New public pension accounting rules will not change how rates paid by state and local governments are set. But how the public and lawmakers will react to a new way of reporting pension costs is less clear.
After new rules in 2004 told governments to begin reporting the cost of retiree health care promised employees, a major “hidden” debt was revealed — estimated in 2008 to be $118 billion over the next 30 years for state and local government in California.
For the first time some local governments, even in these tough times, began putting money into investments to pay for future retiree health care, moving away from pay-as-you-go and prefunding the cost in the same way as pensions.
Now the Governmental Accounting Standards Board is proposing new rules to make public pension financial reports “more transparent, comparable and useful to citizens, legislators and bond analysts.”
So, there is a question:
Will the new accounting rules do for pensions what new rules did for retiree health — reveal what some regard as a “hidden” debt showing that pensions are in more trouble than they admit and perhaps trigger a response?
The accounting board issued its preliminary views last fall and a final draft last month. After taking national comment, including hearings Oct.13 and 14 in San Francisco, the board is expected to adopt new rules next year that take effect in 2013.
Last week the eight-member California Actuarial Advisory Panel, created by legislation (SB 1123 in 2008) to provide impartial policy information, voted to comment on the accounting board proposals and assist others in commenting if asked.
“I’m seeing a lot of media basically saying there is going to be sticker shock when these things come out,” the panel chairman, CalPERS chief actuary Alan Milligan, said during a break. “I’m not so sure about that.”
Critics contend that the California Public Employees Retirement System and other public pension systems use overly optimistic investment earning forecasts, concealing debt and the need to raise employer rates to avoid passing debt to future generations.
CalPERS in March left its forecast at 7.75 percent, not dropping to 7.5 percent as recommended by actuaries. The California State Teachers Retirement System dropped its forecast from 8 to 7.75 percent in December, not 7.5 percent as recommended.
Last year Stanford graduate students showed how a much lower earnings forecast caused the long-term debt or “unfunded liability” of the three state systems (CalPERS, CalSTRS and UC Retirement) to soar from $55 billion to $500 billion.
The widely publicized Stanford report followed the view of economists, who say a risk-free bond rate should be used for pension fund earnings forecasts, not a diversified stock-based portfolio, because public pensions are risk free, guaranteed by taxpayers.
The students used a government bond rate, 4.1 percent, not the 7.5 to 8 percent used by the three state funds. The funds expect to get two-thirds of their money from investments. So when the earnings forecast dropped, the unfunded liability soared.
The new accounting rules use a risk-free bond rate — but importantly, only for the part of future obligations not projected to be covered by the pension fund’s investment earnings and employer-employee contributions.
What this means, said the actuaries, is that if a pension system is making its actuarially required employer-employee contribution each year, the system can use its earnings forecast to offset or “discount” virtually all of its future obligations.
The pension system will have to make little or no use of the lower risk-free bond rate that causes the unfunded liability to soar.
At the actuarial panel meeting last week, member Lynn Miller, a retired insurance actuary, asked if the proposed rules require use of a “substantially lower” discount rate for future obligations.
“Yes, only for plans that are not, let’s say, being funded on an actuarial basis,” said Paul Angelo of the Segal Company, the panel vice chairman.
“That would be CalSTRS,” said Rick Reed, chief actuary of the California State Teachers Retirement System.
“That would be a lot of OPEB (retiree health) plans, but this doesn’t yet apply to OPEB,” said Angelo. “In contrast, we think most ’37 act (county) systems, most of the major charter city systems in California probably get to use their long-term earning assumption as a discount rate.”
Unlike most California public pension systems, CalSTRS lacks the power to set employer contribution rates, needing legislation instead. Without a rate increase, CalSTRS is projected to run out of money in about three decades.
Another change in the new accounting rules directs state and local governments to put pension debt in the main pages of their financial reports. The information is currently buried in notes.
The new rules also move away from a link to pension contributions, aiming instead for an accounting-based report that makes retroactive benefit increases and other cost changes more visible instead of spreading them over time.
For example, the rules want a report of what many costs would be if paid off or “amortized” during the time current workers are expected to remain on the job, rather than stretched out into the decades when benefits are expected to be paid.
To make it easier to compare pension systems, the new rules call for a standard five-year period for “smoothing” investment gains and losses and using just one of a half-dozen available actuarial cost methods, “entry age normal.”
The actuaries think the rules could cause a volatile pension expense number on government balance sheets (down when investment earnings are strong and up when earnings are weak) while the actuarially required contribution remains unchanged.
Will people look at the new accounting-based number and draw conclusions about whether pension systems are being properly funded actuarially?
“We just don’t know the answer to that,” said John Bartel, president of Bartel Associates.
In an interview with the Pew Center on the State’s “Stateline,” the chairman of the accounting board, Robert Attmore, was asked if the new pension rules will cause “sticker shock” like the retiree health rules.
“The numbers will be different,” said Attmore. “The appearance looking at a government balance sheet will be that the government is in a weaker financial position because that unfunded liability has not previously been on the balance sheet. It has been disclosed on the notes but not on the balance sheet.
“Adding a large liability to the balance sheet will make the government’s net position lower, and make them appear to be weaker. The economic reality is that nothing has changed; it’s the presentation that has changed.
“We took information that was previously in the notes and put it on the face of the financial statement and therefore it appears to be a negative impact. But the rating agencies have been aware of that and have been factoring in those obligations as they do their credit rating anyway, so it’s not going to change much from their perspective.”
Reporter Ed Mendel covered the Capitol in Sacramento for nearly three decades, most recently for the San Diego Union-Tribune. More stories are at https://calpensions.com/ Posted 1 Aug 11
Calpensions 
August 1, 2011 at 4:51 pm
The panel of actuaries did not address the source of much abuse: the purposeful holding back on expense of public pension spiking.
Illinois adopted a provision that the govt agency is responsible for paying the full actuarial cost of benefits caused by spiking in the year it happens.
August 1, 2011 at 5:08 pm
Games over, stick a fork in the public pensions b/c they’re DONE!
August 1, 2011 at 8:57 pm
All pensions should be calculated on base salary only–then there would be no more complaining about spiking.
What did you do, Rex–wave a magic wand?
August 1, 2011 at 9:32 pm
I have some questions about this article based on some of the following claims:
“The new accounting rules use a risk-free bond rate — but importantly, only for the part of future obligations not projected to be covered by the pension fund’s investment earnings and employer-employee contributions.
What this means, said the actuaries, is that if a pension system is making its actuarially required employer-employee contribution each year, the system can use its earnings forecast to offset or “discount” virtually all of its future obligations.
The pension system will have to make little or no use of the lower risk-free bond rate that causes the unfunded liability to soar.”
OK, I get that (I think). I don’t agree with it but I do understand the implication; the employer share & employee contributions “can use its earnings forecast to offset or “discount” virtually all of its future obligations.” But then the article states:
“To make it easier to compare pension systems, the new rules call for a standard five-year period for “smoothing” investment gains and losses and using just one of a half-dozen available actuarial cost methods, “entry age normal.””
This I find confusing. In one paragraph it states that “employer contributions” can be used to offset, or “discount”, almost all of the unfunded liability. But, the above paragraph states the new rules require the use of “entry age normal.””
My confusion (I think) stems from the terms “entry age normal” and “employer contribution” used interchangeably when they are very different numbers. For example I’ll use the Chula Vista, “misc. employee” CalPERS Valuation Report in my argument (this is the most recent report, for the period ending June 30, 2009, which was received in October 2010).
The CalPERS report ( tinyurl.com/3u82q2u ) lists the “entry age normal cost” of the employer contribution at 11.619%, and the cost to fund the unfunded liability at 11.083%, for a total “employer contribution rate” cost of 22.702% of payroll (page 15 of the report/page 21 in your browser). On the same page, it lists the funding status of the plan, as of 6-30-2009, as 54.4% funded on a market value basis. Not good!
So, I guess my question is, and because I desperately want to understand this, are the new GASB rules based on the “entry age normal” contribution rate or are they based on the “employer contribution rate”. Those are two very different numbers! And I do understand that the employee contribution rate has been excluded from this argument but that number is fixed.
Mr. Mendel, maybe you can use the Chula Vista valuation report as an example of the impact of the new GASB rules (or any other report that can be found online/linked to). With the GASB meeting coming to SF this October, I would appreciate any and all help in understanding this topic. I guess I’m hoping for a simplistic case study that can apply to other cities valuation reports to come up with a ballpark figure of the impact of these new rules.
Pension actuary, or anyone else, can you contribute to my ongoing education on this subject?
PS – I am encouraged that CalPERS will be required to calculate their rolling 15 year smoothing policy as if it were 5 years, as Girard Miller recommends. I hope that also applies to their 30 year amortization of the 2008-09 market losses.
Mr. Milligan, can you respond to my questions?
August 2, 2011 at 1:37 am
What did you do, Rex–wave a magic wand?
=================
This is why Rex LOVES you seesaew, you always give Rex the opportunity to backhand slap you in public 🙂
We have been in the toilet since 2007, U-6 UE is at 22% in CA and has been there 26 months.
U-6 UE in Detroit is 46%. 41% of ALL jobs in America pay minimum, or near minimum wage. The LOWEST paid F/T gov employee in the UC system is comped MORE ($40K) than the MEDIAN CA private sector employee ($39K).
This is it, the end. We cannot pay our bills. CA is a good example of what America looks like. We have GED educated gov employees receivng $3-$10 million pensions at age 50. We owe half a trillion!!! (that is $500 billion seesaw) in promised pensions-where is that going to come from??? The $30K private sector employee??? Please, that aint going to happen sweetay!
Central Falls Rhoade Island just filed Chpt 9 BK this morning. ALL of their pensioners are going to receive at LEAST a 50% cut in their pensions, the money is simply not there. Mr Math has arrived to Central Falls Rhoade Island .
Mr Math is coming to CA, America and every muni in between.
Seesaw, Rex’s has some advice for you and the other public employee piglets prepay the rent on your doublewide, Mr. Math-and his storm- is coming.
August 2, 2011 at 1:51 am
The CalPERS report ( tinyurl.com/3u82q2u ) lists the “entry age normal cost” of the employer contribution at 11.619%, and the cost to fund the unfunded liability at 11.083%, for a total “employer contribution rate” cost of 22.702% of payroll (page 15 of the report/page 21 in your browser). On the same page, it lists the funding status of the plan, as of 6-30-2009, as 54.4% funded on a market value basis.
======================
Here is the problem;
#1- Most, as in the majority, of ALL CA public employees pay little to nothing towards their pensions. Oakland cops are typical-especially for trumped up bogus “public safety” jobs, they pay ZERO.
#2- The true cost for 3%@50 pensions is probably more than the base pay. Simply put, if you put ALL of the take home pay into the pension fund it would STILL not be enough to pay for a 90% of highest years salary at age 50-AKA SB400 aka 3%@50. Not when women live to age 86 and men 82, or 20% LONGER than they actually worked their gov jobs (36 years of taxpayer funded gov pensions for those math challenged). Mr. Math does not work on lies and falsehoods.
When social security was established in 1935 the retirement age was 65, that was 76 years ago. The mortality rate was age 59 then-or 6 full years before SS kicked in.
Today it is still 65 to collect SS for those born before 1960, age 67 gor those born after 1960. If SS had kep the same benefit/mortality spread as it did in 1935 then the age to collect would be age 92 for women and age 88 for men.
DA, DA!!!!! Rex wins again!
August 2, 2011 at 2:47 am
The information in this article has been poorly researched and should be dismissed. Not the whole truth!
August 2, 2011 at 5:50 am
Rex, I don’t live in a double-wide, and my home is free and clear. I am not a piglet. I am sorry for the people in Central Falls, RI–looks they are victims of very bad management. You are still swigging that Stanford Study cool-aid.
August 2, 2011 at 3:27 pm
The only way for a CalPERS entity to learn the truth about the size of its’ unfunded deficit is to request a pay-out from CalPERS; How much will it cost the entity to leave CalPERS and have CalPERS assume its’ pension obligations?That is what we did in Pacific Grove. The deficit was/is about 15% higher than we expected based on the percentage of our plan that was unfunded based on the prior annual report.Pacific Groves’ plan required about 100 million dollars to be fully funded,but Calpers lost about 50 million dollars of assets since 2002-3.The citizens enacted a pension reform ordinance that is now in a lawsuit in Monterey Superior Court where the police unions are requesting that its’ “divine vested rights” to the highest pension,for future work,not covered by an MOU, be validated.Legally,it is a case of first instance and will apply only to Pacific Grove,which has a unique charter.
August 2, 2011 at 10:15 pm
SeeSaw
The public employees in RI are victims of bad management just as the taxpayers in Ca are victims of bad management.
August 2, 2011 at 11:02 pm
…and CalPERS is a big part of that equation.
August 2, 2011 at 11:18 pm
The whole country were victims of bad management–CalPERS was a big victim. Their were a few crooks in the mix, with CalPERS–a few greedy individuals. Otherwise, I see CalPERS working hard to overcome those incidents, CalPERS is just one of many victims, worldwide, of the Wall Street greed. The bottom line is what counts–we still have our pensions, and we don’t expect to find ourselves in the same place, as those people in RI. When it comes to the safety of my own pension, I will believe what the people at CalPERS tell me–not what you and Rex say.
August 3, 2011 at 12:24 am
“The whole country were victims of bad management–CalPERS was a big victim.”
CalPERS was a victim? I wont even engage that argument. What I am interested in discussing is why you think the taxpayers aren’t the the BIG victim? What has CalPERS actually suffered as a result of bad policy, bad management, bad investments in realestate at a billion dollar per blunder, and bad senior management that was in cahoots with rogue former executives at a cost of at least 100 million.
Just what/who do you consider a victim. In the case of CalPERS, and yourself, you will be made whole by increasing the cost to taxpayers at rates that decrease services and are forcing cities to raise fees for everything from water, to utilities, to permits, to parking, to sales tax, to UUT taxes, to who knows what else. What those incresed fees don’t cover will be nmade up in reduced services because cities are laying off employees in an effort to cover pension costs.
The taxpayers ARE the victims, SeeSaw.
August 3, 2011 at 12:47 am
Captain, I happen to be a taxpayer, as well as you. I discuss CalPERS and pensions here, because those are the subjects of these columns, and these comments. I believe that all of the people in the country are victims, of what went down during the years prior, to the big collapse of 08. I happen to be a public pensioner, yes, but my interests are in seeing that society and our economy, as a whole, rebound from the troubles, that we are having. You will not pin a villain badge on me–I do my best for others, as well as myself and my family.
August 3, 2011 at 1:29 am
SeeSaw, when did I pin a villian badge on you? I didn’t do that (re-read my post). I just don’t agree with you, although I do appreciate your response to my comments.
I’m not a fan of CaLPERS. In fact, I think they are a focal point of the problem. If you want to criticize me for that then I’ll happily accept the criticism.
SeeSaw, we just see things from an opposite point of view. I don’t have anything against you. I like that you participate in the discussion.
August 3, 2011 at 3:19 am
I have been called so many names, on various sites, that I have developed a defensive reflex, to some of them. You appear to be painting me as a doe-doe, that does not realize the seriousness of the times we are in. I do realize that, and I am emphathetic to the people who are suffering.
To try to put myself and other pension annuitants, in a group, separate from other taxpayers, as though we are aliens, is not right. We all pay taxes, and we all have family members, who are private sector workers, who pay taxes. As far as taxpayers go, we are not a separate group. Taxpayers are the vicitims–right–we are all among the victims.
The focal point of the economic collapse, was the bursting, housing bubble–CalPERS was one of many victims of that scam–not the cause. Whether or not, you are a fan of CalPERS, or whether or not, you are a member of CalPERS, you cannot deny the benefit it has provided to many hundreds, of thousands, of retirees, over a period of 80 years. I will continue to speak out against any assault on CalPERS, or other DB plans.
I don’t understand all of the screaming, and pulling of hair, over the unfunded liabilities. A home buyer, has something similar on his amortization sheet. He understands that he is going to be paying a lot of interest, over and above the stated cost of the home. The public entity has an unfunded liability, which, seems to me, to be similar to a mortgage. I would consider the increases that happen, with the economic ups and downs, just like the homeowner’s interest. At least, unlike the homeowner, it gets the benefit of the accumulated interest, on the payments.
August 3, 2011 at 3:48 am
During the entire 20th century,the stock market earned 5.3% a year,compounded. Calpers represented it would earn 7.75% per year compounded to get the legislature to enact 3@50. Calpers estimates that compensation would increase at 3.25% per year,but as it is aware,it grows at twice that rate,but it did not inform employers about the consequences of raises of more than 3.25% per year. So the DB plan is intrinsically set up to fail by creating unfunded deficits as far as one can imagine. The deficits are exacerbated by 15 year smoothing,which is soley designed to extend the life of 3@50.One more stock or bond market collapse and it will end with terrible consequences. Should cities and counties play that game?
August 3, 2011 at 3:57 am
SeeSaw, we see things very differently. I haven’t called you anything or made any personal attacks, and I have absolutely not painted you as a “doe-doe.”
If you have issues with personal attacks they aren’t from me, so I would appreciate that you exclude me from that argument. I haven’t attacked you. Just re-read my posts.
August 3, 2011 at 4:17 am
“During the entire 20th century,the stock market earned 5.3% a year,compounded. Calpers represented it would earn 7.75% per year compounded to get the legislature to enact 3@50. Calpers estimates that compensation would increase at 3.25% per year,but as it is aware,it grows at twice that rate,but it did not inform employers about the consequences of raises of more than 3.25% per year. So the DB plan is intrinsically set up to fail by creating unfunded deficits as far as one can imagine. The deficits are exacerbated by 15 year smoothing,which is soley designed to extend the life of 3@50.One more stock or bond market collapse and it will end with terrible consequences. Should cities and counties play that game?”
“Should cities and counties play that game?”
Only if we wnt to continue to be gamed.
August 3, 2011 at 4:46 am
As far as the 3% at 50 goes, many entities have changed their plans for future workers. My former municipal employer amended its 3% at 50, for new safety personnel, to 3% at 55, in 2005. In 2010, they amended the 3% at 60, for new miscellaneous personnel, back to 2% at 60. Unless respective public agencies want to go back on the contracts they entered into, in good faith, they will have to keep playing the game, until the current beneficiares are gone. In the early 2000’s, when most of these contracts were executed, the principals were not aware of the impending doom. I would not think that any public entity, in CA, would consider bankruptcy, after the example of Vallejo.
August 3, 2011 at 5:54 am
“I would not think that any public entity, in CA, would consider bankruptcy, after the example of Vallejo.”
There was nothing wrong with Vallejo filing bankruptcy. As has been documented in news accounts and, more importantly, judge McManus’s decision in the chapter 9 case, as well as the outright dismissal of the unions appeal, Vallejo was bankrupt. The unions claimed that Vallejo was hiding money, much like what is currently happening in Costa Mesa, but the argument was tossed.
What happened in Vallejo, subsequent to the filing of bankruptcy, has more to do with the union’s control of city council members than it has to do with the failure of bankruptcy itself. Even so, and even given that two bargaining units were able to receive raises during bankruptcy, while the city was staring at a deficit of 12 million dollars with a projected budget of only 65 million, they were still able to reduce unfunded medical liabilities by about 90 percent. They did save a substantial amount of money/reduced long term debt by reducing retiree healthcare from an open ended and escalating dollar amount to a flat 300 bucks per month/ per retiree.
Did Vallejo make good use of Bankruptcy – no! Did they save 10’s of millions of dollars – yes! Should they have tried to reduce pension benefits – absolutely! Unfortunately the unions control of the council majority derailed all efforts toward a sane conclusion, while the unions denial of bankruptcy, and their failed effort to convince the judge that the city was hiding money, cost the taxpayers an additional 8 million dollars.
The good news: Vallejo has blazed a path for other troubled cities to follow. Judge McManus has ruled that employee contracts can be broken thereby setting a precedent. Those cities that follow Vallejo into bankruptcy, and there will be some, won’t have to spend the amount of money that Vallejo spent fighting with their own employees/unions.
August 3, 2011 at 7:33 am
As far as the 3% at 50 goes, many entities have changed their plans for future workers.
==================
No they have not, and the ones that have are a JOKE!
.
My former municipal employer amended its 3% at 50, for new safety personnel, to 3% at 55,
====
Big deal, that is like saying you are paying an extra $5 per month on a million dollar mortgage,
in 2005. In 2010, they amended the 3% at 60, for new miscellaneous personnel, back to 2% at 60. Unless respective public agencies want to go back on the contracts they entered into, in good faith, they will have to keep playing the game, until the current beneficiares are gone.
============
Baloney, they can STOP the 3%@50 as soon as the current contract expires, the piglets have NO RIGHT to any pension past the current contract. I have already posted the legal athority.
In the early 2000′s, when most of these contracts were executed, the principals were not aware of the impending doom.
============
Anbother WHOPPER-CalTURDS knew exactly of the SB400 (3%@50) con and fraud, and intentionally withheld the financial info and instead only gave a BEST CASE scenario for SB400-that is a well known fact seesaw and your BOGUS claim they didn’t know is either a straight up LIE or you’re ignorant of the facts.CalTURDS should besued for fraud over SB400 by the member muni’s.
I would not think that any public entity, in CA, would consider bankruptcy, after the example of Vallejo.
================
Vallejo is a good example of what happens when the city clowncil is in the pocket of the public unions. Vallejo did NOT even challenge the pensions, they should have because then the pensions would have seen 50% haircuts and the deficit in Vallejo would have been erased.
Watch Central Falls RI seesaw, they are in federal BK court and once they get pension haircuts it will apply nationwide.
BAM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Double BAM BAM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Seesaw, my hand is sore, is your butt sore from that smack down Rex just gave you?????
August 3, 2011 at 8:19 am
I fervently hope that other cities in CA do not have to go the route of bankruptcy. I would not want to see any other city go through what Vallejo, and its employees, have had to go through for three years. I am glad that they did not touch the pensions. Anybody ,who wants to see other people lose their pensions, has a few little loose screws.
No, Rex, I am not feeling any affects from your imaginary payback. You don’t seem to have anything going in your life, except hatrid for public employees–pity. The cities are not going to go back on their pension contracts, just because Rex said it was ok. Central Falls, RI’s troubles are in RI–not CA. Whatever happens in RI, does not transfer to the public pension plans in CA. That said, I do have concern for the folks in RI.
August 3, 2011 at 3:48 pm
I am glad that they did not touch the pensions. Anybody ,who wants to see other people lose their pensions, has a few little loose screws.
====================
I would not only want to see GED educated gov piuglets lose their $3-$10 MILLION “retire at age 50” pensions, I am throwing a party when it happens. The notion that trough feeding pond scum gov con artists should lead the lifestyle of a billionaire on the backs of the poor is disgusting, and any dork who thinsk that is fair, equitable or honest has more than a few screws loose.
/
You don’t seem to have anything going in your life, except hatrid for public employees–pity.
===================
Oh seesaw, you crushed me 🙂 ….. Please!…the old “you hate gov employees” line won’t cut it anymore. Sorry honey, that line may have worked in the 1990’s, but not today 🙂
/
The cities are not going to go back on their pension contracts, just because Rex said it was ok.
==================
I did not say they are going back”, I said when the contract ends a NEW pension can be FORCED on the piglets.
/
Central Falls, RI’s troubles are in RI–not CA. Whatever happens in RI, does not transfer to the public pension plans in CA.
===============
Wrong again Perry Mason Jr. Central Falls RI is in FEDERAL COURT, what happens there applies in CA and everywhere in between. Look up the federal supplement and then what the acronym “F.R.D.” means (hint= federal rules decisions).
Why must you make me spank you so badly in public seesaw 😉
/
That said, I do have concern for the folks in RI.
========
Of course you don’t, you ONLY care about yourself and no one else, the typical entitlement mentality if gov piglets.
August 3, 2011 at 5:00 pm
You’re getting to be a sadder and sadder case, Rex. You need to find a new trainer, quick.
August 3, 2011 at 6:30 pm
seesaw, your comment made me cry 🙂
August 3, 2011 at 7:38 pm
Entry age normal – Some pension plans charge a rate to employees that is flat regardless of when the employee enters the system. Others (and I believe most 37 Act counties) go by “entry age normal” rates where employees that enter the system at a younger age pay a lower rate of salary. The theory being these employees have longer to work until retirement and therefore actuarially the time value of money will allow those contributions to grow longer requiring less to fund the expected payment stream. Employers tied to those systems pay an aggregate rate based upon their employees entry ages for the normal cost plus a UAAL rate spread acrross all employees evenly.
August 3, 2011 at 11:13 pm
The theory being these employees have longer to work until retirement and therefore actuarially the time value of money will allow those contributions to grow longer requiring less to fund the expected payment stream.
====================
Except this is bunk because the reitrement age for “public safety” is after 30 years regardless of when they enter the system, regardless of how long they live after retiring. They ALL get a lifetime pensions after a short 30 years, and for misc general employees the same deal- except it is 35 years or so instead of just 30 and the mutliplier is lower, but the extra years make up the mutliplier difference……….
August 4, 2011 at 9:05 pm
Rex, or anyone else,
If I wanted to track pension reform legislation, and who is voting for or against, is there a site that is currently tracking voting records on this topic. If not, how would I go about doing this?
Thanks in advance
August 5, 2011 at 12:15 am
Ed,
Greetings, fellow U-T alum. I’m hoping to use you as one of the sources for questions about state pensions as part of a research project. If you’re willing to consider that, let me know how to contact you offline, and I’ll send you the questions to take a look at before we talk.
Carol