Next steps in the battle to preserve PFRS
LEGISLATIVE REPORT
Now that NJ State PBA members have had a
chance to absorb the Governor’s Pension Commission report, the most frequent question asked
is, “Will the legislature adopt this plan?” Or, more
directly, “Are they going to take my pension away?”
Anyone who has followed the path that led to
poorly designed laws like Chapter 78 and arbitraROB NIXON tion caps knows that in Trenton, anything is possible. But the reality is the odds are against the
adoption of the report as proposed.
There are a few factors that have slowed down the consideration of the plan. First, the governor’s defiance of the law in making the statutorily-required pension payments has left a
seriously sour taste in the mouth of Democrats and Republicans
who supported Chapter 78 because of the promise of eventual
full-pension funding. Their comments to us indicate they are
very uncomfortable agreeing to more pension cuts when the law
they promised would fund the state pensions wasn’t followed.
Second, there are certainly political considerations about
upcoming elections that can’t be overlooked.
But most importantly, despite the sincerity of the
Commission members in proposing these draconian cuts, their
lack of analysis of PFRS has opened a door for the State PBA to
highlight what the Commission didn’t tell the State Legislature.
It also brought together a number of unlikely allies who previously would never have been on the same page about blocking
this proposal from being applied to PFRS. Both of these have
raised eyebrows in Trenton and strengthened the PBA position
in the debate about the future of the pension system.
We are learning from our many meetings with legislators and
their leadership that they are aware PFRS is well-funded, and
that it represents only a small fraction of the state budget. This
is an important step. There was little attention to such details
from legislators during the Chapter 78 debate. Ensuring they
know that the vast majority of PFRS is locally-funded relieves a
concern that exists for the teacher’s pension system that is exclusively state-funded. That turns the debate from why not adopt
the Commission plan to why is PFRS even in the discussion?
The re-education process is extremely valuable to comparing
the Commission’s recommendations to PFRS, and it has given
the PBA a chance to propose some outside-the-box thinking
about pensions that is gaining tracti ۋ