Issue Position: Pension Reform "Settlement"

Issue Position

In 2011, the state's General Treasurer and Governor decided to take bold and swift action to save the state's beleaguered pension system before it became completely insolvent. The broad an sweeping changes were not greeted by some pensioners as being acceptable, and they even contended that it was illegal. This led to several suggestions being made on ways the Treasurer's plan should be changed, and it also led to several amendments to the proposed reform legislation. However, the Treasurer along with the governor warned all legislators and legislative leaders that "changing any aspect of the reform - even in the slightest way, could and would most likely cause the reforms to be unsuccessful. The Treasurer insisted that the reforms remain exactly the way they were proposed, and that is how the legislature passed the pension reform legislation.

Because the unions representing the state workers did not agree that the reforms were legal, they filed a lawsuit that questioned whether or not the new law was constitutional. This was a move that was anticipated by just about everyone as this is the job of union organizations - to fight for their members' best interests.

Suddenly, the law suit challenging the constitutionality of the reforms was being referred to by the courts and media as a pension "settlement" in the court system. Soon thereafter it was announced that there was a settlement reached between the unions and the state on changes that would be made to the pension reforms.

I completely reject this entire outcome and process. The judge - Judge Taft-Carter took a law suit that should have been a simple "yes" or "no" as to the constitutionality of the reforms, and she took it upon herself to negotiate entirely new terms of the reforms that were enacted by the legislature in 2011.

Rhode Island has very clear Separation of Powers laws that clearly define the roles of the Legislative branch, the Judicial branch, and the Executive branch. The duty of the Judicial branch is to assess laws and interpret them. They are not in a position to write, or mediate new policy that will be running our state. By engaging in a settlement process - especially because the Legislature was not a party to the legal "settlement", this judge has violated the Separation of Powers, betrayed the public's trust in the Judiciary, and I believe she even violated her oath of office.

It remains to be seen what - if anything, the legislature will do. But I am concerned that there may actually be some changes to the original pension reforms and that these changes will cost the taxpayers millions, and also place the pension system back into jeopardy of going insolvent. Remember - the General Treasurer emphatically warned the legislature that we "could not change any aspect of the pension reforms she was proposing, or it will fail."

Interestingly, now that the Treasurer is a candidate for governor, and she has long since lost the approval of the state's unions, she is now suddenly endorsing the "settlement" that Taft-Carter has concocted. This is clear pandering in an attempt to regain favor of the unions so her bid for governor has a better chance.

If the courts wanted to rule on the constitutionality of the original reforms, i would accept whatever their decision was - but that isn't what happened. What happened is an activist judge went rogue and completely violated the public trust in her position. Compounding this is the fact that the Treasurer has demonstrated that she will sell her soul for votes, and this all adds up to the taxpayers losing once again. I also believe that this dramatically impacts the pension system for those who seem to benefit from it and it endangers it enough where it may actually be back on the track for insolvency quite quickly.

Source