LEGISLATIVE REPORT
Legislative session about to heat up
We are entering the portion of the legislative
session when things move very quickly, and
when the complicated, complex and expensive
tend to be decided behind closed doors before
being thrust into the world for a sudden reaction.
The consideration of New Jersey’s state budgROB NIXON et doesn’t usually lend itself to debates around
the average kitchen table. Government budgeting in itself is a fairly routine, if not mundane,
annual practice. There is usually no new pile of cash laying
around waiting to be spent on new things and so many years
the budget represents a slight percentage increase above the
prior year and most programs keep on moving as usual.
But the state budget process is never without political
intrigue, and it isn’t new to the Christie Administration. For
at least the past decade, the state budget process, which in
reality started months ago, usually isn’t fully completed until
almost the last minute before the State Constitution deadline
of June 30. This delay is usually met with eye rolls and latenight grogginess by the people in Trenton who work in and
around the legislature and understand that 99 percent of the
budget is already locked into place no matter what is going
on behind the scenes.
But that proverbial 1 percent that isn’t locked down is what
tends to complicate matters. From obscure budget language
about how, when and where money is spent, to political
intrigue spawning from proposals for new revenue and programs, this year will be no different.
So why should the NJ State PBA care? For one, because,
within that budget are hundreds of millions, potentially billions, of dollars in payments into the state pension system.
The governor’s proposal to cut his Chapter 78 required pension payment will be decided by the New Jersey Supreme
Court, and the State Legislature, regardless of the court’s
decision, is going to demand that the budget contain more
money for pensions than the governor requested.
Let’s be clear: This payment doesn’t impact the vast majority of PFRS members, because most of PFRS is currently being funded as required by local
governments. But the state pension payment
does cover all state law enforcement employ-
ees, and their portion of PFRS is underfunded precisely
because of budget cuts to state pension payments going back
into the late 1990s. Ensuring a full state pension payment
isn’t just a matter of fairness to these officers who never
skipped a pension payment themselves; it also serves to
strengthen the entirety of the PFRS – state and local portions
combined.
Much of this debate will be complicated by whether the
Supreme Court rules the state must follow Chapter 78 and
make a “full” payment this year or whether the Court allows
the State to kick this can down the road a little more. A
requirement for a full payment is going to send shock