General Foods Retiree Medical Insurance

Fung Mostly Quiet at First Pension Advisory Group Meeting

The 12-member Pension Advisory Group of which Cranston Mayor Allan W. Fung is a member met for the first time on Monday.

Fung sat at the end of the table at the meeting held on the Providence campus of the University of Rhode Island. On the other end of the table sat Governor Lincoln Chafee and state Treasurer Gina Raimondo, who assembled the panel to try to find solutions for the state’s enormous pension crisis.

The advisory group is made up of academics, union leaders, government officials and business professionals. Their task: address the $7 to $9 billion unfunded liability in the state-run Municipal Employee Retirement System (MERS) and Employees’ Retirement System of Rhode Island (ESRI), without crushing the taxpayers or the state workers who depend on the pensions.

“With the talent at this table, I’m confident we are going to do worthwhile things for the people of Rhode Island,” said Chafee before the meeting began.

Other panelists dominated the discussion and kept Fung mostly on the sidelines. Fung announced before the meeting that he would lobby for an increased minimum retirement age for police and firefighters (currently they can retire after 20 years of service), altering cost of living Adjustments (COLAs) and advocating for a switch from a defined benefit plan to a defined contribution plan (401(k)), mostly on the sidelines. He didn’t mention any of these positions in front of the advisory group on Monday, but was also not asked directly for his recommendations.

Robert A. Walsh, the executive director of the National Education Association RI, a veteran of two prior state pension reform working groups and the representative for the teachers’ union, said the state can’t depend on forcing teachers to collect social security to reduce the unfunded liability because almost half of teachers aren’t on social security. He said if COLAs are eliminated, than the original percentage of salaries paid out to retirees would have to be raised to deal with inflation.

Michael Downey, the chair of Council 94, the RI American Federation of State and County Employees, said, “I’d like to leave here getting somewhat of my promise that I’ve been paying into for the past 32 years.”

He noted that some of his employees, such as the food service workers at state universities, receive some of the smallest pensions in the state and need every penny to survive.

A roundup of recent Michigan newspaper editorials | The Associated ...

Battle Creek Enquirer. June 25, 2011

Lawmakers need to be fair about health care

As the Michigan Legislature pushes forward with plans to require public employees to pay more of their own health insurance costs, lawmakers need to be equally diligent in doing away with their own overly generous retirement perks.

Both issues came up for votes in Lansing recently, but if history is any indication, public employees are far more likely to take a financial hit sooner than legislators.

The state House recently approved a bill that would limit the amount of money public employers could pay toward health insurance for their workers. The cap would be $5,500 in annual premiums for an individual; $11,000 for a couple; and $15,000 for families. A Senate-approved plan, meanwhile, would require public employees to pay at least 20 percent of health coverage costs. While we support the idea of public employees paying their fair share for health insurance, we think establishing a certain percentage of premiums is a better idea than legislating a specific amount of dollars.

At any rate, it seems likely that House and Senate legislators will reach agreement on this issue as a way to help limit government costs.

Let's hope they are just as diligent in agreeing to do away with their own current retiree health insurance. Under the present system, legislators who have served in state office at least six years and reach the age of 55 are eligible for retiree health coverage at very low cost to them. Such a benefit is virtually unheard of in the private sector anymore, yet efforts to eliminate it in recent years have failed to clear both legislative chambers.

It's not that most legislators don't recognize the incongruity - dare we say hypocrisy? — of demanding more from public employees while enjoying generous taxpayer-subsidized benefits themselves. After all, the House recently voted 107-3 to eliminate retiree health care insurance for future and most current lawmakers.

This is the first attempt in the current legislative session to rein in the benefit. Yet similar measures have been passed in previous years, but the two chambers never have seemed to be able to reach agreement on a final version.

So the benefit remains — to the tune of about $5 million a year to pay for health and dental benefits for 348 retired legislators and their families.

It's time to stop dithering and find common ground to put an end this lavish perk. Then maybe Michiganians will have more confidence that their leaders are being fair when it comes to trimming government spending.

National directory of nonprofit organizations

West's federal reporter, cases argued and determined in the United States courts of appeals and Temporary Emergency Court of Appeals

Congressional Record

Congressional Record, V. 146, Pt. 6, May 10, 2000 to May 23, 2000

Congressional Record, V. 146, Pt. 15, October 6, 2000 to October 12, 2000