by an average of 40 per cent (or 38 basis points) across the entire superannuation sector, according to an interim report released last week by the Murray inquiry, chaired by David Murray, a former chief executive of the Commonwealth Bank of Australia. This would deliver savings of about $7bn ($6.6bn) a year from annual running costs of $20bn ($18.8bn), boosting the average retirement payout by $40,000 ($37,574).

“There is an opportunity for innovation to deliver better outcomes for retirees and to better meet the needs of an ageing population,” said Mr Murray.

The report called for a “fundamental change” in the way the country manages its assets. It urged Australia to look at other parts of the world for ideas. From FT:

The report suggested Australia’s government should consider following the example of Chile and auction the right to manage default funds for all new pension accounts to the lowest cost provider. Fees charged by successful bidders in Chile have fallen 65 per cent since this approach was introduced in 2008.

The report also urged the government to consider introducing some form of compulsory deferred annuitisation that would pay out after the age of 85 – just as the UK is abandoning near-compulsory annuitisation.

The report said Australia was “unusual” in not encouraging citizens to convert their retirement savings into an income stream with longevity protection.

A “fundamental change” in the approach to asset management is required by Australia’s pension system, which focuses on maximising wealth on retirement rather than ensuring a sustainable income flow for life, said Mr Murray.

The panel that produced the report, called the Murray Inquiry, will send its official policy recommendations to the Australian government in November.

S&P Threatens Illinois With Another Credit Downgrade In Wake of Pension Reform Uncertainty

In what has become an annual tradition, ratings agency S&P has threatened to further downgrade Illinois’ credit rating, whose bonds already carry among the lowest ratings in the country.

The main factor, according to S&P, was the status of the state’s pension reform law, which sits in legal limbo until a court decides its constitutionality.

From Reuters:

Standard & Poor’s Ratings Services on Wednesday warned that Illinois’ already low credit rating could sink further if the state is unable to implement reforms to curb its big unfunded pension liability and balance its budget.

The credit rating agency revised the outlook on Illinois’ A-minus credit rating to negative from developing, citing a recent state supreme court ruling that could derail a new pension reform law and the state’s structurally imbalanced state budget.

“If the pension reform is declared unconstitutional or invalid, or implementation is delayed and there is a continued lack of consensus and action among policymakers on the structural budget gaps and payables outstanding, we believe there could be a profound and negative effect on Illinois’ budgetary performance and liquidity over the next two years and that this could lead to a downgrade,” S&P said in a statement.

It added that Illinois could achieve a stable outlook if the pension reform law Illinois enacted in December withstands constitutional challenges and the state takes “credible action” to balance its budget.

When a state’s credit rating is under review, ratings agencies assign it to one of three categories: positive, negative or developing. Positive indicates that the rating agency holds a positive outlook for the state’s credit rating and will likely upgrade it in due time.

Illinois’ outlook was previously developing. Now, it is negative, meaning S&P will likely downgrade the rating sooner than later.

S&P added, however, that Illinois could avoid a downgrade if the state’s pension reform law passed legal muster.

Detroit Voters Pass Pension Cuts By A Landslide

The long-awaited news has finally come: Detroit’s pension holders have approved a ballot measure that cuts their pension benefits as part of the city’s bankruptcy plan. There was much speculation about whether the measure would pass. In the end, though, it wasn’t even close. The Wall Street Journal had the final tally:

The official count, filed late Monday night, showed 82% of those eligible for a police or fire pension who voted supported the plan. Roughly 73% of other retirees and employees with pension benefits who voted favored the plan. Voting lasted through early July.
The voting margins from pension holders were seen as an endorsement for the city’s plan to confront an estimated $18 billion in long-term obligations.
“The voting shows strong support for the City’s plan to adjust its debts and for the investment necessary to provide essential services and put Detroit on secure financial footing,” Detroit Emergency Manager Kevyn Orr said.
Despite the critical nature of the vote, a sizable chunk of those eligible sat out. About 59% of police and firefighter pension holders and 42% of other pension holders cast ballots, according to the city’s legal filing.

Need a recap of what exactly the “yes” vote means? Here’s an explanation from Click On Detroit:

General retirees would get a 4.5 percent pension cut and lose annual inflation adjustments. Retired police officers and firefighters would lose a portion of their annual cost-of-living raise.
Ballot approval of the pension changes triggers an extraordinary $816 million bailout from the state of Michigan, foundations and the Detroit Institute of Arts. The money would prevent the sale of city-owned art and avoid deeper pension cuts. The judge, however, still must agree.

That last line is key: the city’s bankruptcy judge still has to OK the plan. But it was always assumed that if voters passed it, the judge would too.

To read the official declaration released by the bankruptcy court, click here.

Pennsylvania Recieves Third Consecutive Credit Downgrade, and Its Pension System Is The Culprit

Just a few weeks ago, Pension360 covered the story of Pennsylvania’s pension tussle; in short, the state’s governor wanted lawmakers to address pension reform before they left on their vacations. Well, lawmakers are now on vacation and pension reform is gathering dust. The state’s credit rating is now paying the price.

From Reuters:

Moody’s Investors Service downgraded its rating on Pennsylvania debt to Aa3 from Aa2 on Monday, the third consecutive year that a new state budget has prompted a credit cut.
Moody’s cited underperforming revenues and the continued use of one-time measures in its latest downgrade. After wrestling with lawmakers over public pensions and cutting millions of dollars through line-item vetoes, Pennsylvania Governor Tom Corbett didn’t sign the 2015 budget until more than a week after the start of the new fiscal year on July 1.
The state has about $50 billion of unfunded long-term pension liabilities. About 63 cents of every new dollar of state revenue goes to pay pension costs, Corbett, a Republican, has said.
In order to close a deficit of about $1.5 billion without raising taxes, the state’s Republican-run legislature passed a spending plan that included one-time transfers of money from dedicated funds, such as one that helps volunteer fire companies purchase equipment.
Growing pension liabilities, coupled with modest economic growth, will limit Pennsylvania’s ability to regain structural balance in the near term, Moody’s said.

But the state can’t say it wasn’t warned; in fact, Moody’s, Fitch and S&P all warned Pennsylvania that they would be forced to downgrade its credit rating if the state produced an inadequate budget. A big part of what defined “adequacy”, in the eyes of the agencies, was doing something about the state’s dangerously unhealthy pension system.

Moody’s noted two key trends in its warning, released back in late April:

* High combined debt position driven by growing unfunded pension liabilities, and a history of significantly underfunding pension contributions that will be reversed slowly over the next four years
* Rapidly growing pension contributions will absorb much of the commonwealth’s financial flexibility over the next four years challenging its ability to return to structural balance or make meaningful contributions to the depleted budget stabilization fund

Moody’s, in its latest report, left the door open for upgrading the state’s rating. On the other hand, it also left the door open to downgrade it further. From Watchdog.org:

The rating could improve, Moody’s said, if the state reduced its long-term liabilities, including its unfunded pension liability. The rating could also rise if Pennsylvania replenished its reserves and revenues came in above projections, Moody’s indicated.
In turn, the rating could drop more if revenues come in worse than expected, if long-term liabilities grow and if further declines pressure liquidity, Moody’s said.
Moody’s gave Pennsylvania a stable outlook, saying that while Pennsylvania’s economy will grow more slowly than the United States on average, it has stabilized. Moody’s also cited a “recent history of improved governance, reflected in timely budget adoption and proactive financial management.”

Pennsylvania now has the third-worst credit rating among all 50 states. Illinois and New Jersey are the only states that carry lower ratings.

A Group of Lawmakers in Illinois Are Opting Out of Their Pensions

A group of legislators in Illinois are doing something a little strange and a lot unexpected: opting-out of their pensions.

It may only be for symbolic purposes, but it’s a rare, and interesting, occurrence nonetheless. From the Northwest Herald:

One of the first moves state Rep. David McSweeney made after assuming office in January 2013 was completing paperwork to opt out of the pension system, he said.

“I think this is a part-time job,” McSweeney said, “and with all the financial problems the state has, I don’t think legislators deserve pensions.”

As Illinois continues to grapple with pension reform in the midst of heavy financial woes, McSweeney, R-Barrington Hills, is joined in his decision by an increasing number of state legislators.

He is among a group of more than 20 known Illinois lawmakers forgoing pensions entitled to them through the General Assembly Retirement System, according to Reboot Illinois. McSweeney said he’s hoping to set an example.

“I would certainly encourage people to follow, and I think others are doing it,” he said.

Most of the participating lawmakers are relatively new to office. Coincidence? Actually, there’s a reason. From the Northwest Herald:

Upon entering into the legislature, members are “basically put into the plan automatically,” according to Tim Blair, executive secretary of the State Retirement System.

Those who have opted out had to do so within a 24-month period after becoming a member, Blair said, adding after two years, members no longer have the option to forgo the pension system.

Now, the absence of 20 pensions isn’t going to solve Illinois’ fiscal woes. But many groups have been calling for lawmakers to reduce or eliminate their pensions to help solve the ongoing fiscal crisis the state is facing. Here is a list of the participants, courtesy of Reboot Illinois:

Illinois-politicians-opt-out-pension-plans — Graphic courtesy of Reboot Illinois

Is Amending the Constitution a Viable Option for Pension Reform in Illinois?

For a while, it looked like Illinois was set to ease some of the burden of the pension obligations that had been weighing it down like a boulder. The state’s reform law, though not perfect—various parties disagreed on the effectiveness and fairness of the measure—had at least ended years of inaction on the part of lawmakers.

But a state Supreme Court ruling earlier this month left the fate of the reform law up in the air and called its constitutionality into question. Now, Illinois’ government is weighing its options, deciding what steps should be taken if and when the reform law is struck down by the courts.

If the law is eventually found unconstitutional, the solution may be to simply amend the constitution to make it legal. Of course, that’s easier said than done. Crain’s explains:

Amending the constitution would not be easy, to say the least, given recent history and the state’s current political climate. It would need approval by a three-fifths vote in both the Illinois House and Senate. That’s just to put a proposed amendment on the ballot, where it would need 60 percent of those voting on the issue to be approved.

Chances for a constitutional amendment are “a lot better than it was last time,” says Mr. Sosnowski, after the Kanerva decision signaled how strictly the court viewed the pension protection clause. “A lot of people looked at that and said we’ve got possibilities.”

But it can’t be done quickly. The Illinois Constitution requires a six-month waiting period before a proposed amendment can be placed on the ballot, so November 2016 is the soonest it could be put up for a vote. Meanwhile, the statewide pension law changes have been stayed, keeping benefits and contributions and inflation adjustments all in place.

So the state needs two things to make this work: political compromise and time. Unfortunately, it doesn’t have a great deal of either.

History is not on Illinois’ side, either. Lawmakers actually attempted to pass a pension-related constitutional amendment two years ago. But as they learned, you can’t sneak these things past voters–especially ones who are willing to mobilize. From Crain’s:

Two years ago, a relatively innocuous constitutional amendment that would have required supermajority approval by the state Legislature and municipalities to increase pension benefits was pushed through the Legislature by House Speaker Michael Madigan.

Widely panned as a meaningless measure that would not reduce the state’s pension debt, it passed the House unanimously, with only two dissenting votes in the Senate. But only 56 percent of voters approved, falling short of the supermajority needed.

“It was more of a PR issue,” said Rep. Tom Morrison, R-Palatine, who co-sponsored Mr. Sosnowski’s bill to repeal the pension protection clause in the last session of the Legislature. “What elected board is going to increase pension benefits in this environment?”

But a union coalition quickly mobilized to defeat it at the ballot box.

“They’re going to be ready; this time it wouldn’t get a majority of votes,” said John Kindt, professor emeritus of business and legal policy at the University of Illinois in Urbana, who chairs the U of I’s faculty and staff benefits committee. “A constitutional amendment could get through the General Assembly, but voters have already rejected it and they will be well-organized if the Legislature does it again.”

Short of amending the constitution, some lawmakers want to start from scratch on reform and start writing a brand new bill. One such lawmakers is state Senator Mike Frerichs, who is also running for the state’s treasurer position. From the Chicago Tribune:

Mike Frerichs says he thinks lawmakers should “go back to the drawing board” and start over on changes to public employee pension benefits following a recent Illinois Supreme Court ruling.

“I think in their opinion on health care, they made it fairly clear what their opinion on the state constitution is and how they’re going to rule on it,” Frerichs said Sunday about the public employee pension law on the “Sunday Spin” radio program on WGN 720-AM.

“We’ll wait and see what the Supreme Court rules, but I think it’s good to have a backup in place and to start working (on a backup plan) because I think it’s pretty clear we’re going to have to do that,” Frerichs said. “I think it’s probably time to go back to the drawing board.”

Illinois Gov. Pat Quinn is among several high-level officials in the state who remain optimistic the law’s constitutionality will be upheld. Of course, no one will know the truth until the Supreme Court rules on the issue, even if many consider the court’s most recent ruling to be the writing on the wall.

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /home/mhuddelson/public_html/pension360.org/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 3712