Pension reform is the right thing to do

One of the more difficult votes during the recently concluded legislative session was on House Bill 644, Rep. Mimi Stewart’s attempt to address projected shortfalls in the PERA (public employee) and ERB (educational worker) retirement funds – shortfalls that could potentially exceed $15 billion by 2016.

The bill failed the first time it came before the full house for a vote, by a margin of 10 votes or so. I voted against it, as did many of my colleagues, both Democrat and Republican.

The wide variety of issues that come our way as legislators sometimes makes it difficult to be fully informed on all of the nuances and implications of every bill. On one hand public employee union representatives said that things were not all that dire, and that extreme measures were not warranted at this point in time.

On the other hand, Representative Stewart and others made a compelling case on the House floor that this was the responsible action to take, and that the whole intent was to ensure the long-term solvency of these vital funds – to make sure that there was a viable pension fund for new hires.

Ultimately, I opted for the “why do this if we do not have to?” line of reasoning.

Uneasy about my vote

But in the vote’s aftermath, I was uneasy about my vote. Had I shirked my duty to choose the most responsible course? Representative Stewart, a former teacher herself and longtime supporter of public employees, had chaired the Solvency Task Force for a full two years and had come to this conclusion, so did not her expertise in and deep concern for this subject merit respect?

And what of the increasingly ferocious personal attacks levied against her by the opponents of this bill, making her out to be devious, or misinformed? Why would someone of Representative Stewart’s demonstrated commitment and experience come to the conclusion she had?

I soon discovered that other legislators, on both sides of the aisle, were similarly disturbed by their vote on HB 644. There are issues that are more complicated, that take more time to absorb. I would suggest that pension reform is one of those issues.

In the House of Representatives we have a parliamentary procedure called a “reconsideration.” In such a case, a member of those who voted in the majority can move to bring that bill up again for an immediate re-vote. This is what transpired with HB 644, a couple of days after the original House vote. This time it passed by five votes, including my own, again with solid bi-partisan support.

Rep. Stewart is to be commended

HB 644 represents very modest changes in the retirement benefits of non-uniformed PERA and ERB members with less than five years of service credit – those who are not yet vested in the system. It raises the minimum retirement age from 43 to 55, and it also ties cost of living increases for PERA retirees at age 65 to the actual rate of inflation, rather than a flat 3 percent.

The legislation has no impact on firefighters, police officers, those employees who have worked over five years or those former employees currently drawing a pension. If implemented, it would essentially solve the current crisis with the PERA and ERB pension funds.

As it turns out, HB 644 did not advance in the Senate after its passage in the House, and so nothing happened. Clearly, though, we will need to address this issue in an upcoming legislative session, in order to preserve the integrity and viability of our public retirement system.

Representative Stewart is to be commended for tackling this issue, and I hope that everyone – including our thousands of dedicated teachers and public employees – will be able to work together to meet this important challenge.

O’Neill, a Democrat, represents District 15 in the New Mexico House.