Posted on 04/01/2011 3:13:06 PM PDT by BenLurkin
Gov. Jerry Brown today issued a 12-point pension reform agenda his office says he will introduce in the Legislature "with or without Republican support."
The first seven items seek to end abuses or tighten pension funding rules. The last five involve more systemic changes and are listed as "under development."
PENSION REFORM PROPOSAL
APPLIES TO STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTS
1. Eliminate Purchase of Airtime. Would eliminate the opportunity, for all current and future employee members of all state and local retirement systems, to purchase additional retirement service credit. (RN 14777) (Note Walters, SB 522, would eliminate Air Time)
2. Prohibit Pension Holidays. All California public agencies would be prohibited from suspending employer and/or employee contributions necessary to fund the normal cost of pension benefits. (RN 14777)
3. Prohibit Employers from Making Employee Pension Contributions. All California public agencies would be prohibited from making employee contributions that fund the normal cost of employee retirement benefits in whole or in part. (RN 14777)
4. Prohibit Retroactive Pension Increases. All California public agencies would be prohibited from granting any retroactive pension benefit increases, such as benefit formula improvements that credit prior service. (RN 14777)
5. Prohibit Pension Spiking: Three Year Final Compensation. Final compensation for new employees would be defined as the highest average annual compensation during a consecutive 36 month period. (RN 14777)
6. Prohibit Pension Spiking: Define Compensation as Only Regular, Non-recurring Pay. Compensation means normal rate of pay or base pay. (RN 14777) (Note Simitian, SB 27, would exclude from defined benefit changes in compensation principally for the purpose of enhancing benefits; would place stricter limits on creditable compensation)
7. Felony Convictions. Prohibits payment of pension benefits to those who commits a felony related to their employment. (RN 14777) (• Note Strickland, SB 115, similar prohibition)
(Excerpt) Read more at ccpoa.org ...
If it's Brown, flush it.
Is this an April Fools joke? I question the timing of this release.
I'm confused.
Shouldn't compensation be defined as "Only Regular, Recurring Pay"?
I thought they wanted to get away from basing pension on a year with high overtime, one off hazard pay etc.?
If moonbeam had real guts, he would apply this to persons already retired. Why should they skate?
This is a finger in the dike but it is a start.
Leave Rosie O'Donnell out of this.
California’s pension mess is thoroughly bipartisan in its origin. Republicans gladly voted for abusive pension policies in order to avoid hard choices between taxes and civil servant (especially public safety) compensation. California has had Republican governors for 23 of the last 28 years, as well as budget blocking minorities for every one of those years.
More importantly, there will be absolutely no long-term and effective solutions to the state/local pension deficts nor the analogous federal problems (Medicaid, Medicaid and Social Security) which are not bipartisan. Neither party can have any hope of holding a political majority big enough or for long enough to impose its own solution, or bear the political fire of doing so given how painful some necessary steps will be.
Number 3 increases public safety overtime cost by almost 14%.
Plus most employers use this to have CalPERS pay out about 1% less than the employee would oterwise receive.
Employees come out way ahead with that item.
Why should the state have control over city government pensions?
The state has control over its own pension plan, most cities choose to use the state plan, but aren’t obligated to.
According to this article, the cities would have to comply with the state rules.
In Arizona, there is a bill which would force cities to put jobs up for bid to outside contractors.
I am not against the concept, I just question the state controlling the cities’ hiring practices.
Here’s a thought
Return to employees their contribution up to 4% of normal wages at 2000 hours per year.
Dissolve all pensions, the government workers are on their own
Can’t apply it to folks who are already retired, their rights are fully vested and can’t be tampered with. These are actually some very good reform proposals, and Moonbeam is going to take far more heat from his own party than the gop (lowercase intended).
There’s nothing sacred regarding commitments to government workers that should exceed the value of commitments made to private workers from private entities.
A private company can go bankrupt and dissolve worker pension commitments. Sometimes the government steps in, but the employees usually take a some kind of hit.
Same can happen to existing retired government workers. They are not above compromise.
We government representatives who see taxpayers as shareholders, and not as voiceless victims.
True, they can’t apply it to retired folks or to benefits earned on past employment. But they could apply it to all future benefits, including those of existing workers. I haven’t read all 21 pages, but it looks like this applies only to NEW employees hired after June 2011. I’d like to see them expand it to all employees, for work performed post June 2011.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/52025321/Gov-Jerry-Brown-s-pension-reform-proposal
I agree — it’s a good start. I think they should also do away with using a single years compensation as the base, vs. a multi-year average — ref #5. That would further eliminate some of the spiking tactics. They also need to increase the retirement age on some workers. Full benefits for life at age 55 is ridiculous, IMO. If not increase the age, they could reduce the benefits if received before full retirement age (which should be at least 65, imo).
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.