September 06, 2013 10:21 PM UTC

Gazette Telegraph on Colorado PERA's Self-inflicted Legal Fiasco.

• 6 Comments
• by: PolDancer

The Colorado Springs Gazette Telegraph has broken the Colorado media radio silence on our state's attempt to break its contracts.  Last month, the Colorado Springs Gazette Telegraph ran a pair of articles on Colorado PERA.  As expected, these articles were dripping with the Gazette's consistent anti-government bias, but nevertheless, I found portions of the articles interesting.  I give the Gazette Telegraph some credit.  The newspaper has published an article that ACTUALLY MENTIONS the fact that the Colorado Legislature is attempting to escape contractual Colorado PERA pension COLA obligations.  (For readers new to this topic, in 2010 the Colorado Legislature enacted a bill, SB10-001, that attempts to shift [through breach of contract] the accumulated public pension debts of Colorado state and local governments onto the backs of old people.  The Colorado Legislature wants to seize up to 40 percent of Colorado PERA retiree's accrued pension benefits.)

Now, when the Colorado Legislature declares a new "official state amphibian," rest assured that our Colorado media will provide exhaustive coverage of the event.  However, if for the first time in the history of our state, the Colorado Legislature seeks widespread abandonment of the contractual obligations of the State of Colorado?  Nothing.  Why is that?  How many times has the Colorado PERA retiree lawsuit, Justus v. State, been mentioned by Colorado media in the last three years?  When a state government attempts to escape its contractual obligations is that not newsworthy?  So, kudos to the Colorado Springs Gazette Telegraph.

The two Gazette Telegraph articles on PERA were written by Gazette reporter Megan Schrader and published on August 17, 2013.  Although Megan's articles were badly bent when they were pressed through the Laugesen "Ayn Randian filter,"  they serve an important purpose by letting Coloradans know that their state and local governments are attempting to violate the contract clauses of the Colorado and U.S. constitutions.

I also commend Gazette Telegraph reporter Megan Schrader for her interviews with John Sugden, senior director in Standard & Poor's U.S. Public Finance Ratings Group, and Standard & Poor's senior Colorado analyst, David Hitchcock.

From Megan's articles, John Sugden, Senior Director, Standard & Poor's U.S. Public Finance Ratings Group:

"You're capturing at a potentially low point.  We're going to see the market strengthen.  We've seen these numbers fluctuate over time.  Back in 1975, it was 51 percent, and with the market boom in the '90s, it was 100 percent or close to that."

(My comment: John Sudgen of Standard and Poor's provides an important historical perspective on public pension funding ratios.  Why are today's public pension funding ratios [i.e., funding ratios that far exceed those of the 1970s] considered a financial "crisis" while public pension funding ratios of the 1970s were a nonevent?  Answer: today we have a well-funded national political and public relations infrastructure created specifically to promote a "public pension crisis."  Note that, in 1975 Colorado PERA had a 59.6 percent actuarial funding ratio.)

From the Silver and Gold Record:

“One attendee asked if there was any similar controversy in the 1970s, when PERA's unfunded liability went as low as 54.7 percent [1973].  [Colorado PERA Executive Director Meredith] Williams said former Gov. Richard Lamm, who co-chaired the PERA commission [Treasurer's Commission to Strengthen and Secure Colorado PERA] made that same observation last year when he recalled that there was no outcry when he was governor and the unfunded liability was below its current level.”

https://www.cu.edu/sg/messages/5245.html

Megan, realize that if the Colorado Legislature skips out on its public pension bills [as it has for a decade] Colorado PERA's funding ratio will fall.  Megan, if you choose to make only 60 percent of your mortgage payment, you will eventually encounter "foreclosure."  No surprises here.

Below I provide historical perspectives on public pension funding ratios from Keith Brainard of NASRA, and Ronald Wirtz of the Federal Reserve:

Keith Brainard;

February 14, 2011, Subcommittee on Courts, Commercial and Administrative Law, Committee on Judiciary House of Representatives, Testimony of Keith Brainard, Research Director, National Association of State Retirement Administrators:

“Only 30-40 years ago, most public plans were financed primarily on a pay-as-you-go basis.”

“Even after the most recent and unprecedented financial downturn, most state and local government pension trusts have plenty of assets to continue to pay promised benefits for years, and values already have rebounded sharply since the market low.”

“The percentage of all state and local government spending on pensions has hovered around three percent during the last decade.”

“While the impact of the financial crisis on state and local pensions will likely require spending to increase, the most recent studies find that the share of state and local budgets dedicated to pension contributions would likely need to rise to about five percent on average, and to about eight to 10 percent for those with the most seriously underfunded plans." [Alicia H. Munnell, Jean-Pierre Aubry, and Laura Quinby, “The Impact of Public Pensions on State and Local Budgets,” Center for Retirement Research, October 2010.]

“Although some states have accumulated significant unfunded liabilities, pension benefits are paid out over many years, not all at once.  These are long-term funding issues, and most thorough analyses by those familiar with governments and public finance find patient and measured responses are required."

http://judiciary.house.gov/hearings/pdf/Brainard02142011.pdf

Ronald Wirtz;

A 2006 Federal Reserve paper, by Ronald A Wirtz, notes that public pension funding ratios in the 50 to 60 percent range were typical in the 1970s:

“From a long-term perspective, however, one can't really pin too much of the pension problem on the recent stock market pullback—in fact, it's [the stock market in recent decades] been a savior for most pensions.  Rewind 50 years, and almost all pension assets were invested in U.S. bonds and other fixed-income sorts of securities.  Though comparatively safe in terms of protecting assets, such a portfolio could not generate the returns necessary for pension funds to keep up with the benefits promised by generous government employers.  During the 1970s, funding ratios generally hovered between 50 and 60 percent.”

http://www.minneapolisfed.org/publications_papers/pub_display.cfm?id=1349

"As of Dec. 31, 2008, the state's Public Employees' Retirement Association pension fund [excluding the health care fund] was 69.8% funded, down from 75.1% in 2007 and a high of 105.2% in 2000."

http://www.leg.state.co.us/clics/clics2009a/commsumm.nsf/b4a3962433b52fa787256e5f00670a71/6778eb9ddf2ca301872575ee0050f424/$FILE/0709AttachmentB.pdf)

Gazette Telegraph reporter Megan Schrader quoting Standard & Poor's senior Colorado analyst, David Hitchcock: "Colorado is a 'low debt' state."  I ask why a "low debt" state faces such a financial "crisis" that is must break its contracts.

Megan quoting David Hitchcock:

"Their debt load is pretty low, so it's really the pension issue that is in our view creating a weakness.  It does affect the rating.  Most other things in the state are ranked relatively highly, and it is one of the things that is holding the state back from potentially a higher rating."

(My comment: Many Colorado politicians are primarily concerned with lowering taxes in the state, already a "low-tax," "low-debt" state.  Many of these politicians would gladly break state contracts if it results in lower taxes for constituents whose votes they seek.  Many Colorado voters do not want to pay for the governmental services they receive, and in particular, they do not want to pay contracted deferred compensation, such as public pension benefits.

If the Colorado Legislature's 2010 bill retroactively taking Colorado PERA COLA benefits is upheld by courts, then the need to raise revenue from Colorado taxpayers will be reduced.  Such a reduction of PERA's unfunded pension liabilities might result in a better credit rating for Colorado state and local governments, further reducing the need for taxpayer support of public sector services.  Morality and constitutionality aside, breaking the contracts of Colorado's pensioners, taking their property, and shifting the debt of Colorado state and local governments onto the shoulders of the state's elderly, would benefit Colorado's taxpayers.  Apparently, many Colorado state legislators would like to see our state become a place where the rule of law is a joke and immoral behavior by government is de rigueur, but hey . . . the taxes are low.)

As we have seen over the last three years, the Colorado General Assembly has historically mismanaged the Colorado PERA pension system.  Colorado PERA pension officials have failed to perform their fiduciary duty, to regularly and emphatically inform members of the Colorado Legislature's Joint Budget Committee that payment of the full PERA pension actuarially required contribution [ARC] is not optional.  The ARC is paid to meet contractual obligations.

One aspect of the ongoing mismanagement of the Colorado PERA pension system that is not widely recognized is the assumption by Colorado legislators that when they set PERA contribution rates in Colorado statute their contractual obligations are met.  This is an erroneous assumption that has resulted in declining public pension funding ratios in states where legislators have embraced this folly.  Simply setting PERA pension contribution rates in statute does not ensure that the Colorado Legislature has met its contractual obligations, paid its ARC.  The Colorado General Assembly must make additional annual appropriations to ensure that it has met the full PERA pension ARC obligation every year.  Such fiscally responsible behavior would have required that the Colorado General Assembly refuse to abide by the wishes of local government lobbyists in recent decades who have successfully redirected state revenues to paying off local government legacy pension debt [that is not the contractual obligation of the State of Colorado.]  Fiscally responsible behavior on the part of the Colorado General Assembly might have required the body to forego making $100 million appropriations for discretionary property tax relief that is popular with the electorate.  Statesmanship demands that Colorado's elected officials prioritize the sanctity of the Constitution of the State of Colorado ahead of next year's reelection campaign.

Below are a few excerpts from the first Gazette Telegraph article on PERA, "Legal issues cloud PERA's future" published on August 17, 2013, and my comments:

Gazette Telegraph reporter Megan Schrader:

"Adding to the uncertainty for the Public Employees' Retirement Association financial outlook are two pending court cases that could change the multibillion-dollar retirement fund's bottom line."

Gazette Telegraph reporter Megan Schrader:

"In a separate case with broad implications, the Colorado Supreme Court has agreed to rule on whether PERA violated its contract with current and future retirees when it lowered the annual cost-of-living adjustment."

"Lawmakers removed a guaranteed 3 percent annual cost-of-living increase to current retirees, instead capping the increase at 2 percent.  If retirees win that case, the cost-of-living increases will continue into perpetuity, costing PERA millions every year."

(My comment: Note to Gazette reporter Megan Schrader, Colorado PERA is a public sector defined benefit pension plan.  Here's how defined benefit [DB] plans work: governments offer a “defined” benefit at retirement to workers in exchange for a worker’s labor and pension contributions over decades.  The “defined” benefit contract includes a “base benefit” and, in the case of many public sector DB plans, a pension COLA “escalator.”  These benefits, base and COLA, are paid for the LIFETIME of the beneficiary [see “annuity”], they are not paid in perpetuity.  The Colorado Legislature could choose to end the payment of PERA pension COLAs in statutory contracts for NEW HIRES [although I do not support such a step.]  This action would be constitutionally permissible as it would not impair existing PERA contracts.  Thus, the payment of the PERA COLA benefit in perpetuity is a policy choice of the Colorado Legislature.  Megan, just as you cannot unilaterally cut the rate in your mortgage contract, Colorado PERA's payment of contracted PERA COLA benefits on EXISTING fully-vested PERA contracts is not optional.)

Gazette Telegraph reporter Megan Schrader:

"PERA is a more than $42 billion retirement fund that 500,000 public employees rely on.  The outcomes of these lawsuits will not immediately affect the ability of PERA to meet obligations but will extend the fund's growing unfunded liability."

(My comment: Megan, when the provisions of SB10-001 that seized PERA COLA benefits are found to be unconstitutional, this finding will not "extend" PERA's unfunded liability.  Since the provisions of SB10-001 taking PERA COLA benefits are facially unconstitutional, these provisions of SB10-001 never actually reduced PERA's unfunded liability.  PERA's unfunded pension liabilities will remain unchanged.  In 2010, Colorado PERA retirees agreed with the admonition of prominent public pension attorney Gino L. DiVito: “ . . . a short-lived pension reform that is invalidated by court order after protracted litigation . . . would be a disservice to the taxpayers.”  In 2010, Colorado PERA administrators, Governor Ritter, and a misguided majority of Colorado legislators . . . all ignored this warning.)

Gazette Telegraph reporter Megan Schrader:

"Denver District Court will decide in coming months whether PERA is owed roughly $200 million by Memorial Health System for the unfunded liabilities of employees who departed when Memorial merged with University of Colorado Health.  If PERA loses that case, it will force other local government employers and retirees around the state to absorb the liability."

(My comment: Megan, Colorado PERA retirees will not "absorb" a "liability" if PERA were to lose this Memorial case.  Again, Colorado PERA retirees are members of a defined benefit plan.  Colorado PERA-affiliated employers, such as municipalities that exist in perpetuity, are contractually obligated to pay benefits to PERA members who possess fully-vested public pension contracts.  Colorado PERA pensioners have "defined" benefits.  Your articles reveal that you are having trouble with this concept.

If the City of Colorado Springs "wins" the PERA/Memorial case, and is allowed to escape its public pension debts, other Colorado PERA-affiliated local governments will pick up these costs for the City of Colorado Springs, including Colorado Springs Utilities.  In that event, Colorado Springs Utilities would pass part of these costs along to Colorado Springs residents in the form of higher utility rates.  On the other hand, if Colorado Springs loses the Memorial Hospital case the City will be forced to pay its debts.  Spoiler alert!  Colorado Springs will of course lose the case.  Their statutory obligation is clear.)

Gazette Telegraph reporter Megan Schrader:

"As part of the reforms passed in SB1, the annual cost-of-living increase for current retirees was reduced.  It had been a 3.5 percent annual guarantee."

"A group of retirees sued PERA, saying it was a breach of contract."

"Denver District Court ruled in favor of PERA, saying the annual increase was not contractual and could be adjusted."

"This month, the Supreme Court agreed to hear the case on appeal."

(My comment: Megan, your description of the status of the lawsuit, Justus v. State, omits an important fact.  In 2012, the Colorado Court of Appeals REVERSED the decision of the Denver District Court on the contractual nature of PERA COLA benefits.  I can forgive this omission, since Colorado PERA itself fails to acknowledge this aspect of the Colorado Court of Appeals decision in PERA propaganda.

On October 11, 2012, the Colorado Court of Appeals confirmed the contractual, "automatic" nature of the Colorado PERA COLA benefit.  Colorado Court of Appeals 2012 decision in the case Justus v. State: “We consider McPhail and Bills dispositive (indisputably bringing to a conclusion a legal controversy) of whether plaintiffs here have a contractual right to a particular COLA.”

http://saveperacola.files.wordpress.com/2010/01/2012-10-11-judgment-reversed-and-case.pdf.)

Link to the first Gazette Telegraph PERA article:

http://gazette.com/legal-issues-cloud-peras-future/article/1504971

Now to the second of the pair of August 17, 2013 Gazette articles on PERA, "Future of state retirement plan in doubt."

Link:

http://gazette.com/future-of-colorado-retirement-plan-in-doubt/article/1504970

Gazette Telegraph reporter Megan Schrader:

"The financial stability of Colorado's $42 billion state pension fund will get worse before it gets better."

(My comment: Megan, this is not necessarily true.  Colorado PERA's investment performance might continue to improve, or the Colorado Legislature might decide to begin paying its public pension bills.  As noted earlier, the Colorado Legislature has not paid its full PERA public pension bill [ARC] for a decade.  Your comment assumes that the Colorado Legislature will continue to ignore its contractual obligations.)

Gazette Telegraph reporter Megan Schrader:

"The Public Employees' Retirement Association is $22.7 billion shy of what is needed to pay out retirement benefits over the next 30 years.  That unfunded liability grew by $143.4 million in 2012 despite a 12.9 percent return on investments."

(My comment: Note that just 16 years ago, Colorado PERA's statutory "maximum amortization period" [MAP] was set in law at 60 years, rather than 30 years.  The PERA amortization period is set arbitrarily, federal agencies do not mandate a particular amortization period.  Reductions of  the MAP give public pension plan sponsors yet another tool by which to place artificial financial pressure on public pension trust funds.  This pressure is useful to Colorado PERA and the Colorado Legislature in attempts to manufacture a  rationale for the breach of PERA contracts.

SB 06-235:
– Reduced PERA’s statutorily prescribed "maximum amortization period" (MAP) from 40 years to 30 years.

In 1997, the PERA MAP was set in law at 60 years.

HB 97-1114
– Reduced PERA’s maximum amortization period to 40 years from 60 years.

Link:

http://www.colorado.gov/cs/Satellite?blobcol=urldata&blobheader=application%2Fpdf&blobkey=id&blobtable=MungoBlobs&blobwhere=1251603807998&ssbinary=true.)

Gazette Telegraph reporter Megan Schrader:

"State Treasurer Walker Stapleton – who sits on the PERA board as an honorary member – said the fund is too far underwater for reforms made in 2010 to rescue the system from disaster."

(My comment: Megan, when the Colorado Legislature broke PERA contracts in 2010, PERA's actuarial funding ratio was 68.9 percent.  For the entire decade of the 1970s, PERA's actuarial funding ratio was below this level.  Ask yourself, why did the Colorado PERA pension system not suffer a "disaster" in the 1970s?  Megan, protect your journalistic integrity.  Your job is to find truth, not to advance a political agenda.  Escape as soon as you can.  Megan, see page 3 of this memorandum for an historical perspective on Colorado PERA's funded status:

http://www.colorado.gov/cs/Satellite?blobcol=urldata&blobheader=application/pdf&blobkey=id&blobtable=MungoBlobs&blobwhere=1251666724124&ssbinary=true.)

Gazette Telegraph reporter Megan Schrader quoting Treasurer Stapleton:

"I want to see PERA succeed and make promises to workers it can fulfill," Stapleton said. "First and foremost, PERA needs to get to a rational and realistic rate of return, and then it needs to fund the plan properly.  They're spending money in anticipation of investment returns that I don't believe in the long run they are going to earn."

(My comment: Remember that in the most recent “highway bill,” Congress approved return assumptions for private sector defined benefit plans that average 7.5 percent . . . this level of return assumption is in the neighborhood with most public sector defined benefit plan return assumptions.  Good enough for the private sector, but not for the public sector?

"The bottom line is that those opposed to public employee pensions are forced to use low return numbers to grab headlines and try to make the case the systems are doomed.  Ironically, since the push for this began after 2008–pension systems have beat the 7-8% assumed rate of return for the past 1, 3 and 5 year period.  Apparently reality won’t interfere with your viewpoint."

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/09/03/us-usa-states-pensions-idUSBRE9820YN20130903

"Corporate defined benefit plans have on average a higher than 8 percent assumed rate of return while PERA’s assumed rate of return is in the mid-range of other public retirement plans."

https://www.copera.org/pera/about/issueslist.htm

NASRA on public pension plan return assumptions:

http://www.nasra.org/resources/InvReturnAssumption_Final.pdf)

Gazette Telegraph reporter Megan Schrader quoting David Hitchcock, Standard & Poor's senior Colorado analyst:

"Even at 8 percent, they're not funding what they would need to, to amortize the unfunded liability," Hitchcock said. "You might say the 8 percent is aggressive or unaggressive, but even with 8 percent, they're not funding what they need to."

(My comment: Here we have David Hitchcock, Standard & Poor's senior Colorado analyst stating that the Colorado Legislature is not paying its public pension bills.  At the 2013 session of the Colorado Legislature did state legislators decide to pay their complete Colorado PERA public pension bill?  No, but they did manage to transfer $147 million of state revenue to pay for public pensions that ARE NOT the contractual obligation of the State of Colorado.  Local government lobbyists earned their keep at the 2013 session.)

Gazette Telegraph reporter Megan Schrader:

"Almost all state pension plans across the U.S. are in the red – lacking the funds to cover the future cost of retirement pensions promised to workers."

(My comment: Megan, your statement here assumes that public pension plans must have a 100 percent funding ratio.  They do not.  Colorado PERA has had a 100 percent funding ratio in only two years since its creation in Colorado statute eight decades ago.  In the past, the Colorado PERA Board of Trustees has sought to "cap" the funding ratio of the Colorado PERA trust funds at 90 percent.  They did so, since public pension funds with 100 percent funding ratios invite mischief on the part of elected officials overseeing the plans.  A decade ago, when PERA's funding ratio [AFR] hit 105 percent, Governor Owens decided to raid the PERA trust funds to lower public sector labor costs in Colorado.  Governor Owens championed legislation providing an incentive for the early retirement of older, “more expensive” public workers [sale of service credit.]  Governor Owens' bill also cut employer contributions to the PERA pension system.  You can see that, where irresponsible elected officials oversee a pension plan, a 100 percent funding ratio is not necessarily desirable.

Megan, you write that public pension systems across the U.S. are "in the red."  Megan, do millions of homeowners in the United States face a "crisis" because they are "in the red," that is, they have home mortgages?  Are these homeowners in a "crisis" because they cannot pay off 100 percent of their home mortgages tomorrow?  Public pension plans are well-funded at an 80 percent funding ratio according to Fitch Ratings.  Public pension plans never have to be funded at a 100 percent funding ratio.)

Gazette Telegraph reporter Megan Schrader:

"PERA wasn't always in bad shape.  In 2000, PERA was 104 percent funded.  Then Lehman Brothers collapsed in September 2008, and everything changed.  That year, PERA lost $10.5 billion in the stock market."

(My comment: Megan, Colorado PERA did not "lose $10.5 billion in the stock market."  Colorado PERA's investment staff could have only "realized" these losses if they liquidated PERA's portfolio in 2008/2009.  Colorado PERA did not liquidate its portfolio in 2008/2009 because Colorado PERA invests over a time horizon that extends to 70 years.  Megan, if you put all of your 401K assets into cash when the 2008/2009 markets bottomed you could have "realized" losses that year.  Colorado PERA did not.)

For her article Megan sought out and interviewed a few relatively wealthy Colorado PERA retirees who supported the 2010 breach of PERA COLA contracts.  A commentator has recently observed that wealthier PERA retirees were more likely to support SB10-001 in 2010 as the "COLA-theft" bill had little impact on their lifestyles or their ability to afford basic necessities such as health care.  Here are the "representative" Colorado PERA retirees Megan sought out for her article: a six-figure school district superintendent, a relatively well-off chief financial officer for a school district, and a retired water engineer.

Megan, where are your interviews with the typical PERA retiree?  Where is your interview with PERA member David Holme?  Remember, he was the PERA member who told the assembled Colorado PERA Board of Trustees in 2009:

“As a state employee, I’m ready to sit down and work on whatever fixes are needed once the deadbeat employer has made arrangements to fully fund its share.”

http://www.copera.org/Flash/DenverListeningTour/PublicComment.html

Megan, how about an interview with a retired teacher or janitor?  Megan, you should also take note of the fact that even wealthy PERA retirees have no power to abrogate the pension contracts of the average Colorado PERA retiree.

From Megan's interview with School Superintendent Walt:

"I keep a pretty close eye on it, and I think that it is on the right track," said Walt Cooper, superintendent of Cheyenne Mountain School District 12.  "I don't think it's the looming crisis that some critics would level.  I also don't think that there aren't other sacrifices and pieces that we should pay in there to help it to a greater solvency."

"In comparison, the private sector must pay 6.2 percent to Social Security – the government-run retirement system – and generally offers a retirement-fund match of 3 percent to 6 percent for a defined contribution plan like a 401(k)."

(My comment: A recent Colorado WINS study revealed that, when past, skipped PERA employer pension contributions are considered, [addressed in Colorado law through the AED and SAED] Colorado PERA-affiliated employers make only a 3 percent state contribution to PERA retirement benefits.  Megan, the state that puts forth the bare minimum of support for public pensions seeks to break its public pension contracts.

http://coloradowins.org/2013/08/19/2014-total-comp-comparing-pera-and-private-sector-retirement-benefits/)

Gazette Telegraph reporter Megan Schrader:

"In the great shake-up of 2010, retirees sacrificed some cost-of-living adjustment.  The 3 percent annual bump is no longer guaranteed.  In fact, it is capped at 2 percent."

(Megan, what occurred at the 2010 session of the Colorado General Assembly was not a "great shake-up," it was a "great shakedown."  In 2010, Colorado PERA retirees did not "sacrifice" their contracted pension COLA benefit, these COLA benefits were forcibly taken.  A bank does not "sacrifice" its cash to a bank robber, that property is taken by force.  Megan, in your article you write that Colorado PERA COLA benefits are "guaranteed," and you write that PERA COLA benefits, after seizure by the Colorado Legislature are no longer "guaranteed."  Do you see anything wrong with that picture?)

A commentator from the Colorado political website ColoradoPols.com on Megan's PERA retiree interviews:

"It appears as though they were both professional employees who were well compensated at the end of their public service careers.  Perhaps a lower COLA on $75K plus annual pension is done with pragmatic acceptance and is easier to swallow for these guys than for those PERA retirees making much less and who have no Social Security benefit.  It seems to me that retiree acceptance (or support) for SB10-001 goes up with increasing income."

(My comment: This relatively small group of wealthy PERA retirees does not feel the pain of the impairment of their PERA contracts like the average PERA retiree feels it.  For some older PERA retirees, the taking of their property by the state means diminished access to needed health care, and diminished quality of life.

At the beginning of PERA's campaign to break pension contracts in 2009 PERA found a handful of PERA retirees who were willing to relinquish their contractual rights, and frightened a few more into agreeing to give up their contracted benefits.  PERA officials argued that these few represented the acceptance of ALL PERA retirees for the breach of PERA contracts.  But, of course, one PERA retiree who is willing to accept breach of his own contract has no power to relinquish contractual rights that are held by others.)

Megan, to be fair you might also have noted in your article that the Colorado Springs region is home to thousands of U.S. military retirees who have federal military pensions.

Megan, this should pique your interest: Recall that Colorado PERA and the Colorado Legislature attempted to break Colorado PERA pension contracts in 2010 when Colorado PERA's funding ratio was 68.9 percent.  Many proponents of PERA pension contract breach call a pension funding ratio in the "60s" a "crisis."  Get this Megan: U.S. military pensions have A ZERO PERCENT FUNDING RATIO.  Military pensions are paid right out of operating budgets.  Yet, we do not see Wayne Laugeson trumpeting the "crisis" in military pensions in the Gazette Telegraph.  Why is that Megan?  Full disclosure requires that the Gazette Telegraph inform its readers that U.S. military pensions have a ZERO PERCENT FUNDING RATIO.

Megan, I hope that you now see the extent of the SB10-001 scam.  The "crisis" atmosphere surrounding Colorado PERA is manufactured.  Public pensions are "well-funded" at an 80 percent funding ratio according to Fitch Ratings.  The unfunded liability will be paid off over 50-70 years . . . like a mortgage, it's not due tomorrow.

Colorado PERA active and retired members, the Colorado Legislature's 2010 PERA default bill was RETROACTIVE, and RETROSPECTIVE, that is, unconstitutional under our Colorado Constitution.  The Colorado PERA pension system can be reformed LEGALLY, PROSPECTIVELY.

When SB10-001 is struck down in the courts, Colorado PERA will begin where they should have started three years ago, with legal, prospective pension reform.  Governments do not have the right to arbitrarily break their contracts.  In making this attempt, Colorado PERA officials have embarrassed themselves and the State of Colorado.  Continue to support public pension contractual rights and the rule of law, contribute at saveperacola.com.  Friend Save Pera Cola on Facebook!