CO-04 (Special Election) See Full Big Line

(R) Greg Lopez

(R) Trisha Calvarese

90%

10%

President (To Win Colorado) See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Biden*

(R) Donald Trump

80%

20%↓

CO-01 (Denver) See Full Big Line

(D) Diana DeGette*

90%

CO-02 (Boulder-ish) See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Neguse*

90%

CO-03 (West & Southern CO) See Full Big Line

(D) Adam Frisch

(R) Jeff Hurd

(R) Ron Hanks

40%

30%

20%

CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado) See Full Big Line

(R) Lauren Boebert

(R) Deborah Flora

(R) J. Sonnenberg

30%↑

15%↑

10%↓

CO-05 (Colorado Springs) See Full Big Line

(R) Dave Williams

(R) Jeff Crank

50%↓

50%↑

CO-06 (Aurora) See Full Big Line

(D) Jason Crow*

90%

CO-07 (Jefferson County) See Full Big Line

(D) Brittany Pettersen

85%↑

 

CO-08 (Northern Colo.) See Full Big Line

(D) Yadira Caraveo

(R) Gabe Evans

(R) Janak Joshi

60%↑

35%↓

30%↑

State Senate Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

80%

20%

State House Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

95%

5%

Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
August 03, 2013 12:43 PM UTC

How the Colorado Supreme Court Can Fix Colorado PERA's Self-inflicted Legal Fiasco.

  • 2 Comments
  • by: PolDancer

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

Comments

2 thoughts on “How the Colorado Supreme Court Can Fix Colorado PERA’s Self-inflicted Legal Fiasco.

  1. 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.  

     

  2. 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

Leave a Comment

Recent Comments


Posts about

Donald Trump
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Lauren Boebert
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Yadira Caraveo
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado House
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado Senate
SEE MORE

271 readers online now

Newsletter

Subscribe to our monthly newsletter to stay in the loop with regular updates!