By: Marsha Shuler
The Advocate
More than 100,000 retired state employees, teachers, school
employees and State Police find themselves in the middle of a political squeeze
play.
A 1.5 percent increase in their pension checks — the first in
six years for most — got tied to a revamp of the system that grants
cost-of-living adjustments.
The changes being proposed would limit both the frequency and
amount of future COLA increases.
Lawmakers have made it plain: Either accept the COLA system
change, or there will be no 1.5 percent bump, the equivalent of an average $29
a month increase for most.
It’s not as if the legislative debate over COLAs, and how they
are funded, was not anticipated.
In fact, the leaders of the largest agencies handling government
retirees — Louisiana State Employees Retirement System and the Teachers
Retirement System of Louisiana — had long predicted COLAs would be the big
retirement topic of the year.
COLAs are funded through special “experience accounts” into
which are deposited pension system investment gains above a certain specified
amount.
The trigger is different, depending on which of the four
statewide retirement systems is involved. The Legislature established the
accounts not so long ago.
But pension system debts exceed $19 billion, and some
legislators want to change the rules.
The liability is largely because of past administrations and
Legislatures providing pension benefits without adequately funding them and
escalating interest on that debt.
State Rep. Joel Robideaux, R-Lafayette, and other legislators
familiar with retirement plans are pushing legislation that would require more
of the systems’ investment earnings to go into reduction of their unfunded
accrued liability, the money needed to meet pension commitments over time.
The legislation also would link the maximum cost-of-living
adjustment that could be awarded to the financial health of each of the
government retirement systems.
As each becomes better funded, the potential for COLAs above 1.5
percent increases to a maximum of 3 percent. A system would have to be at least
85 percent funded to get the highest amount. In addition, the age eligibility
for COLAs would rise from 60 to 62.
As the push is occurring, the Public Affairs Research Council of
Louisiana issued a report encouraging the Legislature to take the opportunity
“to make larger and needed changes” in the process.
“The Experience Account takes funds that otherwise would be used
to reduce the debt of the retirement system and applies them toward permanent
benefit increases,” wrote PAR’s Stephen Procopia. “This method is particularly
troublesome for Louisiana’s systems that have only about 60 percent of the
funds needed to meet their liabilities, one of the most severe liability
shortfalls in the nation.”
PAR reurged a 2005 recommendation: Abolish the experience
accounts. It further stated, “Planned COLAs for existing retirees should be
funded through employer contributions, while planned COLAs for active employees
should be funded by both employer and employee contributions.”
So far, the state employee and teachers retirement systems have
not taken positions on the proposed changes. The retirement systems were not
blindsided by the Robideaux bill. Officials of each were involved in
negotiations over provisions in advance of the bill filing and got some
concessions. They are hoping for more concessions.
Meanwhile, state employee and teacher retiree groups’ top
priority is the COLA for their members whose only income is their pension
checks.
Legislators have not wanted to appropriate funds for
cost-of-living increases so, instead, they tapped some “excess” investment
earnings.
That decision, as PAR noted, runs counter to efforts to improve
the systems’ debt — a debt in large part from past Legislatures and
administrations’s failing to properly fund the benefits they approved.
Now, legislators want to modify the plan so more dollars go
toward debt reduction and cost-of-living increases become harder to come by.
And the retirees are caught in the middle wishing and hoping for
what PAR called “a realistic, affordable, predictable and carefully defined
COLA policy.”
No comments:
Post a Comment