Monday, September 14, 2009

funny that

You know.. I see no meaningful mention of pensions today, nor the bill that was sent back to the Senate, from deep inside the capital:

I really know little about the current state of political machinations in Harrisburg...  but I will lay odds that the entire Philadelphia delegation will want assurances on that bill before they go along with a state budget deal.  What shakes about vis a vis the Pittsburgh pension deal is anyone's guess at this point. 


Blogger Bram Reichbaum said...

Hey Chris, what's a Deferred Retirement Option Plan, or DROP? It looks like most of the changes that the House made to the Senate version (aside from giving Pittsburgh more time) is making all kinds of accommodations for DROP participants, and constantly "not counting them" in audits and actuarial reports.

There was also a lot of dense new stuff about how municipalities shall perform actuarial work and it's got to be within certain parameters.

Monday, September 14, 2009 8:06:00 PM  
Blogger C. Briem said...

DROPS were a big deal for Port Authority management until recently you may recall... folks who receive pension benefits while still working. The program was stopped but I think those already in program will be grandfathered at big cost to Port Authority. Didnt Wagner audit it? I forget the numbers.

It's an issue elsewhere, but I didn't think it was happening enough to note in the City. There was talk of trying to get some retired police back working recently if I recall, but these issues made that difficult to do. I think it's not a big issue here. I could be wrong on that but there are enough other issues that this never seemed to be an issue.

However, other funky things in the city's actuarial reports are possible. One year the city just decided to not include all the EMS workers in the actuarial calculation under the assumption that there was a 'plan' to privatize them.

Act 205 has some parameters that the actuaries should follow. They clearly werent binding. In the past the city generally ignored one that limited the idfference between the assumed rate of wage inflation and the assumed rate of investment return and would just insert a short note 'explaining' why they felt it didn't apply to Pittsburgh. Strenghening stuff like that is all at issue and I suspect the Pittsburgh case is what motivates a lot of it.

Monday, September 14, 2009 8:36:00 PM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home