Its surprising how much you can accomplish if you don't care who gets the credit
J. A PARTICIPANT AS DEFINED IN SECTION 38-865, PARAGRAPH 7,
Randy, I read this differently. We already pay - subsidize - pensions for these people in the Constitution. I read this to simply change the way the pensions are figured from a flat percentage to a COLA. It looks to me like it's a better pig. I would rather see an amendment to eliminate ALLLLLL pensions on the backs of the taxpayers but that is not going to happen. Maybe it's something to take to the legislature. but it is too convoluted.
If you look at SB1442, all the highlights in blue are amendments. The part I have in my posts is new. We, the state, is now going to be vesting an employee in safety retirement under this particular section after only three years and paying 100% of their "pensionable salary" after three years. There are so many twists and turns on this it is very difficult and time consuming to figure it out. The actual proposal, if I understand it, is what is in the bills, and this isn't detailed in the pamphlet.
The COLA is amended only for elected officials, HB 2545. The other part is asking to include Corrections officers in the Defined Contribution Retirement plan, which is good, because it gives an option to the financially crippling Defined Benefit Plan. But, the amount of money contributed to the employee by the state seems way out of balance compared to the non public safety employee.
If I don't completely understand it, I can't support it. Doesn't mean I won't in the future, just make if more clear and don't continue the devastation with our unfunded mandates, or unreasonable taxpayer contributions into the system as a bargaining tool to get votes.
Randy is correct. A constitutional amendment should only be made for absolutely necessary reasons. It should be easily understandable by any responsible citizen and clearly needed. This amendment was written by lawyers for lawyers and for the purpose of allowing those lawyers to manipulate the wealth accumulated in an otherwise untouchable retirement pool. What could go wrong? A lot! The lawyers who wrote this amendment made it obscure so they could later raid it like have every other source of other people’s wealth. It never goes the way way we are told. Never. Vote No.