What you are about to read should act as a taxpayers warning! If you choose to ignore this warning, I would recommend you hide your wallets, pocketbooks, bank accounts or anything else of value. THIS IS NOT A TEST!
On Friday afternoon, I had received by e-mail, my weekly copy of a newsletter from the Local Goverment Center. Derry is a member of this organization and they keep track of bills that come before the House and Senate on many issues facing municipalities. " a watchdog group that puts the towns and cities best interests foward"
This weeks the headlines were about the retirement funding issues facing all of us and the system that needs to be fixed. In this issue it had been reported that the Senate has been bombarded by the "alliance" ( Police and Fire Unions ) which put the brakes on a earlier compramise between the Alliance and the working group to help fix a big problem in the system.
Apparently the Alliance did not like where this was heading and have requested some changes which according to the LGC would end up costing cities and towns MORE money than was originally planned.
When the Senate decided to wait a week to get additional information- again according to LGC the Senate was bombarded by the special interests groups to put some heavy pressure on our Senators.
The LGC issues a strong warning to all to call thier senators and to make sure that there is some give and take with any solutions that come out of revamping the retirement funding plans.
And so I decided to call Senator Letourneau to voice my concern for the Derry taxpayers. I spoke to him briefly and he had to go and couldn't talk any longer, however he did say he would keep me informed as to what comes out of it.
Quite frankly, I don't want to learn what gets done after the fact or before I know how certain amendments will effect the Derry taxpayers. And so I decided to e-mail and call Councilor Coyle ( who was acting chairman because Mr Bulkley was out of state) and requested that he call a special meeting, invite the Senator to the meeting, ask the questions about the admendments and what they will mean for us and to do so before the Senate meets next Thursday.
Councilor Coyle said he would call and e-mail the Senator to find out about the amendments.
The next day, I picked up the Union Leader and read a front page article about the happinings on this retirement plan and it basically brought up the same points LGC stated in the newsletter. At this time, I had not heard back from Councilor Coyle and so I e-mailed my fellow councilors and asked them if they were as concerned as I about this issue. And that I ( according to town charter ) would call a special meeting ( need two additional councilors to call special meeting)if anyone else wanted to. Bev was the only person to respond as of this post!
I did get back an e-mail from Councilor Coyle who said he did not think this was important enough to call a special meeting, that councilor Bulkley would be back Sunday and that at that time if 3 or more councilors wanted a meeting they could call one to order.
My problem with that is that we would need 48 hours to post a public notice, and that it would not give us time before the Senate meets Thurs 5/24.
So will Derry taxpayers have a voice on Thursday? Stay tuned.
Did i think it was important enough to the taxpayers of this town to get some answers? Yes! Why other councilors did not think it important enough? I don't know.
The opinions expressed are of my own individualy and are not to be interpreted as official of any governing body. Comments from readers are also of their own opinions and will be edited only if the content is harmful or non constructive to any individual. It is important to share information and thoughts on political process so that we may discuss issues that effect us all.
10 comments:
Yes, there are issues with the NH Retirement System. However, it is not just Police and Fire that have been contacting their Senators. The Group 1 employees have had a lot of input as well. Group 1 consists of teachers and all non-fire/police public employees.
For those of you whom may not know, for years and years now the municipalities haven't been paying their fair share into the Retirement System. The employees’ contribution rates had far exceeded those of the towns'. Now the time has finally come for the towns to pay their fair share, which years ago they had agreed to, do, and they are fighting it.
I think the municipalities need to adhere to the agreement that they made years ago and start paying what they finally owe the Retirement System.
anonymous 11:51,
Thanks for your comments. Yes the group I employees have had a lot of input and in fact they according to the LGC and U.L. were willing to back the working group plan. GroupII put the pressure on to not support the work group study. I'm not going to get into who was wrong or who was right and if it was underfunded or not. I am a supporter of both police and fire personnel. I'm simply asking for information and would like a win win situation. As an elected official- my responsibilities are for the citizens of Derry'e best interests. If anything, I've come to say the more information that people get the better.
anonymous,
Please explain some of the comments you have made:
1. The municipalities have not paid their fair share? How that is possible given that municipalities have no seat on the board of trustees (but each union has 2 reps) and therefore, no say on the rates being set.
2. The employees contribution rates have far exceeded those of the towns? Last time I checked, this was only true if you were a teacher. As a firefighter or policeman, the employee paid 6.81% while the town paid 14.36% (if a firefighter) and 9.68% if a police officer.
The municipalities did not create the special account to pay for health care subsidies nor COLA increases. In fact, they had no say in that.
The municipalities did not cap the investment returns at 9% with anything over that funding the special accounts. What this does is prevent the unfunded liability from being addressed. So, how will it get funded? On the back of the taxpayer. What is your solution other than standard "blame the municipalities"?
Bruce,
You may want to re-check your rates at which employees contribute. Fire is currently contributing just fewer than 10% weekly to the system. I'm not sure about Police because I do not know any police in the state. Group 1 employees, Teachers/Municipal employees, are currently paying just under 6%.
As for representation, the Towns are represented through the NH Municipal Association.
FROM THE NH LGC WEBSITE:
"...group was formed to bring together representatives from employers: municipalities through the New Hampshire Municipal Association (NHMA), counties through the New Hampshire Association of Counties (NHAC), and school boards through the New Hampshire School Boards Association (NHSBA), and public employees: labor unions and other beneficiaries of the system."
Solution:
I'm not sure that there is a perfect solution that will benefit both Group 1 and Group 2. Group 1 is currently under the most heat as their funds are about to run out in the next few years. Group 2 is in a little better shape, but not much. This is why the teachers union has been fighting so hard at the statehouse. They have proposed to have ALL new employees enter Group 1, even Police/Fire, to recover funds quicker. This is just one example out of the many that have been presented.
I guess we'll have to see what comes out of the statehouse. You never know what can happen up there. Amendments can be added at the last second that can change the future.
You should take the time, if you have it, to attend the meetings at the statehouse. It will be very easy to identify the different parties involved- Police/Fire in dress uniforms and Teachers wearing red shirts. It's all very interesting to see.
You go, Bruce!
anonymous,
You stated that employees contributions have far exceeded those of the towns. Based on the information on the NHRS web site that does not hold true. You pay less than 10% but the towns are paying more. Therefore, I am trying to understand how employees are paying far more than towns.
I stated that the towns have no representation on the board of trustees who set the rates. The fact that towns belong to the NHMA does not change that as they have no representation on the board of trustees either.
As for a solution, you're right. There will be no perfect solution. I do know this - you cannot solve it on the backs of taxpayers which is the direction this is headed. There will come a point at which they will say enough and then you will see a cutback in public safety personnel which will hurt everyone and benefit no one. But, that may be the only alternative to skyrocketing rates. Given that the average taxpayer is being told that social security benefits will be cut and may not be there from them, the unions will not get a lot of sympathy.
I apparently didn't communicate my thoughts appropriately.
For many years the employees rates have been much higher than the municipalities. The employees agreed to this "sliding" scale and have not complained about it. It has now come to the point where the municipalities rates are higher than those of the employees. But of course, the municipalities don't think it is fair to be paying more.
I think that if you did some research, you would find this statement to be true.
Also, in regards to the represetation issue, why would any employee want to have his/her employer controlling their retirement funds. That would almost seem to be a conflict of interest. Just my opinion...
Anonymous,
Yes, municipalities have paid less than employees in the past. My point is that municipalities have no representation on the board of trustees (nor do you want them to), and it is the board of trustees that sets the rate. So, how is it the municipalities fault?
But, here is what I am struggling to understand: I pay 6.2% for social security and my employer pays 6.2%. In addition, I contribute 15% of my pay to my 401k. So, lets do a comparison:
employee employer
me: 21.2% 6.2%
you: 9.3% 22.09%
Seems to me that you have quite the deal here and you are still not satisfied? That's unbelievable.
My social security is based on my 35 years of working. Your pension is based on your highest 3 years of working.
The board of trustees and the state is to blame for the state of the retirement system and that includes your union reps on the board. The management fees are too high, the expected rates of return were too high, the pension system has been expanded to pay for medical subsidies, employees are allowed by accelerate their retirement by buying back up to 5y, and it is being abused with leave buybacks to enhance their retirement pay. I am tired of people blaming the municipalities on this issue.
Not trying to argue with you here, but again your facts are not correct. Group 2 employees/employers do not contribute to Social Security.
...please give up annonymous 8:21pm....Bruce has cornered you with facts and logic.
Post a Comment