Skip to main content

PERA meeting and Planning meeting update

MNCORA attended the October 10 regular meeting and the Planning Meeting for the upcoming year.

Relating to the PERA Correctional plan at the Board meeting- PERA is recommending legislation to clarify disability for Corrections Officers to reflect the change from the 1.9% - 2.2% high five modifier. In other words disability needs to be paid out at the higher rate going forward. MNCORA supports this.

Planning Meeting

They discussed adding a PERA Correctional Plan member to the PERA Board. This is a result of our legislation last year (which we will push again) to do so. 

This was only a planning meeting. No votes were taken, that will happen at the next PERA meeting. The board did not seem in favor of this. 

The legitimate point was made that there hasn't been a change to PERA's board since 1995 and the Correctional Plan didn't exist until 1999. 

It was downhill from there. Some conversations about opposing the seat were-

*Adding a seat would make it a 12 member board-an even number.

*Correctional Plan members can already run for the General Plan seat.

*Yes there have been attempts to add other groups to our plan, but they have not supported those.

*They are happy with the current board make up.

The next meeting is December 12th and that is when they will vote to support or not. See our last Post for MNCORA's position. 

MNCORA is pushing ahead with our legislators to get the bill passed either way this session.

Watch this Blog for updates.



Popular posts from this blog

Correctional Officers Federally Recognized as Public Safety Employees

As of January 1, 2025,  Correctional Officers are Federally Recognized as Public Safety Employees   the same as Police and Fire.  This has implications for disability, taxes and retirement. As we face new challenges to our pension in 2025 this will further the distinction between PERA General Plan members like 911 Dispatch and Probation and CO's in the PERA Correctional Plan. It's part  of the Secure Act 2.0. 26 USC § 72(t)()(10)  definition of Public Safety Employee - qualified public safety employee (10) Distributions to qualified public safety employees and private sector firefighters (A) In general In the case of a distribution to a qualified public safety employee from a governmental plan (within the meaning of section 414(d) ) or a distribution from a plan described in clause (iii), (iv), or (vi) of section 402(c)(8)(B) to an employee who provides firefighting services, paragraph (2)(A)(v) shall be applied by substituting “age 50 or 25 years of service u...
Read more

Confusion at today's PERA meeting

 I attended the PERA Board meeting remotely today (3/13/25). As all of you know there's lots of pieces at play in the PERA pension plans. There have been in the recent past attempts by 911 Dispatchers and Probation to be merged into the PERA Correctional Plan which MNCORA has vehemently opposed. The positive note from todays meeting is that the current discussion is centered around improved pensions (earlier retirement) for probation and dispatch without talk of adding them to the Correctional Plan.  The sad part is the apparent confusion among PERA Board members as to the difference between Essential Employees and Public Safety Employees. Some were using the terms interchangeably which could lead to future problems.  While Police, Fire, Corrections, Probation and 911 Dispatch are all essential employees  https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/cite/179A.03 . Only Police, Fire and Correctional Officers are Public Safety! The Secure Act 2.0 spells out changes to the defi...
Read more

Notes from the August MNCORA Executive Board meeting

 We hope you're all enjoying your summer. The MNCORA Executive Board met August 3rd. Here's what's happening. There's a proposal from an Anoka County Detention Deputy, not a MNCORA member, who has met with PERA's Doug Anderson about raising the retirement payout from 1.9% to 2.2%. We met with him prior. MNCORA supports a higher payout but would want to see an actuarial of what affect it will have on our plan. Neither the Actuarial or a Bill to raise it would happen this year as it's a short session and last year was the budget year. It would not affect current retirees, but those still working. It would most likely require a larger contribution from both the employer and employee, that's why we want an actuarial. The Minnesota Duty Disability Association,  MNDDA  is raising money for a Lawsuit suing the State over HF 1234 and all the potential damage to those out on Duty Disability. They asked for our support. The Executive Board voted and supports this. We ...
Read more