| | Advanced Search

 

Riley: Caprio Track Record Good, Seth Magaziner Claims Questioned—Riley: Caprio Track Record Good, Seth Magaziner Claims…

Guest MINDSETTER™ David Segal - Who Really Destroyed Rhode Island’s Economy?—Angel’s not a bad guy. He’s not exactly…

Johnston Sportsman Saves DEM Hunter Education Program with Big Donation—Johnston Sportsman Saves DEM Hunter Education Program with…

Horowitz: News Literacy: An Essential Skill in the Age of the Internet—Horowitz: News Literacy: An Essential Skill in the…

Newport Folk Preview – Five “Don’t Miss” Acts—The Newport Folk Festival is finally here and…

NEW: Fruits Sold in RI Recalled by California Packing Company—NEW: Fruits Sold in RI Recalled by California…

Russell Moore: Anybody But Cianci?—Russell Moore: Anybody But Cianci?

Angiulo: Non-Violent Drug Offenders May See Federal Prison Stays Shortened—Angiulo: Non-Violent Drug Offenders May See Federal Prison…

LISTEN: Smiley’s Firm Responsible for Million Dollar Reporting Error—Democratic candidate for Mayor of Providence Brett Smiley's…

Smart Benefits: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute Fee Due July 31—The Affordable Care Act created the Patient-Centered Outcomes…

 
 

Experts React to Rhode Island Pension Reform Agreement

Monday, February 17, 2014

 

Following the announcement a pension settlement proposal has been reached, Governor Lincoln Chafee, General Treasurer Gina Raimondo and attorneys representing public employee unions and retiree coalitions issued a joint release in support of the result of the court-ordered mediation -- and leaders in the Rhode Island community are now weighing in as well.  

“This proposal should not be perceived as a victory by one side over another, rather it is a positive first step forward providing for the continued stability and predictability of the retirement system for decades to come. Crucially, this proposal does more than end the risks associated with a costly and protracted litigation. This settlement proposal would resolve six pending lawsuits contesting changes made in 2009, 2010 and 2011. It also demonstrates that our small state can lead the rest of the nation and come together to solve big problems," said Chafee and Raimondo.  

See full details of proposed changes -- and timeline -- here.

Initial Reactions from Rhode Island Leaders

Gary Sasse, former Director of Administration and head of the Rhode Island Public Expenditure Council, said, "Labor's ability to negotiate give-back is a victory for public employees. There are no free lunches so the settlement will add to the future cost of state and local government. Increasing the unfunded liability is in marked contrast to the policy goals of pension reform."

Executive Director of the Rhode Island League of Cities and Towns Dan Beardsley took issue with the not just the settlement but with Govenor Chafee's statements at the press conference.  

"First of all, I guess the Governor made a comment at the presser that "the lone dissenting vote by Dan Beardsley was probably coming from [Mayor] Fung's opposition" -- not only am I appalled that the Governor would stoop to such petty politics, as a former president of the League, he should be ashamed of himself for making such a comment," said Beardsley.  "I've never cast a vote on the whims or wishes of one of my members -- I represent all the cities and towns, I'm not at the whim of one employee, those I've worked with have trusted me for over 40 years."

Beardsley continued, "As a member of retirement board, I cast a vote in opposition because the local share of teacher contributions will increase $7.9M in FY16, the MERS will increase 2.6 M in 2016, police and fire MERS units will increase by $600K in FY16. In all, the total unfunded accrued liability will increase by $109M.

"Active retirees will now have weeks to review and vote, the GA will have weeks to review the proposed settlement -- and I had less than 3 hours to review over 100 pages of documents before my vote?" posed Beardsley.  "Do I acknowledge that it will secure 95%? I'll acknowledge that, but I'm someone who believes the state was justified by the Constitution to take the measures they did. Moreover, I'm astounded the General Assembly will have to swallow this in it's entirety -- they can't make even one change, I find that mind-boggling."

"For what it's worth, the total cost increase may seem inconsequentially small to the administration overseeing an $8B budget, but tell that to the distressed communities, rubbing pennies together, like Pawtucket, and Woonsocket -- try to explain to those communities that this is inconsequential," said Beardsley. 

Mayor Fung was vocal in his opposition following the settlement announcement.  "I'm going to reach out to GA members not to approve this -- the increased costs will be passed down to taxpayers in FY16, as well as an increased unfunded liability. That's a concern of mine.  I think once the taxpayers of Rhode Island start finding out what this bill could mean to them, they're doing to be concerned as well."

Taxpayers on Record

"My initial reaction, setting aside the details financially, it's a difficult pill to swallow," said Lisa Blais with Rhode Island taxpayer advocacy group OSTPA.  "And to hear the Governor and Treasurer to talk about certainty, and financial stability and the right thing to do for taxpayers and pensioners -- and this is exactly what were heard in [2011] when the reform was advocated for, and was passed."

Blais continued, "The bottom line is that they completely avoided dealing with the big question of that lawsuits were brought based on the constitutionally of the [General Assembly] passing the statute, changing the detail of how the pension law would work -- and yet in secret mediation, labor isn't crying foul over constitutionally issue, because they've now bargained increased benefits."

"From a taxpayer perspective, it leaves many people with the feeling we're at the whim unions and politicians, that we're their ATM," said Blais.  "We've got cities and towns teetering on the brink of bankruptcy, programs being cut, taxpayers who just recently had to deal with net property tax increases up until 20%, we're supposed to say, this isn't so bad?  It's a hard pill to swallow to watch the Governor and General Treasurer ignore separation of powers -- they left the General Assembly out of the room altogether.'

Former Congressional candidate and financial analyst Michael Riley added, "I have concerns on the added cost to the many vulnerable cities and towns as well as the extended nature of the process. We really need to address the cities before its too late."


 

 

Related Articles

 

Enjoy this post? Share it with others.

Comments:

It is a bad deal! By this negotiation, should the GA approve it, won't they have established a "contract" between the state and it's unions for their pension benefits? I see this undermining the constitutional right of the GA to legislate the pension question, and I hope they reject this "negotiated settlement" out of hand.

Let the courts do their job and decide the constitutional question first. Then, if any change is necessary, make it.

My city can't afford to add any more to our burdens we've been forced to put on our taxpayers. This will be another obstacle, imposed by the state,delaying our recovery from the economic collapse of 2008 and the abandonment of necessary support by the General Assembly.

Throw this settlement out.

Comment #1 by John Ward on 2014 02 17

It doesn't really matter who wins. It's all about who loses.
And as always, it's the taxpayers that lose.
Always always always!!!!
Counting down the months, til i'm sooooooooo out of this state.

Comment #2 by pearl fanch on 2014 02 17

We can finally put to rest the myth of the "powerful unions". After all these months of negotiations they get a few crumbs tossed their way while 95% of Gina Raimondo's scam remains in tact thanks to Golocal, the Projo and other tools of the 1% like Gary Sasse. This should have gone to court n the first place where the whole pension reform should have been reversed. At this point the unions who gain nothing from this settlement have nothing to lose. From what I hear the rank and file of union members will never vote for this joke of an agreement.

Comment #3 by Jonathan Bainsworth on 2014 02 17

A judge, lawyers, union bigwigs, and politicians – all with net-worth’s we serfs can only dream about -drafted a solution in secret that crushes non-government workers in one of the highest-taxed states even more. And this is peddled as a victory for regular working stiffs?

My advice: Don’t pee on the serfs and tell them it’s raining.

Comment #4 by Christopher Lee on 2014 02 17

None of those in the post or commenting are "experts" - they are simply partisans representing one interest or another. We really need to hear from disinterested experts.

While adding to the pension liability is a legitimate concern, it seems this is a reasonable balance between competing legitimate interests to help low-pension retirees a bit and avoid the risks (to ALL sides) and certan high legal fees if this proposed deal is rejected.

Comment #5 by barry schiller on 2014 02 17

Having just read the settlement agreement, there is an issue almost beyond belief. Members of each union class will be asked to vote but to defeat this settlement, a majority of members must vote, "no." By that I don't mean a majority of those voting but a majority of the entire voting class. In other words, if there are 100 retired teachers (obviously there are more), then 51 teachers must vote, "no." If 3 retired teachers vote "yes" and 49 vote "no," then the vote is "yes." How is this fair or equitable? Anyone will tell you that the majority of any group will likely not vote -- thereby inadvertently voting "yes." Particularly in the case of retirees, some may be ill, some may be out-of-state, some may be cognitively impaired due to stroke, medications, dementia, or Alzheimer's. This is an outrage no matter which side of the issue you are on.

Comment #6 by Fruma Efreom on 2014 02 17

Fruma Efreom -

Does it seem they're getting ready for Broadway, so to speak? Things worked so well, the COLA-grab, the hedge fund follies, the 'return' of a few crumbs to retirees, that with this latest vote gag, they're moving on to bigger 'n' better takings?

And what a brilliant fall-guy choice, the most important 'first step' in any Constructed Fraud: 'Those bad, bad, eviw retirees and their lavish unsustainable lifestyles' are all at fault for this.

And for everything else, one might add.

At some point, expect them to blame the 38 Studios mess on 'bad, bad, eviw retirees' as well. And why not? It worked so well in this protracted instance, why not pull the same gag again? It works.

Awful. Expect more of it. Plan accordingly.

Comment #7 by paul zecchino on 2014 02 18




Commenting is not available in this channel entry.