As State Democrats Prepare To Introduce Healthcare Reform, Christie's Stance Remains Unclear

 

As reported by nj.com, the state’s top lawmakers said Monday they cleared a significant hurdle in efforts to overhaul public employee benefits after agreeing to a plan that shifts more medical costs onto workers while protecting future collective bargaining rights.

The spotlight now turns to Governor Chris Christie, who has been uncharacteristically quiet as Assembly Speaker Sheila Oliver and Senate President Stephen Sweeney hammer out the final details of a controversial bill overhauling pension and health benefits that is scheduled for its first legislative hearing on Thursday. 

Sweeney endorsed a plan Monday being promoted by Oliver that would increase health benefits contributions for all of the state’s 500,000 public workers but allow unions to seek lower rates at the negotiating table starting in 2014. “The sunset provision is certainly fair and is another example of the kinds of compromise we have been able to achieve with this legislation,” Sweeney said in a written statement.

A spokesman for Christie, Michael Drewniak, said the governor had no comment on the sunset provision or the broader proposal. Christie has spent the last 18 months as governor making his case for overhauling what he has contended are overly lavish pension and health benefits for the state’s public employees, often resorting to blunt criticism of them, their union leaders and Democratic lawmakers.

Sweeney and Christie recently agreed on a plan that shifts more of the costs of pensions and health benefits to public workers in the form of increased contributions, along with pushing back the retirement age and freezing cost-of-living adjustments for retirees. Leaders of the state’s public unions have mounted a fierce opposition to the proposal, urging members to reach out to legislators, lobbying in the halls of the Statehouse and issuing blistering news releases questioning lawmakers’ commitment to collective bargaining.

Sweeny has decided to bring the bill to the Senate floor despite lack of support from Democrats, and will rely on Republicans to approve the measure. Facing similar opposition, Oliver has said she will not move the bill without “significant” support from Assembly Democrats, and it’s unclear whether the sunset provision has resulted in enough support to overcome that self-imposed threshold.

The sunset provision may attract lawmakers who were on the fence, but it will probably do little to persuade staunch supporters of collective bargaining, like Assemblywoman Bonnie Watson Coleman, whose district includes many state employees. “Any legislative attempt to erode the rights of public workers is a mistake,” said Watson Coleman.

Extension of Effective Date for New IRS Regulations

 After much concern regarding the new Treasury Regulations promulgated by the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) and their potential impact on members of government pension plans, the IRS and the Treasury intend to extend the date by which a governmental plan must comply with final regulations on distributions from a pension plan upon attainment of normal retirement age. Under the extension, the new Treasury Regulations will be effective for a governmental plan for plan years beginning on or after January 1, 2011.     

As described in two previous blog entries, the IRS modified Treasury Regulation §1.401(a)-1 to provide an exception to the rule that pension benefits be paid only after retirement by permitting a pension plan to commence payment of retirement benefits to a participant after the participant has attained normal retirement age even if the participant has not yet had a severance from employment with the employer maintaining the plan. 

 

The new regulations also require a pension plan’s normal retirement age to be an age that is not earlier than the earliest age that is reasonably representative of the typical retirement age for the industry in which the covered workforce is employed.  In the case of a retirement plan where substantially all of the participants are qualified public safety officers, a normal retirement age of age 50 or later is deemed not be earlier than the earliest age that is reasonably representative of the typical retirement age for the industry in which the covered workforce is employed. 

 

Notice 2007-69, which provided temporary relief for certain plans that may have to change their definitions of normal retirement age to satisfy the new regulations, indicated that the new regulations do not contain a safe harbor or other guidance with respect to a normal retirement age conditioned on the completion of a stated number of years of service.  The notice requested comments on whether and how a pension plan with a normal retirement age conditioned on the completion of a stated number of years of service satisfies the requirement in §1.401(a)-1 that a pension plan be maintained primarily to provide for the payment of definitely determinable benefits after retirement or attainment of normal retirement age and how such a plan satisfies the pre-ERISA vesting rules. 

 

Based upon this, in Notice 2008-98, the IRS indicated its intention to amend the new regulations to change the effective date for governmental plan to plan years beginning on or after January 1, 2011.  Moreover, the notice provided that government plan sponsors may rely on this notice with respect to extension until such time as the new regulations are so amended. 

 

Although the implementation of the new regulations has been delayed, it is critical to keep apprised of the comments regarding whether a pension plan with a normal retirement age conditioned on the completion of a stated number of years of service satisfies the new regulations. Clearly, the resolution of this issue could drastically impact many public safety officers not only in New Jersey, but across the country. Periodic updates to this website regarding these regulations will be posted as more information becomes available.