The CEO of the state’s public pension plan believes some of us harbor misconceptions regarding the system’s retirees. And so Meredith Williams wasted little time clearing up the confusion at this month’s first “listening tour” meeting to explore ways to restore long-term solvency to the Colorado Public Employees Retirement Association.
Williams noted, for example, that there had been a “lot of speculation about people retiring at really young ages under PERA. Facts are that 3.5 percent of those 82,000 (retirees) are under age 55; 16.9 (percent) are under age 60; 61.1 percent of the retired population is over the age of 65.”
In other words, roughly one in six PERA retirees is at least two years — and as many as 12 years — younger than the earliest possible age that someone can take a Social Security pension at a reduced amount. Meanwhile, nearly 40 percent of PERA retirees are younger than the current Social Security full retirement age for those born after 1937. Depending on their age, for example, baby boomers must wait until between 66 and 67.
Hmm. Maybe that “speculation” was justified. Most PERA members may not be rushing to the exits at “really young ages,” but plenty do seem to be retiring at a point in life before most other people could conceive of it.
To be sure, the phrases “increase minimum retirement age” and “reduce early retirement benefits” appear among the money-saving options the PERA board will consider before it submits a reform plan to the legislature. In fact, if you go to , you can indicate whether you favor or oppose them, as well as many other options up for discussion.
Trouble is, you won’t know how much savings any single one might produce — a major handicap for anyone who takes the exercise seriously. Williams says that’s because the options don’t have a fixed impact on the pension funds; they vary depending on how the fixes interact.
Fair enough. But couldn’t they be ranked according to general potential?
Hiking the PERA retirement age won’t be easy, of course, because its defenders’ heavy artillery includes the alleged welfare of kids. “People who’ve been in the same or similar job after 25 or 30 years begin to tire,” a retired school principal told the PERA meeting. “Some even suffer burnout . . . some of that youthful patience and enthusiasm and sense of efficacy in their jobs begins to wane. I urge you to keep that in mind.”
But don’t people in many jobs “begin to tire” after 25 or 30 years? If they’re dedicated, they find ways to refresh their commitment — or move on to other occupations.
Some of the public testimony at the PERA meeting — from the budget director for the Department of Natural Resources, for example — was admirably constructive about possible reforms. Unfortunately, a lot of it mirrored the “let’s pull up the drawbridges” attitude of the principal. “I especially dread it when I see the Vince Carroll byline,” one fellow even quipped, presumably because of two previous columns here on PERA’s woes.
Hey, someone’s got to defend taxpayers’ stake in PERA reform — especially when it seems an alien idea to some lawmakers. “As we have addressed PERA issues in the legislature . . . many of us who are recipients of PERA have been very defensive, and have really tried to be very guarded and very protecting,” admitted Rep. Nancy Todd. “And I think that’s one of the things we’ll continue to do.”
How about being “very realistic” for a change about a system that is only 52 percent funded? Would that be too much to ask?
E-mail Vincent Carroll at vcarroll@denverpost.com.
