Bob Buerkle and Wayne Clark Spell Out How the STRS Board Is Financially Punishing the July-December Retirees with Unequal Treatment

STRS Board Uses Fiscal Year Calendar to Deny July - December Retirees Several Hundred Million Dollars in COLA Benefits

The original plan to deny millions of dollars to the July through December retirees was most likely conceived prior to the STRS Board's 2013 COLA suspension and percentage adjustment.  At some point when the plan to suspend and reduce the COLA percentage was being discussed someone at STRS noticed that by starting COLA suspensions and/or COLA percentage reduction by using the Fiscal Calendar (July 1 - June 30) instead of an Annual Calendar (January 1- December 31) would save STRS millions of dollars by denying millions of dollars to the July through December retirees.  

The deception was based on convincing the July through December retirees back in 2013 that they would not be losing any money compared to the January through June retirees.  It started by STRS informing the July through December retirees that they would be the first retirees to have their COLA suspended and they would be the first to get the new reduced 2% COLA the following year when the January through June retirees would have to wait a year before getting the reinstated 2% COLA.  The majority of the July through December retirees did not see the inequity in this method and they were convinced that this was fair and all retirees were getting their COLA suspended for one year.  

With no major pushback from the July through December retirees for using the Fiscal Calendar method to implement suspensions and/or to reduce COLA percentages the STRS Board saw another opportunity to save additional millions of dollars at the expense of the July through December retirees.  By informing all retirees that there would be a multiyear COLA suspension the focus would be on all retirees losing several years of COLA and there would be little or no pushback on how the Fiscal Year method was again going to deny several hundred millions of additional dollars to the July through December retirees. 

In 2013 as a result of the deceptive use of the Fiscal Calendar for COLA suspensions and/or COLA percentage reductions by the STRS Board retirees that retired in July - December 2012 with a $40,000 pension have already lost approximately $2400 compared to retirees that retired in January - June 2012 with the same $40,000 pension.   Because the January - June retirees did receive a 2017 COLA while the July - December retirees were denied the 2017 COLA, and the fact that the new COLA suspension will last a minimum of five years, the July - December retirees will lose an additional $6000 compared to the January - June retirees.  As a result of the STRS Board's decision in 2013 to use the Fiscal Calendar to implement COLA suspensions and/or COLA percentage reductions the July - December retirees will lose an additional $8400 ($2400+$6000) when compared to the January - June retirees. 

It is important to note that all July through December retirees that retired prior to 2013 are experiencing these huge additional financial losses that the January through June retirees aren't experiencing. This inequity is a direct result of the STRS Board using the Fiscal Calendar to implement COLA suspensions and/or COLA percentage reductions instead of using the Annual Calendar when implementing changes.  If $8400 is the average loss for each July through December retiree and if there are approximately 80,000 July through December retirees the additional loss in pension funds compared to the January through June retirees is a staggering $672 million. (**see info/chart)

                  ** STRS Retirees Suffering Huge Losses, Some More Than Others

The examples below reflect retirees that retired in 2012 with a $40,000 pension and a $1200 annual COLA.  The first two June and July columns (A and B) show the results of what the STRS retirees would have been granted without COLA suspensions and/or COLA percentage reductions.  Columns A and B show that the June and July retirees would have received the same pension amounts through 2021.  Until July 1st 2013 the annual COLA was 3% and a COLA was paid every year to all retirees since 1971. 

The third and fourth columns (C and D) show the actual reduced retirement payments due to the STRS changes, reductions and finally the total elimination of the COLA at least through 07/01/21.  This results in a minimum loss of $28,800 on an original annual pension of $40,000 for the June retiree.  So you are basically losing over 70% of a year's pension over the time covered in this chart if you are a January-June retiree.

The other travesty is the disparate treatment of the July through December retirees. As the result of STRS's use of the Fiscal Calendar in lieu of an Annual Calendar for COLA suspensions and/or percentage reductions during the 4 year period between 2013 and 2016 July-Dec retirees were behind in purchasing power by over 1% on average.  When the STRS Board terminated the COLA on 07/01/2017 this purchasing power loss grew to 3% or $1200 per year since the Jan-June retirees received another 2% COLA on their anniversaries that the July-Dec retirees did not get.  Therefore, Jan-June retirees have a $1200 pension benefit advantage that is additive every year going forward starting July 1, 2017 through July 1 2021.  This advantage is $1200 x 5 years, at minimum, before the next quinquennial review.  That's $6000 more in pension payments over that period for about half of all retirees while the other half receive $0.   Therefore, when you add the losses since July 1, 2013 through July 1, 2016 which is $2400 and the $6000 they will lose over the next five years the July-Dec retirees will end up at least $8400 behind the Jan-June retirees in total pension payments over the period described, a loss of 93% of their original yearly pension.  If the suspension of the COLA continues beyond 2021 the $8400 difference will continue to grow by $1200 for each additional year.

Approximately half of the 160,000 STRS retirees have retirement anniversaries between January and June.  Therefore, 80,000 X $8400 = $672,000,000 will be paid to the Jan - June retirees at the pension asset expense of the 80,000 July-Dec retirees.

This is why the SERS System is asking for a January, 2018 COLA cessation date.  It eliminates the inequity that the STRS plan has promoted.

Click image to enlarge

Wayne Clark: A follow-up letter to STRS Board re: COLA inequities

From July 2013 Through July 2021 the July - December Retiree Will Lose Approximately $8400 Compared to the January - June Retiree

From Wayne Clark

August 1, 2017

Dear STRS Board Members,

In June I sent all members an email with attachments that contained an explanation letter and four charts. The charts illustrated the unfair financial inequality that the July through December retirees are experiencing as a result of the use of the Fiscal Calendar instead of an Annual Calendar when implementing COLA suspensions and/or COLA percentage reductions. The charts also illustrated that the financial inequality the July - December retirees are experiencing is a result of the denial of the last 3% 2013 COLA and denial of the 2017 COLA. I must admit I was extremely disappointed that I didn't receive any response from Board members regarding the charts. 

Bob Buerkle and I have now developed a one page document that simplifies and illustrates this huge financial inequality between the Jan - June retirees and the July - Dec retirees. It is my hope that you look at the document and begin to have serious discussion on how quickly this huge financial inequality can be resolved so all retirees, no matter which month they retired in, are treated the same. The July and August retirees are now the first to experience the sickening feeling of having their COLA unfairly suspended. Hopefully, with a change in STRS policy, the retirees that have COLA anniversaries over the next four months won't have to experience the same sickening feeling. If the Board continues to ignore and refuses to have any discussion regarding the huge financial inequality that is taking place retirees will be forced to explore all legal options. 

I have copied the attachment and pasted it below in case you don't want to open the attachment. The copy and paste version may be a little jumbled compared to the attachment.

Respectfully,

Wayne Clark

STRS retiree                          

STRS Retirees Suffering Huge Losses, Some More Than Others

The examples below reflect retirees that retired in 2012 with a $40,000 pension and a $1200 annual COLA.  The first two June and July columns (A and B) show the results of what the STRS retirees would have been granted without COLA suspensions and/or COLA percentage reductions.  Columns A and B show that the June and July retirees would have received the same pension amounts through 2021.  Until July 1st 2013 the annual COLA was 3% and a COLA was paid every year to all retirees since 1971. 

The third and fourth columns (C and D) show the actual reduced retirement payments due to the STRS changes, reductions and finally the total elimination of the COLA at least through 07/01/21.  This results in a minimum loss of $28,800 on an original annual pension of $40,000 for the June retiree.  So you are basically losing over 70% of a year’s pension over the time covered in this chart if you are a January-June retiree.

The other travesty is the disparate treatment of the July through December retirees. As the result of STRS’s use of the Fiscal Calendar in lieu of an Annual Calendar for COLA suspensions and/or percentage reductions during the 4 year period between 2013 and 2016 July-Dec retirees were behind in purchasing power by over 1% on average.  When the STRS Board terminated the COLA on 07/01/2017 this purchasing power loss grew to 3% or $1200 per year since the Jan-June retirees received another 2% COLA on their anniversaries that the July-Dec retirees did not get.  Therefore, Jan-June retirees have a $1200 pension benefit advantage that is additive every year going forward starting July 1, 2017 through July 1 2021.  This advantage is $1200 x 5 years, at minimum, before the next quinquennial review.  That's $6000 more in pension payments over that period for about half of all retirees while the other half receive $0.   Therefore, when you add the losses since July 1, 2013 through July 1, 2016 which is $2400 and the $6000 they will lose over the next five years the July-Dec retirees will end up at least $8400 behind the Jan-June retirees in total pension payments over the period described, a loss of 93% of their original yearly pension.  If the suspension of the COLA continues beyond 2021 the $8400 difference will continue to grow by $1200 for each additional year.  

Approximately half of the 160,000 STRS retirees have retirement anniversaries between January and June.  Therefore, 80,000 X $8400 = $672,000,000 will be paid to the Jan – June retirees at the pension asset expense of the 80,000 July-Dec retirees.  

This is why the SERS System is asking for a January, 2018 COLA cessation date.  It eliminates the inequity that the STRS plan has promoted.

Click image to enlarge

OPERS retiree questions legality of COLA cut

Columbus Dispatch

August 28, 2017

I respond to last Monday’s Dispatch article “OPERS may cut retiree cost-of-living benefit hikes.” I retired from the city of Columbus at the end of 2008. I was promised a 3 percent annual cost-of-living adjustment based on my base retirement amount. To some degree, this promised annual increase influenced my decision to retire.

The Ohio Public Employees Retirement System is now proposing to reduce the COLA for those who retired prior to 2012, but does not seem to be concerned as to whether such a change is legal. The U.S. Constitution specifically forbids states from interfering with valid contracts or passing ex post facto laws.

The OPERS retiree COLA is specified in Ohio law. As a retiree, I have a definite relationship with the state of Ohio. If the Ohio Legislature amends the Ohio Revised Code to reduce the COLA of existing retirees, the revised law would be an illegal ex post facto law.

Further, upon my retirement, I believe a valid contract was formed between myself and the state of Ohio. At the time of retirement, I had satisfied my contractual obligations. Ohio set the terms of the contract. Ohio has a legal requirement to fulfill its side of the contract and a constitutional requirement not to interfere with the contract.

I hope the legality of the changes proposed by the Ohio Public Employees Retirement System is investigated.

Dale Harmon

Palm Coast, Florida