tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7609353726565000072.post5151686322524934306..comments2023-06-14T02:29:40.319-07:00Comments on PSPRS Pension Watch: Hall of mirrors: What issues are holding up the final resolution of the Hall case?Drop Zonehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07195030344305212432noreply@blogger.comBlogger12125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7609353726565000072.post-63127919773245706762017-03-09T15:49:50.727-07:002017-03-09T15:49:50.727-07:00I just received word from our union rep that the m...I just received word from our union rep that the motion to reconsider was denied, so now back to the lower court. Getting closer. At least I hope.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7609353726565000072.post-18206045862442351462017-03-07T06:52:49.115-07:002017-03-07T06:52:49.115-07:00Heard a rumour they may give the option of giving ...Heard a rumour they may give the option of giving more time in your retirment instead of paying out the $$. For example give you the opion of getting two years towards your retirment rather than the moneyAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7609353726565000072.post-86302035871669838872017-03-03T08:20:52.897-07:002017-03-03T08:20:52.897-07:00"Average monthly benefit compensation" m..."Average monthly benefit compensation" means the result obtained by dividing the total compensation paid to an employee during a considered period by the number of months, including fractional months, in which such compensation was received. For an employee who becomes a member of the system:<br />(a) Before January 1, 2012, the considered period shall be the three consecutive years within the last twenty completed years of credited service that yield the highest average.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7609353726565000072.post-30943906641674181712017-03-02T15:19:09.380-07:002017-03-02T15:19:09.380-07:00Thanks! This was a lot of good information that I ...Thanks! This was a lot of good information that I needed. I am already preparing myself for an argument with them whenever the refunds do finally come because my husband (the PSPRS member) lateralled to a different agency last year, and the PSPRS website no longer shows any of his prior contributions, nor does their on-site calculator show his High 3 years using the information from his prior agency. I've called PSPRS about the prior contributions not showing up, and they told me to leave a message for the "specialist" who won't call me back...<br />Maybe you can help me with this question: everything I've read, and everyone I've talked to has said that your High 3 is based on your entire career, not just the years with the agency you retire from. Is that accurate?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7609353726565000072.post-2771766801877009102017-03-02T15:15:41.494-07:002017-03-02T15:15:41.494-07:00Thanks! This was a lot of good information that I ...Thanks! This was a lot of good information that I needed. I am already preparing myself for an argument with them whenever the refunds do finally come because my husband (the PSPRS member) lateralled to a different agency last year, and the PSPRS website no longer shows any of his prior contributions, nor does their on-site calculator show his High 3 years using the information from his prior agency. I've called PSPRS about the prior contributions not showing up, and they told me to leave a message for the "specialist" who won't call me back...<br />Maybe you can help me with this question: everything I've read, and everyone I've talked to has said that your High 3 is based on your entire career, not just the years with the agency you retire from. Is that accurate?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7609353726565000072.post-49004856238585678292017-02-23T15:02:07.657-07:002017-02-23T15:02:07.657-07:00You might as well forget about it and just let it ...You might as well forget about it and just let it surprise you when and if they get sent out.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03193239521449565331noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7609353726565000072.post-13500306039895929832017-02-21T06:37:06.643-07:002017-02-21T06:37:06.643-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02110622815972928975noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7609353726565000072.post-88202610461336318852017-02-21T06:36:43.031-07:002017-02-21T06:36:43.031-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02110622815972928975noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7609353726565000072.post-90796403930307764332017-02-10T14:27:23.928-07:002017-02-10T14:27:23.928-07:00It is only speculation, but I don't think that...It is only speculation, but I don't think that that is the case. It does not appear that PSPRS will lower Tier 1 rates back to 7.65% until the Supreme Court is finished with the Hall case. I think the timeline is to finalize the employer rates for next fiscal year. These rates would be based on each individual employer's funded status. They will also need to finalize the Tier 3 rate that is a 50/50 split between employers and employees. I would assume the Tier 1 rates for next fiscal year will assume a 7.65% employee rate because all legal issues should be settled by then, but when they actually stop taking the excess 4% from Tier 1 members is still up in the air. Once again, this is just my best guess.Drop Zonehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07195030344305212432noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7609353726565000072.post-55201966846057247022017-02-08T02:16:35.398-07:002017-02-08T02:16:35.398-07:00I recently saw something on the PSPRS website and ...I recently saw something on the PSPRS website and wanted to get your opinion. The have a pension reform campaign schedule and I noticed on the February 2017 portion, they have listed a section that reads "Announce Employer and Employee Contribution Rates Effective 7/1/17." Could this be the date of the lowering of the employee rates back to their original amounts? Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7609353726565000072.post-6505076003800914372017-02-02T09:37:40.374-07:002017-02-02T09:37:40.374-07:00Thank you for your comment. What you ask is the (...Thank you for your comment. What you ask is the (multi) million dollar question. When PFFA president Jeffries sent out his email in November, he said that the contribution rate would revert back to 7.65%in January 2017, but he was probably going on the best information available at the time, maybe even what he heard from PSPRS itself. PSPRS dribbles out information, much of which is not accurate from what I can tell. Of course, this is why no one trusts PSPRS' management or the Board of Trustees who are supposed to perform oversight of them. As you point out, what are they actually asking the Supreme Court to reconsider and is it some type of Hail Mary that they think can make them change their minds about their opinion? I doubt this since the Court already spent months deliberating all aspects of the case. <br /><br />However, coming full circle to you comment, though, is an area about which I am concerned. I am concerned that they will ask the Court to disallow prejudgment interest. I fear this because, first, the Superior Court, disallowed it, though I am not sure of the exact rationale as it was not included in the opinion I have seen. Even more concerning is the fact that the Supreme Court denied interest to the plaintiffs in the Fields case under the reasoning that EORP/PSPRS were not responsible for the “wrong” of withholding PBI’s and to burden them financially by making them pay interest would be incorrect. They were simply complying with the law imposed on them by the Arizona legislature. This is troubling because many of us have had wages held back for over 5 ½ years, while PSPRS was earning interest on our money. If there is no prejudgment interest awarded, what incentive does PSPRS have to expedite refunds, especially now that the markets are going up and they are currently earning more on their portfolio than the interest rate they would have to pay (4.75%)? <br /><br />This is just speculation on my part but seems like a point of contention since the inclusion of prejudgment interest was an addition to the previous Superior Court decision and, more importantly, not something awarded in the Fields case, and PSPRS and the State can argue that there was precedent for not paying interest. Remember also that the Fields decision was by the “real” Supreme Court, not the group of judges that decided the Hall case, which had only one “real” Supreme Court justice on it because the other Supreme Court justices had a personal stake in the outcome of Hall. Anyway, this may be moot if this is not even an issue, but we will have to see, but it might explain the lack of urgency in lowering contribution rates. If it turns out that they don’t have to pay interest, why should they care how of our money they take and for how long they hold it. Thanks again for your comment.Drop Zonehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07195030344305212432noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7609353726565000072.post-5674854018764690412017-02-01T22:24:34.042-07:002017-02-01T22:24:34.042-07:00Great Update as always. Thanks you Drop Zone. Wh...Great Update as always. Thanks you Drop Zone. When do you think they will reduce the contributions back to the original amount? By leaving them as they are, doesn't the interest just keep going, resulting in larger payouts in the future? Perhaps someone is advising them there is a chance they can beat this when it goes back to the lower court. Seems like they are merely prolonging the pain.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com