New Jersey Public Safety Officers Law Blog : New Jersey Public Safety Employee Lawyer & Attorney : Pellettieri, Rabstein & Altman Law Firm : Workers Compensation, Discipline Representation for Police & Firefighters : New Jersey

The Asbury Park Press published an article in today's Sunday edition addressing the ability of The State of New Jersey to honor its pension obligations to those public employees that have been paying into the retirement system since the start of their public employment .  The article, entitled "Can New Jersey Keep its Pension Promises?" unfortunately reiterated the same information that we have been hearing for the last several years.......The Pension System is Broke.

The article stated that as of June, 2009, the state's pension system faced unpaid liabilities in the amount of $45.8 billion dollars.  However, this is assuming that the state receives an annual 8.25% return on its pension investments.  At this point in time, everyone is aware that the State hasn't seen 8.25% for several years now.  Furthermore, many studies have demonstrated that the unfunded liability of $45.8 billion is a conservative estimate and the true unfunded liability is more along the lines of $173.9 billion, with unfunded health care costs reaching $55 billion dollars.  Eileen Norcross, a George Mason University researcher has been quoted as stating, "It's mathematically impossible to pay this out.  It's too large."

However, despite the fact that the public employment pension system is in dire straits, Governor Christie, has made the decision to "skip" the state's 2010 $3billion dollar pension payment. In reviewing the administration's decision to forgo the payment, one has to question if the Christie administration has already given up on attempting to save the state pension system and the countless amount of money that has been withheld from public employee's paychecks on a weekly basis since the inception of the system.  I bet many of you who are reading this article would like to skip a few pension payments or take a "pension holiday" the way that the state, county and local governments have over the last sever years. 

A year or two ago, myself and other attorneys representing public employee labor unions filed suit against the State of New Jersey for failing to fund the State Employee Pension Systems.  An argument was made that the state had a constitution mandate or obligation to fund the pension system.  Unfortunately all of the suits were dismissed under the notion that the state had very broad discretion in making decisions on how to appropriate funds concerning fiscal obligations.  However, the court did leave the door open and stated that a suit would be entertained if pension recipients did not receive payment due to the state's inability to pay.  With that being said, one has to ask the question:  "Wont it be to late at that point in time?"

We will continue to follow this issue on this blog.  You, the public employees of the State of New Jersey, and retired public employees of the  state of New Jersey need to take affirmative steps to attempt to revive your retirement system.  If you do not take immediate affirmative steps to protect your retirement income, unfortunately, it appears as if it will be lost due to government irresponsibility and mismanagement. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

In the case of In re Carry Permit of Andros, A-4077-06T4, the Appellate Division held that the State of New Jersey’s authority to revoke a retired police officer’s permit to carry a handgun is not preempted by federal law.

James Andros was an Atlantic City police officer from 1968 to 2003. Prior to his retirement in good standing, Andros applied for and obtained a permit to carry a handgun. This action concerns Andros’ appeal from a judgment granting the State’s application, under N.J.S.A. 2C:39-6L(6), to revoke his permit to carry a firearm.

Andros challenged denial of his motion to dismiss the State’s application because of federal preemption under 18 U.S.C.A. § 926C, enacted as part of the Law Enforcement Officers’ Safety Act of 2004, which amended 18 U.S.C.A. § 921, et. seq., relating to firearms. Andros contended: (1) that the revocation was preempted; and (2) the Law Division erred in finding that the State had presented “good cause” for the revocation.

The Law Division Judge denied Andros’ motion to dismiss on the grounds that the State was not preempted from revoking the license under N.J.S.A. 2C:39-6L(6). The Judge found that N.J.S.A. 2C:39-6L(6) did not bar a retired New Jersey law enforcement officer, or officers from other states who are qualified in those states, from carrying a concealed weapon as long as he meets New Jersey’s qualification standards. Consequently, the Judge concluded that N.J.S.A. 2C:39-6L remained valid.

On appeal, the Appellate Division, in affirming the revocation, held that the federal Law Enforcement Officers’ Safety Act of 2004, 18 U.S.C.A. §926C, does not pre-empt a state from revoking a retired police officer’s permit to carry a handgun under N.J.S.A. 2C:39-6L. In conceding Andros satisfied the requirements of federal act, the Court indicated a retired officer’s conduct permits the licensing state to revoke the permit, as evidenced by the requirements for qualification and testing every year in U.S.C.A. § 926C(c)(5). In other words, the federal act expressly permits states to set standards for training and qualification consistent with those of “active law enforcement officers.”  

The Court agreed with the Law Division Judge that the federal act merely preempts a state’s ability to preclude, or change the requirements for, carrying the firearm interstate, if the state permits licensing of the retired officer. As a result, New Jersey retains jurisdiction to hear the state’s contention that it can establish good cause justifying the revocation. With these principles in mind, the Court found no congressional intent to preclude the action taken by the State here and no basis for concluding that a state cannot revoke a handgun permit because Congress authorizes a carrier when licensed in one state to possess it in another. 

This case illustrates the State’s ability to limit a retired public safety officer’s ability to carry a firearm. Recently, this topic has become an important issue for retired officers throughout the State of New Jersey. This case is significant in that shows the State of New Jersey is not precluded under federal law from seeking and ultimately obtaining revocation of an officer’s permit to carry a firearm. The evolving case law regarding retired officers and their ability to carry a firearm should be followed closely so as to ensure the officers’ rights are protected.   

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

In Communication Workers of America v. State of New Jersey, the appellants challenged an amendment made by the State Health Benefits Commission to the retiree prescription drug card pilot plan. In support, appellants argued that the rule is invalid and unenforceable because it reduces post-retirement health care benefits. 

The Appellate Division affirmed the amendment to N.J.A.C. 17:9-6.10(h) as well as a concurrent resolution. The Court held that the rule allowing adjustment of the cap on out-of-pocket expenditures is consistent with statutory authority governing the prescription drug benefit plan. The Court also noted that the pilot plan, as adopted, is reasonable and necessary to preserve the financial integrity of the plan.

This entry serves as follow up to the one regarding the State Health Benefits Program. As you can see, proposed changes or changes actually made to the State Health Benefits Program have become an increasingly important topic for all public employees. Recently, the State of New Jersey has become especially active in seeking to amend or alter the benefits packages offered to its employees through contract negotiations. Undoubtedly, as more collective bargaining units negotiate their contracts, this topic, which involves the potential for premium sharing by the employees, will come to the forefront.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

 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.    

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Most recently New Jersey GovernorJon S. Corzine signed the Public Employee Pension and Benefits Reform Act of 2008. While this bill does not affect the members of the Police and Firemen’s retirement System (PFRS), it does affect members of the Public Employees Retirement System (PERS) and the Teachers Pension and Annuity Fund (TPAF). Certain Public Safety Officers in the State of New Jersey hold membership in PERS. The legislation, S-1962/A-2818, is touted to save New Jersey tax payers $150 million dollars by 2022 through new changes to the pension systems to include instituting a higher retirement age and new income eligibility requirements for enrollment in the major pension systems.

The significant changes signed into law today include:

•  Increasing the annual salary required for new workers to qualify for the state pension system to $7,500. Previously, workers required an annual compensation of only $500 to qualify for the Teachers Pension and Annuity Fund, and a minimum salary of $1,500 a year for the Public Employees Retirement System.

• Raising the retirement age from 60 to 62 for new employees to qualify for a pension without a reduction.

• The number of paid holidays for state employees is reduced to 12. It eliminates the Lincoln's Birthday holiday and combines it with Washington's Birthday, to be observed as President's Day.

The new law also makes reforms to the State Health Benefits Program (SHBP), allowing the state to offer an incentive to employees to opt out of the program and accept health coverage from other sources such as a spouse's plan. The state has the power and authority to determine whether to offer the incentive and the amount, which could not exceed half of the amount saved because of the employee's waiver of coverage.

The bill was sponsored in the Senate by Senators Barbara Buono (D-Middlesex), Stephen Sweeney (D-Salem, Cumberland, Gloucester), Nicholas Scutari (D-Middlesex, Cumberland, Union), and Tom Kean (R-Essex, Morris, Somerset, Union), and in the Assembly by Speaker Joseph Roberts (D-Camden).

While the members of PFRS have been spared by this legislation, close watch must be kept on our elected officials as it appears they are prepared to enact any cost savings measures available due to the poor financial position of the state.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link