

January 26, 2006
January 13, 2006
March 30, 2005
February 2, 2005
January 27, 2005
April 26, 2004
February 13, 2004
February 5, 2004
January 12, 2004
June 11, 2003
May 9, 2003
April 23, 2003
March 24, 2003
February 25, 2003
February 3, 2003
May 17, 2002
April 9, 2002
Feb. 26, 2002
Feb. 12, 2002
Jan. 30, 2002
Jan. 11, 2002
Sept. 25, 2001
May 21, 2001
March 5, 2001
January 31, 2001
Feb. 15, 2000
Jan., 25, 2000
Dec. 25, 1999
Nov. 2, 1999
Sept. 7, 1999
May 10, 1999
April 8, 1999
March 16, 1999
February 12, 1999
January 22, 1999
November 3, 1998
March 19, 1998
February 6, 1998
January 20, 1998
April 30, 1997
April 3, 1997
March 13, 1997
February 24, 1997
Please note:
After reading a report, click your browser's back button to return to this page.
|
| LEGISLATIVE REPORT #1 |
January 23, 2007 |
J. Pat Thompson
Deputy Director
|
Session begins...
with governor's budget proposal
|
THE 2007 LEGISLATIVE SESSION kicked off Monday, January 8 and is scheduled to end April 22.
Among the ceremonial swearing-in of representatives and senators, the chatter centered around what to do with this state’s growing surplus. The governor’s budget proposal is out and it isn’t good news for our union’s pension priorities.
Stop the gain-sharing take away
|
THE GOVERNOR'S budget proposes to make a one-time gain-sharing payment to Plan I and Plan III members and then eliminate it forevermore. Gain-sharing, as you may remember, was created to entice people into Plan III with the promise that when the stock market performed well (over 10% average return for four years) the employees would “share” in the gain by splitting everything over 10% 50-50 with the employers.
Plan I would do the same thing, but the gain would be put into a permanent cost-of-living increase.
This concept wasn’t supposed to cost anything, so rates weren’t supposed to be affected. Four years ago we found that the no-cost gain-sharing was a sham and billions would need to be set aside to pay for it. Since then, we’ve worked with the Select Committee on Pension Policy to craft a solution that eliminated gain-sharing while making improvements, namely the Rule-of-90 that would allow anyone whose age plus years of service that equal 90 the ability to retire without penalty (that is, 60 years old with 30 years of service) to all plans and still save the state money.
The legislators ignored any solution offered and now face the legal obligation to pay out millions unless they take away gain-sharing.
Your union is promoting, opposing or following several other issues that will be highlighted in future reports. However, for the moment, please contact your legislators and deliver this simple message:
“Please oppose the governor’s gain-sharing take away without any tradeoff!”
|
|
|
Legislative report
by e-mail
If you would like to receive the Legislative Report by e-mail, please complete the form below.
|
|