December 14, 2012 02:38 AM UTC
Colorado Politicians Seek Raises for Colorado Politicians
1 Comments- by: PolDancer
First off, I want to say that I support bringing the salaries of Colorado state department heads up to a reasonable level, comparable with their peers in other states. Also, I recognize that the proposed salary hikes for Colorado politicians would not apply to current office holders.
There . . . I’m making a point to be scrupulously honest (as an example to the Colorado PERA Board of Trustees and PERA administrators) even if this complete honesty detracts from my argument. Unlike the Colorado PERA Board of Trustees, I am forgoing the opportunity to misrepresent by omission. More on that later.
Today’s Denver Post is reporting that state politicians are considering legislation to hike salaries and provide cost-of-living increases for . . . state politicians.
Link to Denver Post article:
http://www.denverpost.com/ci_2…
“Democratic state Sen. Pat Steadman plans to carry legislation next session to hike salaries for the executive branch, but he hasn’t yet decided whether to include a pay raise for state legislators, who earn $30,000 annually. ‘I’m still considering how far to go with this, but at the minimum I am looking at raising the pay of the five constitutional officers,’ the Denver lawmaker said.”
“‘Something needs to be done,’ (Colorado Attorney General) Suthers said. ‘We’re not just low anymore. We’re off the radar.'”
“And Steadman said he plans to craft the bill so that office-holders who win re-election in 2014 wouldn’t be eligible for the raise either. Only successful challengers and the new attorney general would get the pay increase.”
“Hickenlooper’s spokesman, Eric Brown, said the governor is ‘generally supportive of salary increases for the next office-holders, particularly the attorney general.'”
“State Sen. Ted Harvey, R-Highlands Ranch, said he would support a raise for the executive branch because members are ‘woefully undercompensated,’ but he doesn’t support an increase for legislators.”
(My comment: For the record, Senator Harvey opposed the breach of Colorado PERA pensioner contracts on the Senate floor during the SB 10-001 debate. Senator Harvey’s words: “We have made a commitment. We have a contract with current retirees. That is already in place.” “Reforms should be made for new hires.” “We do not have that commitment to new hires.”)
Back to the Denver Post article:
“But former state Sen. Dave Schultheis said it’s time. The Colorado Springs Republican, known for his conservative fiscal positions, has long advocated that legislative pay be boosted and tied to cost-of-living increases.” ‘These legislators are sacrificing quite a bit as it is, being away from their families,’ he said. ‘Having the pay remain at the 1999 level is not appropriate.'”
(My comment: It means something that former State Senator Dave Schultheis supports salary COLAs for state legislators. Schultheis is the “conservative’s conservative” [I mean that in a good way].
Although this argument to bring public office salary levels up to par may have merit . . . the timing of this proposal is ludicrous. It is completely insensate and rather poor form to propose discretionary increases in the salaries of state politicians WHEN THE STATE IS IN BREACH OF CONTRACT!
It’s like going out to buy that 50-inch flat screen at WalMart, when you’ve just missed your mortgage payment.
Are Colorado legislators unaware that the State of Colorado is in breach of public pension contracts? It seems so. FYI, legislators, as I write this blog post the State of Colorado is in Breach of Contract. Legislators, the Colorado Court of Appeals recently held the following: “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.” In the cases McPhail and Bills, the Colorado Supreme Court “found a contractual right based on members’ provision of services and contributions to the retirement fund.”
As a member of the General Assembly’s Joint Budget Committee, Senator Steadman should be aware of the state’s contract breach and act accordingly. He seems to have no recognition of the distinction between mandatory expenditures to meet the state’s contractual obligations, and discretionary expenditures by the General Assembly.
While the State of Colorado is in breach of contract, the General Assembly should not continue to make annual $100 million discretionary grants for property tax relief. Over the past two decades the General Assembly should have been adequately funding contractual PERA pension obligations instead of pumping ONE-HALF BILLION DOLLARS into local government pensions that are not the obligation of the State of Colorado, not the state’s responsibility at all. I realize that Colorado voters and the General Assembly have decimated the state’s revenue base over the past two decades, but Colorado voters cannot empower the General Assembly to violate the Colorado and U.S. constitutions. As we shall see shortly, (tomorrow maybe) even Colorado PERA administrators blame their co-defendant General Assembly for the mismanagement of PERA public pension obligations.
Now, back to the “honesty” of the organization, Colorado PERA.
The PERA Board recently submitted an appeal brief to the Colorado Supreme Court in the case Justus v. State. In my opinion, this appeal brief includes a number of attempts to deceive the Colorado Supreme Court. For convenience, I summarize this deceit below – presenting what I consider to be the ugliest of the Colorado PERA attempts to deceive the Colorado Supreme Court (apologies to those of you who are already very familiar with these PERA attempts at deception.)
The Colorado PERA “Market-Based” Pension Statistics Deception:
In their Colorado Supreme Court brief, Colorado PERA fails to identify the funded ratios they cite as “market-based” funded ratios. I believe that Colorado PERA representatives hope to misdirect the Colorado Supreme Court by diverting the court’s attention away from the “actuarial funded ratios” that PERA administrators have used historically and that are employed in SB 10-001, the subject of the current litigation.
See page 3 of this legislative memorandum for some historical perspective on PERA’s funding status:
http://www.colorado.gov/cs/Sat…
I believe that it is Colorado PERA’s intent to use “market-based” funded ratios to exaggerate the financial condition of the Colorado PERA trust funds in an attempt to bolster their case for the breach of PERA pensioner contracts. I consider Colorado PERA’s use of “market-based” funded ratios an attempt to mislead the Colorado Supreme Court, hindering its efforts to find the truth.
Note: Colorado PERA representatives should tread carefully here . . . Colorado Supreme Court rules state that “There are circumstances where failure to make a disclosure is the equivalent of an affirmative misrepresentation.”
The Colorado PERA “COLAs as Unchangeable” Red Herring:
A second deception that I believe is present in the Colorado PERA Supreme Court brief is PERA’s continued use of its “COLAs as unchangeable” red herring from its earlier court briefs. PERA administrators and trustees know quite well that Colorado PERA pensioners have never claimed that their COLA benefits are “unchangeable,” rather PERA pensioners have objected to the REDUCTION of their contracted COLA benefits. PERA retirees suffer no harm when their COLA benefits are improved in statute.
This particular Colorado PERA tactic of deception has already been exposed by the Colorado Court of Appeals. In reversing the Denver District Court decision, the Colorado Court of Appeals specifically ordered the lower court to ignore PERA’s attempted deception.
From the Colorado Court of Appeals Decision: “We note, however, that plaintiffs contend that they have a reasonable expectation of an irreducible (not, as defendants assert, an unchangeable) COLA. Therefore, we direct the district court to consider whether there has been a substantial impairment with that in mind.” It is astonishing, but Colorado PERA still will not give up this particular line of deception.
Colorado PERA’s Implication that Current PERA Members Will Work Longer Under SB 10-001:
Representatives of Colorado PERA write in the Colorado PERA Supreme Court Brief: “Current and future employees will pay the highest rates in PERA’s history while working up to a decade longer before retirement.”
In my opinion, this Colorado PERA assertion in its Supreme Court Brief is indisputably designed to mislead the Colorado Supreme Court. Under SB 10-001, age and service requirements for PERA retirement eligibility were NOT altered for current vested employees. Age and service requirements were extended for future hires [notably, those to whom Colorado PERA has no contractual obligations]. Current PERA members will work not one day longer before retirement under the provisions of SB 10-001.
In my opinion, PERA representatives intend, in this sentence, to leave the reader with the impression that current, active, vested PERA members will work longer prior to achieving retirement eligibility under SB 10-001. That is simply untrue.
They are making very clear where their priorities lie.
I wrote a post last week about a program called Platform 2 Employment which is looking to expand here in Denver. The P2E program just got funding to expand their program to veterans and job seekers over age 50. They are looking for funding to expand the program to ALL long term unemployed – including here in Denver.
http://www.coloradopols.com/us…
I just rec’d an email from my state legislator who was interested in talking about the ‘Platform 2 Employment’ program – but stated frankly that if it’s money that’s needed, “we are out of luck this session.” At the same time, it was just announced this week that some other Colorado Dems are going to run a bill this session to give the folks in the Executive branch a pay raise.
Just a little bit
of money from the CO Dept of Labor & Employment (or elsewhere) would go a long way in helping some of Colorado’s long term unemployed.
I’m very thankful for the genuine interest – and the invitation to actually sit down to talk about this issue/program from my legislator. And I’m equally thankful for the candor she offered regarding funding. But have to ask, what does this say about the priorities of our legislature and their attitude toward the state’s long term unemployment problem? Please provide feedback; thoughts, suggestions, ideas. Thanks.