« Take a walk on the IWay | Today | Changes at Channel 6 after sale »

October 11, 2007

Pension change: Short-term cost, long-term savings

PROVIDENCE -- Moving the state retirement system to a "defined contribution" would cost the state at least $151.5 million next year but lead to substantial savings in the long term, according to a study commissioned by the governor's office.

The state retirement board briefly discussed the study this morning, but members largely deferred comment to Governor Carcieri's office.

Both the governor and House Speaker William J. Murphy have endorsed a plan that would end the practice of lifetime pensions for all new employees. Murphy recently said he'd like to see a shift from the "defined benefit" system to a "defined contribution system," similar to a 401(k), enacted as soon as the coming legislative session.

The study was produced by the retirement board's actuary, Gabriel Roeder Smith & Company of Texas. It looks specifically at how much it would cost to freeze the pension system to new employees as of July 1, 2008.

With fewer employees paying into the state pension fund, there would be fewer dollars helping to cover pensions for existing employees and the state's unfunded liability. The change would require the state to pay an additional $151.5 million for the fiscal year that begins July 1, 2008, to make up the shortfall.

And it would cost taxpayers more than $520 million over the current system through 2015, according to the study. The projected costs do not take into account any potential state match for the 401(k) system.

However, the state would begin to see savings in 2016 under a defined contribution system, according to the study. Those savings would increase substantially from 2016 to 2029.

State budget officer Rosemary Gallogly said the study is an important first step in deciding whether or not to make a change. "We knew it wasn't going to be a slam dunk. We knew it wasn't going to be easy," she said this morning of the short-term costs.

The next step is to analyze some alternative proposals that the study suggested, but did not explore in detail. One option referenced this morning by State Treasurer Frank Caprio, for example, would allow the state to take out pension obligation bonds to help cover the short-term costs.

-- Steve Peoples, Journal State House Bureau

Posted by Steve Peoples  at 11:52 AM | Permalink

Comments

I have to say being a State Employee I agree with a plan like this rather than having a lot of people losing their jobs. We are losing job positions all over the state in private industry and now the Govenor is talking about laying off 1,000 state workers. Where will all of these people get other postions?

Nancy Nixon | October 11, 2007 12:28 PM link

Oh this is rich! It'll cost half a billion to satisfy current obligations and then in 2016 all will be glorious.

It isn't going to happen. The Union will crucify Carcieri and Murphy

I don't understand how the retirement fund could be in such danger. Ever state employee puts in 8.75% of their gross pay to the system every year. And with the number of earners in the state making over $100,000 like Catherine Avila, the highest paid member of the Secretary of State's office, they're putting in $9,362.50 a year or more.

Tony P | October 11, 2007 1:46 PM link

Tony,
Can you really be that naive? So Catherine is contributing $9k, most retires are collecting $30k plus a year plus benefits.............!!! and the $100K club is a small exclusive club, the majority of state workers don't make that much, which means they don't contribute that much. Its time for change, its just unfortunate that the state has to be nearly bankrupt before anything is done. I am so sick of the Unions! They are bad, bad, bad!!! They have out lived their purpose. Wake Rhode Islanders.

Tina | October 11, 2007 2:24 PM link

Enough is enough, just have the state pay up it's obligation like all other state employees have been continually meeting their obligations. Get rid of that bill that waived the state matching obligation to the pension system during great investment years. They have not paid their share, nor put monies aside in the event of bad investment years that have occured over the past 10 years or so. Just come up with the cash alreay. By the way, all you cities and towns out there that also jumped on the waiver bandwagen, just meet your contractual obligation already and stop crying and playing politcal football with this issue. This state wants to pride itself as being business friendly, yet won't meet its own contractual obligations with its own pension system. What gives Don?

jim scotland | October 11, 2007 3:57 PM link

The problem isn't so much that average retirees might be collecting 30,000 a year, it's that they live so darned long. Now, if only the ambulance drivers continue their work slowdown, there will be a whole lot more DOAs at the hospital. Problem solved.

Problem solved | October 11, 2007 3:59 PM link

Just wonderful....again!!!! Don't forget that educators have contributed (along with their school districts) 20%+ annually into this fund. A quick bit of math indicates, for me and my employeer, we've dropped over $300K into this fund. If this occurred 'privately' I'd be a very rich man and could pass the benefits on to my children. However, if I kick the bucket now, the fund gets the dough. If you really want to overhall the system find a way (and it ain't hard to do) that will benefit the little guy ... and his/her family ... not just salve the ego of Carcieri.
Here's the bumper sticker: "Work in RI...Retire with zlitch!" That'll bring 'em here!

timinri | October 11, 2007 4:26 PM link

If you would like to know so other facts about the state pension click this link here: http://www.rifuture.org/showDiary.do?diaryId=379

Pat Crowley | October 11, 2007 4:47 PM link

All I know is state workers can't wait to get out the door at 430, if they're even there that long. I bust my but 12 hours a day and am guaranteed nothing other than funding the pensions of people who don't like to answer their phones or do their jobs. I'd like to see the state workers get what the rest of us do, a reality check!

E | October 11, 2007 6:38 PM link

Where is my original comment, too good to print

jim Scotland | October 11, 2007 8:01 PM link

The problem stems from the state not putting in their share!! And also dipping into the system to pay bills and balance the budget and never repalcing the money. And ffor Tina who thinks unions are bad !! We do not negotiate our retirement. It's mandated by law. Lou

lou | October 11, 2007 8:46 PM link

I love all these people that cry about state pentions and benifits. If we state employess have it so good why is it when the RIDOC has a recrute drive for more correctional officers they have to scrape to get 50 applicants. Gey if we state employees have it so great then there should ve at least 100,000 new applicants. Humm!So stop your crying and try working the toughest beat in the state!!!!!!!!!!!

STEVE | October 11, 2007 8:48 PM link

The higher ranking officials in state and local government are going to collect a state pension but have never paid a dime into it. that is why the pension fund is goin bankrupt. the polititians that are saying this is a great idea are the ones that are going to be collecting their pensions without paying a dime into the fund, so what do they care. were are we supposed to come up with the money to fund this new retirement?? ri dept of corrections need their new contract first before the polititians make their pockets fatter

kelly | October 12, 2007 2:25 AM link

I have to agree with Tina regarding unions outliving the purpose initially intended. As a former RI'r now living in TN for 6 years, the state is a "right to work" climate and reviews of your performance are critical to keeping your job. Sounds like any job or corporation, you reap what you sow.

The new plan they are proposing sounds like a good start.

RI has to make major changes fiscally or you might as well sell it to NY. I can't imagine how many of you live there with the high taxes on everything and still save. Of course, the incentive was to get a "State Job" for the pension. That has to end.

RI is not attractive to future companies to come and develop because of what I have mentioned. That is why the state is last on the list.

Time for change.

Paula | October 12, 2007 3:21 AM link

RI State, Municipal, and Teachers pay more to the pension fund than any public employees in the nation. The state and some municipalities have not paid their share in the past causing a major problem in this system. The problem is a simple matter of meeting an obligation to pay in when it is required.

Billy Bob | October 12, 2007 6:29 AM link

why not buy out some current retireestry a one lump sum offer

retiree | October 12, 2007 8:27 AM link

I am a retired state employee who contributed more than $130,000 over a 28 year period. If I had invested that money myself, I would be sitting on way over $1 million and generating income that far exceeds my pension. The problem lies with pensioners who never contributed!

Neil | October 12, 2007 8:34 AM link

Post a comment

Please be civil. Vicious comments, personal attacks and profanity won't be published. Name and email are required; email address will not publish.




Remember Me?

(you may use HTML tags for style)

ADVERTISING



ProJo 7 to 7
Sep « Oct 2007 » Nov
Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa
    1 2 3 4 5
6 7 8 9 10 11 12
13 14 15 16 17 18 19
20 21 22 23 24 25 26
27 28 29 30 31    
Archived headlines

Archived
ProJo 9 to 5 News Blog
Oct 2005 - March 2006