 |
On March 20th I testified at the Pension Committee meeting regarding House File 1234.
MNCORA is opposed to this Bill.
See previous post https://mncoretirementassociation.blogspot.com/2023/03/lcpr-meeting-monday-mar-20th-pension.html
Testifying in favor of the Bill were
Doug Anderson, Executive Director, Public Employees Retirement Association
Amy Strenge, Policy Coordinator, Public Employees Retirement Association
Jenny Max, Nisswa City Administrator, on behalf of the league of Minnesota Cities - LMC Letter
Not testifying in person , but submitting a letter of support was the Association of Minnesota Counties (more on this later)
and John Swenson, Lino Lakes Public Safety Director, on behalf of Minn. Chiefs of Police Assoc.
MNCORA sent two letters opposing this bill and 17 other affected people sent letters describing the hardships they face and how this bill if passed, would harm them.
The room was so full of people mostly opposed that two more rows of chairs had to be brought it.
13 of us signed up to testify in person.
Most of the testimony described their fear that if passed HF 1234 will make life more difficult and/or cause them to lose their disability pension or their ability to work.
MNCORA spoke against HF 1234 and the ONLY Union to show up and testify against it (via zoom) was MNPEA President Dave Deal.
No one from AFSCME, MPPOA, Teamsters, the FOP, MSA or LELS was there to speak for or against this bill affecting so many members.
Speakers were limited to just 90 seconds to speak. Many paused as they teared up and had to compose themselves.
Not one member of the Legislative Commission on Pensions and Retirement Committee asked a single question of the citizen speakers only of PERA.
At the end Committee Chair Her seemed angry at those opposing the bill who felt they had not been consulted.
MNCORA had not been consulted and MNPEA had not been consulted that represents both Corrections and Sheriff/Police groups.
Chairperson Her stated that they had worked on this bill for 3 years and had a working group of employer and Union stakeholders and it was time to move this bill on. Working group?
Now back to the letter from the AMC. In it they say,
"For over two years, AMC had the privilege of being part of a Public Safety Duty Disability Stakeholder Group. This group has been composed of a multitude of local government employers as well as law enforcement and union representatives."
Who was in this stakeholder group? What were their recommendations?
Chairperson Her repeatedly stated during the hearing that she didn't write the provisions of the Bill, yet she is the Chief Author.
We know it was PERA at their March 2nd meeting that recommended unanimously changing §353.031, subd. 8. "The PERA staff recommends modifying Minn. Stat. §353.031, subd. 8 to set clear expectations for all of PERA’s members and clarify requirements. The recommended changes will clearly state that the member is responsible to reapply for the disability benefit once a year for the first five years and once every three years after that. Language will clarify that the burden of proof remains with the member in the event of an appeal."
The Bill was passed unanimously by the LCPR without one question of the citizens testifying or of MNCORA or the only Union that showed up, MNPEA, and sent on to the House and Senate finance committees.
MNCORA encourages everyone to contact their State Senators and the members of the Senate Finance Committee and tell them not to adopt the changes found in HF 1234. The companion Senate File is SF 1959 and does not contain the changes MNCORA is opposed to that are found in HF 1234.
As was stated during testimony the Minnesota Correctional Officer Retirement Association had no horse in this race until the Corrections Disability retirement was tossed into a Police and Fire Bill that offers benefits like 24 weeks of treatment for them and none for Corrections Officers. But we are included in the rewriting of §353.031, subd. 8. Which will reverse 40 years of case law and make a person already on a disability retirement who is denied a reapplication, have to prove they are disabled to PERA with the burden of proof shifting from PERA to the Member.
More to come.