Here is a simple way for the Colorado Supreme Court to clean up Colorado PERA's self-inflicted legal mess. The Colorado Supreme Court should grant cert in the case Justus v. State, and quickly strike, as a question of law, the COLA provisions of SB10-001 (as facially unconstitutional.) The PERA COLA is "pension," and it is a contractual obligation of PERA-affiliated employers. The court should simultaneously invite the Colorado General Assembly to submit an interrogatory (through Hickenlooper) seeking guidance on the constitutionality of potential pension reform alternatives.
The Leadership of the General Assembly should send this interrogatory to the court for clarification on the following points:
To what extent can the Colorado General Assembly increase employee contributions to address unfunded pension liabilities?
To what extent can the General Assembly alter the PERA pension multiplier on a prospective basis to address unfunded pension liabilities? (i.e., without impacting previously accrued Colorado PERA pension benefits.) See Professor Amy Monahan's paper, "Public Pension Plan Reform: The Legal Framework."
The Colorado General Assembly should then appoint an interim study committee that is limited to consideration of reforms that the Supreme Court deems constitutionally permissible in its response to the interrogatory. (This interrogatory should have been submitted in 2009.) The General Assembly should price out these reforms using multiple independent actuaries. The General Assembly should not again relinquish its policy-making authority to outside parties. The General Assembly should enact these legal, prospective pension reforms, restoring PERA's funding ratio to an 80 percent (well-funded) position in the coming decades, honoring existing pension contracts. The 100 percent threshold in SB10-001 is an absurd and unnecessary overreach.
The fact that Colorado PERA's funded ratio will fall during this year of transition is irrelevant, PERA's accrued pension debt will be paid out over the next 50-60 years. (As Judge Casebolt, a PERA Trustee, has informed us, PERA can pay benefits for decades with current resources.) The Colorado PERA Board of Trustees will not be pleased with efforts to reform PERA in a prospective, legal manner, but they are culpable in creating the existing PERA legal fiasco. This plan allows all parties involved to move forward with the sanctity of Colorado contracts and the Colorado Constitution intact.
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1573864
You must be logged in to post a comment.
BY: MichaelBowman
IN: At Least She’s Not Your Puppy Murdering Governor
BY: Me Not U
IN: At Least She’s Not Your Puppy Murdering Governor
BY: MichaelBowman
IN: Wednesday Open Thread
BY: Meiner49er
IN: Friday Open Thread
BY: Meiner49er
IN: Educating All Kids Is Still The Right Thing To Do
BY: kwtree
IN: Educating All Kids Is Still The Right Thing To Do
BY: Chickenheed
IN: Educating All Kids Is Still The Right Thing To Do
BY: Genghis
IN: Educating All Kids Is Still The Right Thing To Do
BY: MichaelBowman
IN: At Least She’s Not Your Puppy Murdering Governor
BY: Genghis
IN: At Least She’s Not Your Puppy Murdering Governor
Subscribe to our monthly newsletter to stay in the loop with regular updates!
Hey Algernon, I agree that things would be much simpler if the Colorado Supreme Court would grant cert to Justus v State and then strike the COLA provisions from SB10-001. But alas, it's time to wake up and get back to reality. Justus et al v. State et al probably is destined to be a hard-scrabbled fight, perhaps as lengthy as the nearly 8-year long Lobato v State lawsuit (2005-2013).
Those who made a substantive purchase of service credits have been on the sidelines awaiting the conclusion of Justice v State to see whether it's necessary to file a secondary lawsuit for the enforcement of service credit purchase contracts. However, it's quite possible that the Justice v State case will still be unresolved in 2016.
My personal interest lies with the Justus case, but perhaps if there were a class action lawsuit filed soon (or this year) by those who purchased a substantial amount pf service credits, it would gain the attention of the Colorado judiciary and maybe add some bearing grease to the wheels of justice. Surely it's in the interest of the defendants to prolong the SavePeraCola case beyond the (6 year?) statutory time limit for filing a second lawsuit involving the retiree contract breach.
Rhode Island Pensioners … as sheep in the midst of hedge fund wolves
"Had the hedge fund money been invested in stocks, the pension fund could have earned $100 million more based on the Russell index. During the same period, the state paid out $200 million less by suspending cost-of-living allowances to retirees."
"But a growing number of critics attack hedge funds as over-hyped, risky and costly investments that have lagged behind strong stock-market gains. The only people getting rich from hedge funds, the skeptics say, are the Wall Street tycoons who run them, raking in high fees while retirees and working men and women see their retirement benefits slashed."
http://www.providencejournal.com/breaking-news/content/20130803-will-rhode-islands-big-bet-on-hedge-funds-pay-off.ece