June 17, 2014 08:11 PM UTC

Colorado PERA's Koren Holden Admits PERA Pension COLA Benefit (Subject of Lawsuit) is "Automatic."

• 2 Comments
• by: PolDancer

Colorado PERA's Koren Holden has identified the Colorado PERA pension COLA benefit as an "automatic" public pension COLA benefit in an on-line Colorado PERA video.  Koren Holden: "This video describes the methods and assumptions used to calculate the net (PERA) pension liability . . ."  "The benefits should also incorporate the effects of projected . . . AUTOMATIC (my emphasis) postemployment benefit increases such as the annual increase provided by Colorado PERA."

http://www.copera.org/pera/employer/gasbvideos.htm#CalcNPL

Koren Holden, is a "Colorado PERA Project Manager."  She is also PERA's "Manager, DPS Benefit Plan Services," and a member of the Colorado PERA "GASB Work Group" charged with educating Colorado PERA-affiliated employers regarding new GASB reporting requirements.  She is a member of the "Conference of Consulting Actuaries," and a former consulting actuary for Buck Consultants (1986 to 2007.)

(Recall that in 2001, Buck Consultants provided an actuarial report to the Legislative Audit Committee of the Colorado General Assembly.  In agreement with Koren Holden's statement, the 2001 Buck Consultants report clearly identifies the Colorado PERA 3.5 percent COLA as “automatic,” refers to “guaranteed benefits at retirement,” and the “fixed” COLA, that is “compounded annually for each year of retirement.”  The Buck Consultants report identifies the 3.5% PERA COLA as “automatic,” contrasting the PERA COLA with an “ad hoc” COLA “as approved by Legislature.”

http://www.nctr.org/pdf/coloradodcdbstudy.pdf)

First, we should congratulate Koren Holden for speaking openly and honestly.  There must certainly be considerable pressure within the state agency Colorado PERA to conform with state legislative and Colorado PERA Board goals regarding the PERA COLA's legal status and the implementation of SB10-001.  There must certainly be pressure to protect highly compensated pension administration positions through silence.  I expect that Colorado PERA's history of mismanagement has unfortunately required years of guarded speech by Colorado PERA pension administrators (e.g., the Bill Owens service credit "fire sale," twelve years of failing to pay PERA's pension bills [ARC], portfolio losses resulting from past alternative investment allocation, legislative allocation of $700 million to pay off local government pension debt while ignoring its own contracted PERA debt, legislative provision of billions of dollars of corporate welfare, "tax expenditures," in lieu of meeting state and local contractual PERA obligations, etc.)

Koren Holden's statement might be problematic for Colorado PERA's lawyers since Colorado PERA is currently attempting to persuade Colorado courts that the PERA COLA benefit is an "ad hoc" pension COLA benefit.  (Of course, the Colorado PERA COLA benefit is a documented "automatic" public pension COLA.)  However, if Colorado PERA's lawyers successfully deceive Colorado courts regarding the legal status of the PERA COLA, then the State of Colorado and many Colorado local governments will escape their legal debts.  In that case, Colorado PERA pensioners will pay off Colorado governmental debts and relinquish their retirement security.  (In this new millennium, governmental officials in the United States are apparently confronted by no ethical or moral constraints regarding the abrogation of their contractual obligations.)

So, what precisely is Koren Holden communicating when she describes the Colorado PERA COLA benefit (postemployment benefit increase) as "automatic" in this on-line Colorado PERA video?  I see three possible interpretations of Koren Holden's position, all of which conflict with recent arguments of Colorado PERA's attorneys before the Colorado Supreme Court.

First, it may be the case that Koren Holden is communicating that the Colorado PERA pension COLA benefit was an "automatic" PERA COLA benefit prior to the enactment of SB10-001, and that the PERA COLA remains an "automatic" PERA COLA benefit after enactment of the bill.  If this is her intent, then her position conflicts with the position of Colorado PERA's lawyers who are currently attempting to persuade the Colorado Supreme Court that the PERA COLA has always been an "ad hoc" public pension COLA benefit (in spite of conflicting opinions of past Colorado PERA administrators and PERA's actuaries.)   A fully-vested automatic public pension COLA benefit cannot be diminished under the Contract Clause.  An automatic public pension COLA benefit has the identical legal status as a public pension "base benefit," regardless of the contrivances of lawyers paid to help governmental clients escape their debts.

The second possibility is that Koren Holden (a GASB regulation expert) is communicating that the PERA COLA was an "ad hoc" public pension COLA prior to the enactment of SB10-001, but is now an "automatic" public pension COLA benefit.  If this is her intent, then her position conflicts with the position of Colorado PERA's lawyers, since Colorado PERA's lawyers want the Colorado Supreme Court to erroneously believe that the PERA COLA has always been an "ad hoc" COLA benefit.

A third possibility is that the 2010 Colorado bill taking the contracted Colorado PERA COLA benefit (SB10-001) does not even enter the equation for Koren Holden.  It may be that, as a public pension administrator with extensive actuarial experience she has always known that, since 1993 when the Colorado Legislature removed the "ad hoc" PERA pension COLA language from Colorado law, the PERA COLA has manifestly been an "automatic" pension COLA benefit.  (Accordingly, the automatic PERA COLA has been used in calculations of PERA liabilities.)

As we have seen, HB93-1324 struck the former “ad hoc” COLA language from Colorado law. The language stricken in the bill: “(2) Cost of living increases in retirement benefits and survivor benefits shall be made only upon approval by the general assembly."

Readers should note that Colorado PERA official Koren Holden's identification of the "automatic" Colorado PERA pension COLA benefit agrees with the statements of Colorado PERA's Executive Director Greg Smith:  "The attorney general's opinion seems clear that fully vested employees — those retired or with enough years of service to retire — cannot see any benefits reduced, including cost-of-living adjustments.” 
Link:
http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_11105271#ixzz0eEZGoxly

Koren Holden's statement regarding the "automatic" Colorado PERA pension COLA benefit also agrees with the testimony of Colorado PERA administrators to the Colorado Legislature's Joint Budget Committee.  Colorado PERA in a written document, to the Colorado General Assembly’s Joint Budget Committee on December 16, 2009 states that the PERA COLA benefit IS a contractual obligation of PERA, “The General Assembly cannot decrease the COLA (absent actuarial necessity) because it is part of the contractual obligations that accrue under a pension plan protected under the Colorado Constitution Article II, Section 11 and the United States Constitution Article 1, Section 10 for vested contractual rights.”
Link:
http://www.kentlambert.com/Files/PERA_JBC_Hearing_Responses-12-16-2009_Final.pdf 

Koren Holden's statement regarding the "automatic" Colorado PERA pension COLA benefit also agrees with the legislative history of the PERA COLA benefit and the characterization of the "automatic" PERA COLA benefit at its inception by former Colorado PERA Director of Government Relations Rob Gray (March 24, 1993.)

Rob Gray, testifying to the Legislature's House Finance Committee in regard to the "automatic" PERA COLA benefit under consideration [in House Bill 93-1324]: “The PERA Board does support this bill.”  “We felt like it is something that is good pension policy . . . that it makes sense . . . THAT IT IS MAKING PERMANENT CHANGES, and also that it does help employers which is one of the goals of the bill.”  Rob Gray states that the proposed COLA "adds predictability for current and future retirees, people looking at leaving might look at this and say now I know how my future increases are going to be determined . . .”  Rob Gray characterizes the "automatic" PERA COLA benefit as a Colorado PERA liability: “when a change in benefits is added, like this bill, it extends out the period for paying off that unfunded liability.” If you listen to the recording of this meeting, you will also hear a member of the House Finance Committee refer to the Colorado PERA COLA provision under consideration as a pension benefit that is “guaranteed,” “now and in the future.”  [Note that the contracted PERA COLA benefit adopted by the committee was in later years improved by the Colorado General Assembly to flat 3.5 percent level, constitutionally permissible as this "improvement" did not impair PERA pension contracts.])

The federal public pension regulatory agency (GASB) requires that "automatic" public pension COLA benefits be incorporated into actuarial reports for public pension systems that provide "automatic" public pension COLA benefits.  Indeed, actuarial reports relating to the Colorado PERA pension system (and Colorado PERA's CAFRs) have incorporated the "automatic" Colorado PERA COLA benefit as an actuarial assumption for the Colorado PERA pension plan.

From the Governmental Accounting Standards Board website:

"Guide to Implementation of GASB Statements 25, 26, and 27 on Pension Reporting and Disclosure by State and Local Government Plans and Employers."

"Questions and Answers Governmental Accounting Standards Board."

"The intent of Statement 25, paragraph 36a, in distinguishing between automatic and ad hoc COLAs, is to REQUIRE (my emphasis) that actuaries include in the scope of their projections any COLAs that are CLEARLY AUTOMATIC (my emphasis) — that is, COLAs embedded in the plan for which there is NO DISCRETION (my emphasis) or condition as to timing or amount.  This criterion is intended to be strictly construed, as a basis for a minimum standard."

http://gasb.org/cs/BlobServer?blobkey=id&blobnocache=true&blobwhere=1175827486295&blobheader=application/pdf&blobcol=urldata&blobtable=MungoBlobs

From the Governmental Accounting Standards Board website:

"New GASB Pension Statements to Bring about Major Improvements in Financial Reporting."

"Measuring the Pension Liability."

"Provisions for automatic cost-of-living adjustments (COLAs) and other automatic benefit changes (which generally are written into the pension benefit terms) will also continue to be included in projections.  On the other hand, ad hoc COLAs and other ad hoc benefit changes—which are made at the discretion of the government—will only be included in projections if they occur with such regularity that they are effectively automatic."

http://gasb.org/cs/ContentServer?site=GASB&c=Document_C&pagename=GASB%2FDocument_C%2FGASBDocumentPage&cid=1176160140567

Colorado PERA retirees are suing the State of Colorado and Colorado PERA over the breach of their pension "COLA" contracts in 2010.  The Colorado Legislature would like to have the power to eliminate the contracted inflation protection in the PERA pension in order to inflate away the debts of Colorado state and local governments.  In effect, these politicians want elderly Colorado pensioners to pay off pension debts that the Colorado Legislature has accumulated due to their failure to pay the complete PERA pension bill for the last twelve years (ARC.)

Colorado PERA and the State of Colorado seek to retroactively alter contractual terms outside of bankruptcy.  (Note that state governments cannot petition a court for bankruptcy under federal law.)  Colorado PERA's lawyers ask that the Colorado Supreme Court excuse the historical mismanagement of the PERA pension system by Colorado politicians and PERA trustees.  In an attempt to defend the taking of this contracted pension benefit, Colorado PERA's lawyers are trying to persuade the Colorado Supreme Court that the PERA COLA benefit is an "ad hoc" pension benefit that can be retroactively diminished by employers in the Colorado PERA pension system.

Of course, such retroactive reduction of a contractual pension obligation is unconstitutional on its face.  As we have seen, the Colorado PERA COLA benefit is a documented "automatic" pension COLA benefit that cannot be retroactively taken under the Contract Clause.  The fact that the PERA COLA benefit is an "automatic" pension COLA has been confirmed in writing by Colorado PERA pension administrators and by Colorado PERA's own actuaries.

Recall that, in 2010, Governor Bill Ritter signed the bill taking the PERA COLA into law (SB10-001.)  The Ritter Administration (in a letter to the federal pension regulator GASB) wrote:

“The essential difference between an automatic COLA and an ad hoc COLA is the legal requirement; with this core difference there is no way for the two not to be substantively different.  The legal difference in this instance is critical to the determination of whether the government is unable to avoid the surrender of resources to meet the obligation.”

The National Institute on Retirement Security on “automatic” and “ad hoc” public pension COLAs: “One key design feature of a COLA is whether it is automatic or ad hoc in nature.  An automatic COLA means the retiree’s benefit increases automatically every year by a certain percentage.  An ad hoc COLA is granted at the discretion of the plan sponsor, usually when the fund is in a well-funded position and investment gains have exceeded expectation.”

http://www.nirsonline.org/storage/nirs/documents/Lessons%20Learned/final_june_29_report_lessonsfromwellfundedpublicpensions1.pdf

August 8, 2012, Douglas Greenfield: “The theory behind that is that a pension that has a COLA is the equivalent of a fixed pension . . . that you could just have a higher fixed pension and no COLA . . . and is just a method by which you are providing the benefit.”  Greenfield participated in a panel discussion hosted by the National Conference of State Legislatures. The panel discussion was titled: “How Much Can States Change Existing Retirement Policy?”

http://www.ncsl.org/issues-research/labor/how-much-can-states-change-existing-retirement.aspx

Colorado PERA pensioners, who have fully-vested public pension contracts, have completed their obligations under their PERA contracts.  Their labor and contributions have been exchanged for defined Colorado PERA pension benefits including a "base benefit" and a contracted annual benefit increase, "COLA."

In 2009 and 2010, when Colorado state legislators and Colorado PERA trustees decided to attempt to break the pension contracts of Colorado PERA pensioners, absolutely no consideration was given to the position in which the attempted contract breach would place Colorado PERA's professional administrators.

I am confident that, in 2009, as the various lobbyists for Colorado PERA employers contemplated a PERA pension COLA taking, as they began to shop for a legal memorandum to support the planned PERA COLA taking (i.e., the Dubofsky product), as they designed the political and legal campaigns for the COLA taking with the Leadership of the Colorado Legislature, the fact that Colorado PERA's professional pension administrators would, in future, be placed in a rather uncomfortable position never crossed their minds. 

The Colorado PERA pension system has more than 200 employees.  These employees are bound by codes of ethics.  They understand public pension administration and contractual rights.  I am sure that many of these employees regret the fact that the institution of Colorado PERA has been further tarnished by the actions of trustees and politicians in 2009 and 2010.  Surely, it was difficult for many Colorado PERA employees to remain silent.  But, speaking the truth might have cost them their careers.

Historically (prior to the ongoing attempt for a PERA COLA contract breach) many Colorado PERA officials defended public pension contractual rights.  The comments of Colorado PERA's Dennis Gatlin on October 28, 2004 in the Silver and Gold Record come to mind.  At the time, Dennis Gatlin noted that Colorado state legislators had, in earlier years, argued that the Colorado PERA pension system was "too well-funded" when the funded ratio of the pension system was at an 87 percent funded ratio (AFR.)  Colorado PERA Field Education Services Division Director Dennis Gatlin stated: “PERA’s funding ratio was at 87 percent (in 1985) and legislators claimed that the association was ‘too well-funded.’  In 1970, the ratio was 54 percent, he added.  According to Gatlin, PERA has been overfunded, when its assets equaled more than its liabilities, only twice in its 73-year history, in 1999 and 2000."  It should be noted that the Colorado Legislature and Colorado PERA Trustees broke PERA pension contracts when the pension system was at a 69 percent funded ratio (AFR) and that they seek to breach Colorado PERA pension COLA contractual obligations (through SB10-001) until a 100 percent PERA system funded ratio (AFR) is achieved.  In 2009, if they were going to attempt a PERA contract breach, they wanted to "go big."

Lawyers for Colorado PERA and the State of Colorado are currently attempting to persuade the Colorado Supreme Court that the Colorado PERA pension COLA benefit is an "ad hoc" pension COLA that can legally be reduced for PERA retirees who have fully-vested public pension contracts.  The fact that a Colorado PERA official exposes, openly and on the record, that the PERA COLA benefit is an "automatic" COLA benefit must not be welcome. 

Colorado PERACOLA BCOLA Benefits.

In 1987, the Colorado General Assembly enacted a statute providing that pension COLA increases shall be awarded by the General Assembly on an “ad hoc” basis.  In 1993, the General Assembly repealed that explicit language in the Colorado PERA statutes, rendering PERA pension COLA benefits “automatic” COLA benefits.  Only a dozen or so states in the country retain public pension COLA benefits that are awarded on an “ad hoc” basis.

The past adoption of an “automatic” PERA pension COLA benefit by the Colorado General Assembly was recognized in the recent Decision of the Colorado Court of Appeals in the case, Justus v. State.  The 1987 statutory provision (that was removed from Colorado law), stated that COLA benefit increases “shall be made only upon approval by the General Assembly.”  On page 28 of the Colorado Court of Appeals Decision the court notes that the repeal of the “ad hoc” language in the PERA statutes evinces the General Assembly’s intent to commit to providing the pension COLA benefits called for in PERA statutes.  Naturally, the "automatic" PERA COLA has been subsequently included in actuarial calculations for the PERA pension plan.

It is clear that Colorado PERA COLA benefits are contractual and “automatic.”  Colorado PERA COLA benefits are benefits that have been earned by PERA retirees, in an identical fashion to the PERA “base benefit,” and they are to be paid by the pension plan Colorado PERA without the need for “approval” by any governmental entity.  The COLA is part of the contract.  The Colorado Court of Appeals recognized the definition of the term “automatic” in its decision as “not subject to the General Assembly’s approval each year.”

I imagine that few Colorado PERA pension administrators are happy to now work for one of the few pension systems in the United States that are attempting a pension contract breach.  Many of these Colorado PERA employees have worked in public pension administration for decades and were forced to witness (up close) deception, immorality, and violation of professional pension administration ethics during the 2009/2010 campaign to abrogate Colorado PERA COLA contractual obligations.

The statement of Colorado PERA administrator Koren Holden addressed above is from educational materials produced by Colorado PERA for Colorado PERA-affiliated employers regarding new GASB public pension regulations.  Colorado PERA has provided, on its website, videos and slides explaining the new GASB regulations.

Colorado PERA's Information for Colorado PERA-affiliated Employers on the New GASB Reporting Requirements.

"New GASB Rules Will Impact Colorado PERA and Colorado PERA Employers."

Colorado PERA:

"The new Statements relate to accounting and financial reporting issues and how pension costs and obligations are measured and reported in audited external financial reports."

"GASB has adopted a formal definition of a liability for purposes of governmental financial reporting, known as the Net Pension Liability, which now will show on participating employers’ balance sheets."

"It is important to note that these new reporting requirements will not necessarily reflect the financial condition of a governmental entity because a pension liability cannot be made immediately due and payable.  In an instance where there might be a surplus attributable to the pension plan, the assets belong to the employees, not to the governmental employer and cannot be used for any purpose other than to pay retirement distributions to employees once they are eligible to receive them."

Karl Greve, Chief Financial Officer, Colorado PERA makes available a slide presentation on PERA's website providing an "Overview of GASB Pension Statements" for Colorado PERA employers.  From the slides:

"Pensions are part of the employee/employer exchange."  "Pension plans are part of total compensation."  "Employer incurs a pension obligation as a result of employment exchange."  "Pension expense should be recognized in period services are provided."

"Employer is primarily responsible for the unfunded pension obligation."

"Report the net pension liability based on PERA's actuarial assumptions."

The slides include a chart of PERA's historical funding status that has been recalculated (from earlier versions) to present only "market-based" funded ratios, that is, the chart considers simply the market value of Colorado PERA pension assets, rather than their actuarial value (as employed in SB10-001.)  Colorado PERA has historically (prior to the 2010 PERA COLA contract breach attempt) assessed the financial condition of the pension plan based on the plan's "actuarial funded ratio."

Link to slides:
https://www.copera.org/pdf/Misc/GASBOverviewSlides.pdf

Colorado PERA's website also includes two videos of Karl Greve, Chief Financial Officer, Colorado PERA addressing the change in GASB regulations.  Karl Greve in Video #1:

"Anything that has not yet been fully funded is the employer's liability."  "So, if you look at Colorado PERA, we have a large liability."

(The PERA unfunded liability): "is what GASB has said is the primary responsibility of the employer."

"PERA is really five different defined benefit pension plans."

"Essentially, the total pension liability is the present value of future benefit payments to PERA members for service accrued through the measurement date."

"GASB 68 requires extensive note disclosures. . ."

"The disclosures will have to include a description of benefits."

"GASB 68 requires additional disclosures of the actuarial assumptions and the source of those assumptions used to calculate the total pension liability."

"Employers will also have to disclose . . .  a description of  any changes in assumptions or benefit changes."

"You can also contact the GASB work team . . . "

https://www.copera.org/pera/employer/gasbvideos.htm#Overview

Karl Greve in the Colorado PERA Video #2:

"The key here is that all participating employers in a cost-sharing plan share the total benefit obligation of the pension plan."

https://www.copera.org/pera/employer/gasbvideos.htm#PensionPlanTypes

(My comment: The purpose of these Colorado PERA on-line materials is to ensure that Colorado PERA-affiliated employers are well-informed.  Thus, it struck me as odd that Karl Greve fails to mention in the videos that the legal status of Colorado PERA pension benefits, and thus the pension liability of PERA-affiliated employers is subject to ongoing litigation.  Should PERA employers be ignorant of litigation impacting system liabilities?)

More slides from Colorado PERA's website:

"Calculating the Collective Net Pension Liability, GASB Statement #68, Employer Educational Video Series."

"Projections of benefit payments required to be based on the benefit terms and legal agreements existing at the pension plan's fiscal year end."

"Incorporate the effects of projected . . . automatic post-employment benefit changes."

"Ad hoc post-employment benefit changes if they are considered to be substantively automatic."

https://www.copera.org/pdf/Misc/GASBCalculatingNPL.pdf 

Koren Holden, Colorado PERA Project Manager, in Colorado PERA's on-line video series:

"This video describes the methods and assumptions used to calculate the net pension liability . . ."

"The projections should be based on the benefit terms and legal agreements existing as of the pension plan's fiscal year end."

"The benefits should also incorporate the effects of projected . . . automatic post-employment benefit increases such as the annual increase provided by Colorado PERA."

"In addition, ad hoc post-employment benefit changes should be included if they are considered to be essentially automatic. "

https://www.copera.org/pera/employer/gasbvideos.htm#CalcNPL

From the Colorado PERA website:

GASB Q&A: "GASB is an independent, non-profit, non-governmental regulatory body charged with setting authoritative standards of accounting and financial reporting for state and local governments."

"GASB now will require, for purposes of governmental financial reporting, that a proportionate share of the total net pension liability (unfunded liability) of the pension trust fund at PERA be shown on the face of each employer’s financial statements."

"Is this liability due and payable immediately?"

"A. No, the net pension liability is unlike any of the other liabilities reported on an employer’s balance sheet, in that it is not immediately due, nor can it be paid off under any accelerated schedule.  Contribution rates are set in statute.  As a result, an employer would not be able to remit payment, in addition to their statutory contribution amount, for their proportionate share of the net pension liability in order to remove this liability from their financial statements."

"Employer contribution rates are set by the Colorado Legislature through the statutes that govern PERA."

(My comment: Of course, to be completely above board, Colorado PERA's administrators should inform Colorado PERA-affiliated employers that, for the last twelve years, these statutorily set Colorado PERA contribution rates have been insufficient to meet the actuarially determined obligations of the PERA pension plan.  The Legislature has underfunded the plan for many years.  Colorado PERA-affiliated employers should know that the Colorado Legislature has failed to pay the PERA pension system ARC for the last twelve years and now seeks to shift that governmental debt onto PERA pensioners.

Even Colorado state legislators must be informed that paying a contribution rate set in statute as a result of political considerations is not the equivalent of making the actuarially required contribution for the pension system.  Many have no idea.  Colorado PERA administrators, stop the manipulation.)

Colorado PERA's website:

"The financial crisis of 2008 resulted in a 26 percent reduction in PERA’s investment portfolio, which brought into question the sustainability of the system."

(My comment: Since that time equity markets have more than doubled.  Also, the DJIA fell 23 percent in one day [on Black Monday in 1987] and there was no talk of breaking PERA pension contracts.  Breach of Colorado PERA pension contracts was not a political goal at the time, in 1987.  Colorado PERA pensioners, in any event, bear no market risk under their pension contracts.  Note that in the 1970s many U.S. public pension systems operated on a "pay-as-you-go" basis.  They met their contractual obligations out of current revenues.  Also note that the funded ratio [AFR] at the time of the PERA COLA taking was 69 percent, not far from the historical average funded ratio of the PERA pension plan.)

Colorado PERA's website:

"In response, the PERA Board of Trustees engaged stakeholders throughout Colorado to gather input in the development of a comprehensive set of pension reforms."

(My comment: What Colorado PERA means by "engaging stakeholders" is that the scheme to take contracted PERA COLA benefits was developed with lobbyists for entities acting in their own financial interests, specifically, lobbyists for Colorado state and local governments, and for public sector unions that no longer represent retirees.)

Colorado PERA's website:

"The General Assembly, with bipartisan support, enacted Senate Bill 10-001, which was the first such public pension reform enacted in the nation in response to the financial crisis of 2008 and has been a model used by other systems."

(My comment: Ninety-five percent of all legislation enacted by the Colorado Legislature has "bi-partisan support."  Unconstitutional legislation is no less unconstitutional because legislators belonging to separate political parties voted for that unconstitutional legislation.  Where has this Colorado PERA pension benefit theft model been adopted?  Cases cited by PERA's lawyers have been found to be distinguishable by Colorado courts.  Public pension COLA-takings in the U.S. have been struck down [e.g., Arizona, San Jose, Florida] or are subject to injunctions [e.g., Illinois, Montana.]

PERA's website:

"Ninety percent of the cost of these changes is borne by PERA members and retirees."

(My comment: Compare this statement on PERA's website with the earlier comment of PERA's administrators above emphasizing that PERA's unfunded liability is the responsibility of PERA employers, not employees.  Colorado PERA administrators, which is it?) 

Support the rule of law in Colorado at saveperacola.com.  Colorado is better than breach of contract.