Salt Lake Tribune
Weekly Ad Specials
Pension versus 401(k)
This is an archived article that was published on sltrib.com in 2007, and information in the article may be outdated. It is provided only for personal research purposes and may not be reprinted.

What appears to be a simple decision about state retirement benefits may turn out to be one of the thorniest issues of the 2007 Legislature.

House lawmakers are expected to vote this week on a bill that would give state employees a choice between defined benefit plans - the traditional pension system - and defined contribution plans - employee-stoked 401(k) plans.

A defined benefit plan guarantees an employee a set, predetermined monthly retirement check based on years of service and salary. A defined contribution plan is one in which the monthly retirement check depends on investment performance of the individual account.

To Rep. John Dougall, the bill's sponsor, giving public employees more say over their retirement is an idea whose time has come.

"It's a choice," said the Highland Republican at a committee hearing on his bill last week.

And it's an option that many high-energy, entrepreneurial employees insist upon having, say supporters. A perk that, when denied, would drive them to private-sector jobs where they can test their investment mettle.

But of the roughly five dozen firefighters, teachers, law enforcement officials, state workers and other public employees who turned out for the hearing, not one volunteered to speak in favor of the bill.

And when it came to a vote, the three Democratic members of the Retirement and Independent Entities Committee voted against Dougall's measure, leaving the four Republican members to send it out for full House review.

Audry Wood, executive director of the Utah Public Employees Association, said public employees view Dougall's bill as a no-confidence vote on their work, and as a retreat from the state government's promise to reward their labors with a good, safe pension.

"They do a great job," Wood said of state employees, "and this is what they get."

The Utah public employees' pension fund has grown to more than $17 billion, or nearly double the size of the state's annual budget. More than 163,000 people either contribute to it or draw from it - schoolteachers, judges, police officers, county clerks and even lawmakers and ex-governors.

It is considered an asset, the glossy polish on the state's sparkling financial rating. And, unlike the pension funds of many other states, it is considered rock solid, fully able to meet its obligations to retirees.

"We have a great retirement system," said Courtney White of the Utah Education Association, the state's largest teachers union, in the committee hearing. "We're thinking: Why mess with a good thing?"

That's basically what an interim committee decided last year, after months of exhaustive study. But the issue is being revived this year by a conservative Legislature eager to cut government spending and to join a nationwide trend in business and government.

"I feel quite comfortable with the choice option," said Rep. Merlynn Newbold, R-South Jordan.

She suggested delaying by one year the start date for the widespread defined contribution plan - to July 1, 2008 - and the retirement committee agreed.

Neither side can say for sure how the change will impact the current retirement system. A fiscal note on the bill, basically a cost-estimate for implementing it, suggests state agencies might have to come up with as much as $18.4 million to deal with the drain on the retirement fund.

It used to be that roughly one-third of state employees who leave service within the four-year period required to become vested would give up their share of the government-funded retirement. But, if those shorter-term employees are allowed to take their contributions with them, it would mean the state would have to come up with money to fill the expected gaps.

And public employees fear that money will be coming from their compensation packages.

"By putting this bill in place, we're taking a step backward," said Rep. Neal Hansen, an Ogden Democrat and a vested member of the retirement plan.

"I believe there are still many unanswered questions," said Rep. Karen Morgan, D-Cottonwood Heights.

The fight over the bill was in full swing Friday in the Legislature's halls. This week, as the 2007 session begins its last full week of business, the battle moves to the floor.

fahys@sltrib.com

HB377

Would change traditional retirement system to 401(k).

Next step: Goes to the full House.

House panel splits on party lines over state employees' retirement
Article Tools

Photos
 
Affiliates and Partners