pension reform | Pension360

Where Does Bruce Rauner Stand on Pension Reform?

When talking pensions on the campaign trail early in 2014, Bruce Rauner said that new hires, current workers and retirees all would need to be on the receiving end of pension benefit cuts.

But Rauner has softened that stance in recent months; the Illinois governor now says the benefits accrued by current workers and retirees need to be protected.

From NBC Chicago:

[Rauner remarked] that it’s most important to “protect what is done—don’t change history. Don’t modify or reduce anybody’s pension who has retired, or has paid into a system and they’ve accrued benefits. Those don’t need to change.”

[…]

“What we should change is the future—the future accruals, the future benefits for future work,” he said, according to the Chicago Sun-Times. “That is constitutional. It’s also fair and appropriate for the taxpayers and the workers themselves.”

“Hopefully (the state Supreme Court) will give us some feedback that will help guide the discussion for future modifications as appropriate for the pensions,” noted Rauner.

Rauner’s website has also been updated accordingly and clarifies his official stance further. He is still pushing for a switch to a 401(k)-style system, but he wants to keep current retirees insulated from any changes:

We must keep our promise to current retirees, but we put all government workers at risk by continuing to promise a pension no one can afford.

[…]

We must boldly reform our pension system. To do that, we can:

* Ensure pay and benefits do not rise faster than the rate of inflation.

* Eliminate the ability of government employees to receive massive pay raises before they retire just to increase their pension.

* Cap the current system and move towards a defined contribution system.

The change in sentiment is perhaps due to a circuit court ruling late last year that overturned the state’s pension reform law, which made it more unlikely that pension reforms can legally come in the form of benefit cuts for retirees.

The law is currently being heard in the halls of the state Supreme Court.

It could also be that Rauner, since taking office and taking the temperature of fellow lawmakers, is now more in-tune with the political realities of steep pension cuts, and doesn’t see the worth in pushing an unpopular policy if it has little chance of coming to fruition.

By Steven Vance [CC-BY-2.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0)], via Wikimedia Commons

Chicago Lawyers Predict “Catastrophic Outcome” If City’s Own Pension Reforms Are Eventually Overturned

The City of Chicago submitted a brief to the Supreme Court this month supporting the legality of the state’s pension reform law.

That’s because a court decision against the pension law wouldn’t bode well for the legal standing of the city’s own set of pension reforms. Chicago’s lawyers said in the brief that a “catastrophic outcome” should be anticipated if the city’s reforms are eventually overturned.

From the Chicago Sun-Times:

Chicago faces a $300 million deficit in 2016 with shortfalls continuing “for the forseeable future” — even before piling on $20 billion in pension liabilities that have saddled the city with the “worst credit rating of any major city other than Detroit.”

And if state legislation that saved two of four city employee pension funds is overturned, a “catastrophic outcome” awaits retirees and Chicago taxpayers alike triggered by “further downgrades.”

After putting the state case on a fast-track, the Illinois Supreme Court ruled this week that it won’t have time to hear any friend-of-the court briefs.

But the city’s filing nevertheless paints the bleakest and most accurate picture yet of the financial crisis that awaits the winner of the Feb. 24 mayoral election.

“The Chicago bill should survive, regardless of the outcome of this appeal. If it doesn’t, the city’s liabilities will increase by $2.5 million a day,” Corporation Counsel Stephen Patton wrote in the Jan. 12 filing.

“The city will suffer further [bond rating] downgrades that could materially increase the cost of borrowing money essential to funding basic operations. And it could make the city immediately liable to pay hundreds of millions of dollars as a result of default and early termination of debt-related obligations.”

Chicago’s pension reform measure ended compounded COLAs for some retirees and raised employee contributions by 29 percent.

Photo by bitsorf via Flickr CC LIcense

Judge in Illinois Pension Lawsuit Rejects Request For More Time

Lawyers representing groups challenging Illinois’ pension reform law asked for more time to file arguments this week. The request would have extended the deadline by a month.

The judge presiding over the case rejected that request on Thursday.

From the Associated Press:

The Illinois Supreme Court has rejected a request for an extra month to file arguments by lawyers contesting the law that overhauls a state pension program that is $111 billion in debt.

Attorneys for state employees, retired teachers and others who contest the constitutionality of the law said they needed until March 16.

But the court denied the motion Thursday because it had already agreed to fast track the appeal of a lower court’s ruling. The case is scheduled to be heard in March.

The judge also rejected a request from outside groups who wanted to file additional briefs. From Pantagraph:

A lawsuit seeking to overturn changes to the state’s employee pension systems remains on a fast track.

In a decision issued Thursday, the Illinois Supreme Court denied a request from outside groups and individuals to file briefs in the case, saying the additional filings could put the court’s plan to hear the case during its March term in jeopardy.

Attorneys representing state retirees and employees who would be affected by the Legislature’s controversial 2013 pension overhaul supported the court’s decision.

Moody’s: Legal Hurdles to Reform, History of Shorting Annual Contributions Contribute to Texas’ Rising Pension Costs

A new Moody’s report says that Texas and its municipalities will face rising pension costs in coming years. The report also notes that local governments may not be able to ease those costs as legal hurdles prevent significant pension reforms.

On the state level, the costs come in the form of higher contributions – at least one state-level system is requesting the state contribute more money starting in fiscal year 2016-17.

From Moody’s:

The State of Texas (Aaa stable) and some of its local governments face rising pensions costs due to a history of contributions below actuarial requirements, Moody’s Investors Service says in a new report, “Cost Deferrals Drive Rising Pension Challenges for Texas and Some Locals.”

While the state has a broad ability to tackle pension funding challenges, many local government pension plans are subject to state constitutional protection.

“Most Texas local governments face greater legal constraints and procedural hurdles to pension reform, while the state has substantially more legal flexibility to change and adjust benefits to its plans,” said the report’s author and Moody’s Assistant Vice President — Analyst, Thomas Aaron.

Texas participates in four single-employer plans, with the majority of costs associated with the Employee Retirement System (ERS), and the Teachers Retirement System (TRS). In order to address an ongoing funding challenge, the ERS requested a 59% increase in the state’s contribution rate for the fiscal 2016-17 biennium for that system alone, a cost increase of nearly $540 million across all of the state’s funds.

The full report can be read here [subscription required].

Video: Pension Reform and the Implications for Private Equity

Kathleen Kennedy Townsend, Managing Director at Rock Creek Group, gave this presentation on pension reform, retirement security and what it means for private equity. The talk was filmed at the 2014 Women’s Private Equity Summit.

New Maryland Gov. Turns Focus to State Pensions

Gov.-elect Larry Hogan is busy constructing a budget to give to state lawmakers this week. But next on Hogan’s to-do list is a thorough examination of the state’s underfunded pension system – and how it will affect the budget his team has just put together.

From the Baltimore Sun:

The Maryland State Retirement and Pension System had only about 69 percent of the assets needed to pay for future and current retirees’ pensions in the last fiscal year — well below the at least 80 percent target that many experts consider healthy.

Robert Neall, Hogan’s fiscal adviser, called the nearly $20 billion unfunded liability in the state retirement system “an area of concern.” Hogan’s team has been busy putting together a budget to present to the Maryland General Assembly on Jan. 23, but Neall said the administration will soon begin examining the health of the pension system.

“That’s going to require higher pension contributions [from the state] probably for two decades, that’s why it’s a concern,” Neall said. “They are just facts that we have to contend with as we put together a fiscal ’15 closure and a fiscal ’16 budget to present to the General Assembly.

[…]

Michael Golden, a spokesman for the state pension system, said reforms made to the pension system in 2011, including requiring most employees to contribute 7 percent of their salaries into the fund instead of 5 percent, put it “on the road to stability.”

“We feel like were on track to get to the 80 percent funded ratio by 2024; we think that’s a good track to be riding on,” Golden said. “We have no plans at this moment to do anything differently.”

Robert Burd, the retirement system’s acting chief investment officer, said the board chose to reduce the percentage of money invested in stocks — about 39 percent was invested in stocks in 2014, less than most other states — after the recession because of concern about risk. While Maryland has not enjoyed as much of a benefit from the rebound in the stock market, Burd said, the change leaves the fund less exposed to future downturns.

“That’s why we don’t look as good as some of our peers do when it comes to rankings,” Burd said.

Maryland’s pension system manages $45.4 billion in assets for 143,000 retirees and is 69 percent funded.

Jacksonville Pension Reform Hits Another Snag As JEA Says: “Take It Or Leave It”

Jacksonville’s pension reform proposal – if and when it passes – would require the city and public utility company JEA to borrow a combined $240 million.

But that aspect of the plan has hit a road bump, and now JEA is telling the city to accept the plan as-is or count JEA out entirely.

From the Florida Times-Union:

JEA finance and audit committee members learned Tuesday that city officials have been trying to claw back a key concession that enticed the utility to become a partner in financing Mayor Alvin Brown’s major pension-reform legislation.

That concession — which in essence would amount to a reduction in JEA’s annual contribution to the city’s general fund over 20 years — is non-negotiable for JEA and could be a tricky sticking point for city officials going forward.

“It is a take it or leave it,” committee Chairman Peter Bower said.

[…]

JEA’s annual general fund contribution currently increases by $2.5 million each year, maxing out at a total $114.2 million in 2016. That contribution formula — which expires next year — means that even as JEA’s revenues have declined in recent years, its contribution to the city has ballooned. That gulf has become a concern for JEA officials.

In exchange for borrowing $120 million for pension reform, however, the city had agreed to, in broad terms, reduce those contributions by $2.5 million for the next several years and ultimately revert to a formula linked to JEA revenues.

Those changes were to be locked down for 20 years beginning next year.

But JEA CEO Paul McElroy told audit and finance committee members Tuesday the city now wants to be able to revisit, and potentially change, the new contribution formula in as soon as five years.

That didn’t sit well with JEA board members, who said they conceptually agreed to help the city pay its pension debt only on specific terms, including the new 20-year contribution formula.

The committee will meet again in 10 days to see if staff has been able to address the issue.

The city’s pension reform measure aims to improve the funding and sustainability of the city’s Police and Fire system. JEA is a key part of that plan, because the city cannot afford by itself to shoulder the cost of the proposal.

Photo by pshab via Flickr CC License

Judge in New Jersey Pension Trial Calls State Pension Contributions a “False Promise”

The judge presiding over the legal battle between New Jersey and its public workers said last week that the state’s 2011 pension reform law was a “false promise”.

The law required the state to contribute a set amount of money annually to the pension system. But Christie slashed those payments last year.

The judge, Mary Jacobson, wondered why New Jersey included in the reforms the “false promise” of guaranteed pension payments if the state knew it was unconstitutional.

From App.com:

Superior Court Judge Mary Jacobson repeatedly made the point that the Legislature specifically made the pension contributions a contractual right in a law signed by Christie, though the administration’s lawyer said it’s not allowable because lawmakers decide each year what to fund.

“You’re saying that it was known at that time, should have been known at that time, that that was a false promise,” Jacobson said.

“It’s unprecedented because it’s unconstitutional if enforced,” said deputy attorney general Jean Reilly. “It’s not an accident that it’s not in there before. It’s not in there before because it’s not constitutionally permissible to do. … For all future legislatures, it’s merely an exhortation for payment.”

Lawyers for the Communications Workers of America union said Christie and lawmakers locked the obligation into law because pension payments are always the first thing to be cut if money gets tight. They said Christie was required to find the funding to pay for pensions, not skip the obligation.

“It was a political decision not to do that,” said attorney Kenneth Nowak. “Now, the governor may have some agenda as to how he feels about taxes. But he also has a constitutional obligation.”

Christie cut the state’s pension payments in 2014 and 2015 by around $2.5 billion.

Photo credit: “New Jersey State House” by Marion Touvel – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:New_Jersey_State_House.jpg. Licensed under Public domain via Wikimedia Commons – http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:New_Jersey_State_House.jpg#mediaviewer/File:New_Jersey_State_House.jpg

New Hampshire Supreme Court Upholds Benefit Changes

The New Hampshire Supreme Court has upheld several changes key to the state’s pension reforms passed since 2011.

At issue were the definitions of a cost-of-living adjustment and “earned compensation”.

State lawmakers altered the definitions of those terms as part of pension reforms, and the court has now upheld the new definitions.

The court ruling, coupled with a related ruling by the court last month, has big implications for New Hampshire pensions.

The biggest is that public worker pensions aren’t contractually protected from being altered – regardless of whether that alteration comes from raising employee contributions or outright benefit changes.

Video: New Pennsylvania Gov. Tom Wolf Talks About His Plans for Pension Funding, Reform

Pennsylvania Gov. Elect Tom Wolf will take office on January 20, and sooner than later he’ll be inundated with pushes from lawmakers to re-design the state pension plan.

What should the city’s public sector workers expect under Wolf’s watch?

In this video, he talks in-depth about his plans for the pension system.

Videos of Wolf’s plans for education funding and other major policy issues can be viewed here.

Video credit: LancasterOnline

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