| Summary of October 26th Coordinating Committee Meeting |
| This is a partial summary of items covered at the October 26, 2005 meeting. If you need more details, contact a member of the Coordinating Committee: Sen. Larson and Rep. Beard, with Joe O., Tom S., and Rick W. sent a letter to all legislative leaders, the authors of our bill, and the LCPR. The letter was a thank you, summary of the events of the last session, and a request to address the Pre-1969 inequity issue. Senator Cal Larson and Representative Mike Beard reported good feedback from legislators. In the Senate a bill can have only five authors. After five senators signed onto Senator Larson's bill, Senator David Gaither authored a second, identical bill. Senator Gaither was recently named to be the Chief of Staff for Governor Pawlenty. Joe has already talked to Gaither and told him that Pre-69 teachers will be back in 2006. Sen. Gaither remains a strong supporter for us. 2006 Session - Because of the long special session in 2005, the legislature decided that the regular session in 2006 would be short. It begins on March 1 and Joe feels that it might adjourn before Easter (April 16). Pension Commission - Membership on the 2006 Pension Commission is the same as in 2005; Senator Larry Pogemiller will again be the chair. Last year the Senate voted 54 to 9 for the Omnibus Pension Bill which included our bill. The House did not vote on our issue for procedural reasons and because it did not get to the House until about a week before the legislature adjourned. Education Minnesota e-mailed all teachers asking them to support legislation that would include Minneapolis teachers in TRA and improve the pensions for all teachers. (Nothing was said about supporting Pre-69 teachers.) Opposition to Minneapolis Plan - Many legislators are opposed to helping Minneapolis teachers (and the other Minneapolis pension funds that are not sufficiently funded.) Many legislators know that something has to be done. To get legislators throughout the state to support allowing and funding Minneapolis so it can be absorbed by TRA, the bill would improve teacher pensions by increasing the multiplier from 1.7 to 2.0 from this point forward. While teachers would have to contribute an additional .5%; the result is a better pension for all Minneapolis and TRA teachers. Omnibus Pension Bill 2005 - When our bill was included in the Omnibus Pension Bill, Part 2, it was rewritten so that the money to fund our bill would come from the state general revenue fund, not TRA. It is not a good long-term solution. Funding Our Bill - The amount needed to fund our bill would be about $200 million or about $11 million a year. Joe O. pointed out that compared to $17 billion (the value of the Active and Post funds) $200 million dollars is a small amount. Could the bill be written so that instead of transferring the total amount needed to fund our bill at one time (about $200 million) only the amount needed for one year (about $11 million) would be transferred annually? Could the money to fund our bill come from future increases in the fund? Legislative Review - While the legislature does not meet until March 1, many committee meetings are already taking place. It is up to Senator Dean Johnson to determine whether pension bills that did not become law (like ours) should be sent back to the Pension Commission. The House did not vote on our issue. A lot of negotiating will take place over the next few months. We believe that Senator Cal Larson and Representative Michael Beard will be meeting with legislators, particularly Senator Pogemiller, chair of the Pension Commission. Will our bill stand alone? Will it be included in an Omnibus Pension bill? What action will the Pension Commission undertake? Understanding our bill - Our bill would require TRA to calculate what our pension would have been when we retired if we had been given the IMP. If there is a positive difference between what we got and what we would have gotten with the IMP, we would get 45% of the difference added to our pension from this point forward. Here is an example of how our new benefits would be calculated under our proposed bill: If with the IMP we would have gotten $3,000, If with the High 5 we got $2,000, That is a positive difference of $1,000; 45% of that is $450. If we are now getting $2,200 a month, our new adjusted check on July 1 would be $2,200 + $450 = $2650. Joe O'Neill - Joe thanked Joe and John G. for all their work creating a huge database of active Pre-69ers. He says he has never seen a grassroots movement as well done as our Pre-69 effort. What should members do right now? 1. Tom, Rick, and Joe will draft a letter with some information that we can use when we contact our legislators. Then you may use the information to create a positive note/call/visit with your legislators before the holiday season. Thank them for their past support. Tell them that we will be back in the next legislative session. Ask them to talk with their legislative leaders about the Pre-69 issue. 2. If you have a change in your e-mail address, please send it to Joe and John Gindele: [email protected] 3. Do you have a legislator you think could benefit from a discussion/presentation by Tom S. or Rick W.? If so, e-mail Rick at: [email protected] Next meeting of the Coordinating Committee: Tuesday, January 31, 2006. |
 |