The State budget and Trailer bill are a biennial fascination that are increasingly used to accomplish tasks that could not be done through the legislative process alone. “Putting it in the budget” is an ordinary course of action. Didn’t pass? Stuff it in the budget. I’m not a fan, but if you’re willing to overlook your objections to trashcan bills in Congress, it works to get things done at the State level.
Another major issue is the taxpayer-funded retirement system. It’s a huge debt burden on taxpayers. We’ve been overextended for years, and the General Court was continually seeking tweaks to ease the burden on future taxpayers. Or increase it, as the case may be, by any means necessary.
One new trick appears to be Vesting, which is typically triggered on January 1 of each year. That’s just how it’s done. So, why does this year’s HB2 embrace an unusual departure from tradition?
Every occurrence of Jan 1st, 2012, in existing law has been changed to September 1st, 2013. Here is an example of the change that proliferates throughout the section on retirement funding in HB2.
For members who are in vested status before [
January 1, 2012]September 1, 2013, a state annuity which, together with his or her member annuity, shall be equal to 2-1/2 percent of his or her average final compensation multiplied by the number of years of his or her creditable service not in excess of 40 years …
Why is that? Assuming I’ve read this correctly, it seems wise to wonder who benefits?
These changes will cost the taxpayers an extra 327 million over ten years. Some argue this is necessary and owed, but also to attract current or future police officers and firefighters. That seems odd given we’re the only state in the Northeast that hasn’t repeatedly expressed or shown disdain for the police since 2020. You have to drive many hours to find a state that has their officers’ backs once you leave New Hampshire.
I guess that’s only an incentive if there’s more retirement money. Speaking of which, I don’t know any retired cops in the state who don’t make $60-$80,000 (ish) or more a year (from the retirement fund) on top of that part-time keep-busy job in security (for example), where they can easily earn more per hour than most Granite Staters paying their pensions can earn. I don’t begrudge them expecting the state to keep any promises. I appreciate the sacrifice and can’t fully comprehend the risk, but retiring at 45 to then start a new, successful career for another 20 years seems like a bad deal for taxpayers, which it is. It is unsustainable. So, when Representatives like Stephen Pearson say (and I’m paraphrasing) that we’re not taking new money in HB2, we’re returning to them what is owed and fixing what a previous legislature broke unfairly, I get a bit feisty.
“Gov. Ayotte has made clear that restoring the state’s promise to those who keep us safe must be a top priority,” Ayotte spokesman John Corbett said in a statement. “Our communities depend on these men and women, and keeping our state the safest in the nation requires that we keep our promises.”
Critics appreciate the sentiment, but they point to the same old problem: math.
The total cost, according to an internal funding proposal prepared by the state Senate, amounts to nearly $327 million, spread out over the next 10 fiscal years (through FY 2035).
That amounts to roughly $218,000 per employee.
As for the enabling legislation, Rep. Pearson seems to know a lot about HB727 (watch the clip and tell me I’m wrong), which he did not sponsor but introduced to the committee. The language in HB727 was retained in committee at the request of Rep Pearson and then imported almost verbatim into HB2. They “put it in the budget, as we like to say.
All in all, nothing odd about that, or is there? The vesting date for the retirement system is normally January 1st of every year. Every year, forever looking forward and back, except for the changes in HB727, now in HB2. Instead of January 1, 2012, or even January 1st, 2013, the vesting Date is September 1st, 2013. The next scheduled vesting date returns to Jan 1st, 2014, and so on.
According to Right to Know request records obtained from the State Retirement System, Rep. Stephen Pearson (the same one noted above), who started working at the Manchester Fire Department on August 3, 2003, would not be vested at the next rate if the next date were Jan 1, 2012 (8.67 years) or even Jan 1, 2013, but he fully vests in Group II as Aug 30th, 2013 (10.25 years).
Two days before the proposed date change, September 1st, 2013.
I’m sure this incredibly unusual and unforeseen coincidence is as much a surprise to him as it is to the rest of us. A happy accident that Rep Pearson never noticed lest it be considered a suspicious impropriety from which he ought to distance himself. We make no accusations of impropriety but merely document the serendipitous nature of the proposed changes he introduced and then helped get into HB2 (having retained it in committee to protect it from further standalone votes) and the purely circumstantial evidence surrounding it.
And we appreciate the duty and sacrifice of all New Hampshire’s first responders and their families, including Rep Pearson, whom we joyfully support and defend against political hijinks, regardless of which direction they take. These changes, however, are pretty unusual and worth documenting for anyone who may have further questions for any or all of the parties involved.
Fixed: Biennial not biannual. The budget shenanigans are every two years.
