|
TO: |
Members of the Legislative Commission on Pensions and Retirement |
|
FROM: |
Ed Burek |
|
RE: |
Potential Expansion of the PERA-Correctional Retirement Plan Coverage Group |
|
DATE: |
November 7, 2001 |
As an interim study topic, the Commission chair, Senator Dean E. Johnson, has designated a review of a number of proposed expansions in the membership of the Local Government Correctional Employees Retirement Plan of the Public Employees Retirement Association (PERA-Correctional). The topic is the outgrowth of the Commission hearing of March 26, 2001, when the Commission took limited testimony on S.F. 1038 (Pogemiller); H.F. 999 (Mares), a bill to expand the PERA-Correctional Plan to include 911 dispatchers and probation officers. A bill was also introduced last session to include Hennepin County Medical Center Protection Officers in the plan, and an amendment was drafted to include county court bailiffs. The Commission decided to study this general plan expansion topic over the interim.
Introductory Comments
On August 24, 2001, we sent a letter (copy attached) to Mr. James Mulder, the Executive Director of the Association of Minnesota Counties, requesting his assistance in obtaining data on 911 dispatchers, community corrections/probation officers, and non-peace-officer county court bailiffs. His organization transmitted the request to applicable individuals in the counties and collected the responses. The information we requested is as follows:
We also sent a letter, dated August 24, 2001, to Mr. Jeff Spartz, Administrator of the Hennepin County Medical Center (HCMC), requesting data on the protection officers, job/position descriptions, and whether the medical center supported the proposed retirement coverage change.
Our impression was that under state law, the 911 dispatcher function was a county responsibility, but we discovered that some cities employ 911 dispatchers. Therefore, we sent a letter to the League of Minnesota Cities requesting its help in identifying these cities and obtaining information similar to that requested from the counties.
In this memo we begin to analyze data on the coverage groups mentioned in the above bills and amendment, using the data we received from the above information requests. We also provide a preliminary indication of pension policy issues. If the Commission wishes to further pursue this topic, at least one more consideration of the issue will be needed. Currently, the data are not complete and include various errors, and the latest PERA-General and PERA-Correctional Plan actuarial studies are not complete, which are needed to create a base to begin measuring cost and coverage impacts.
Before discussing implications of the data we received, some comments on data quality are appropriate. We are not able at this time to provide any further discussion on HCMC protection officers. We did not receive a response from the medical center to our data request, and recently contacted them again to request data. We did receive considerable county and city information, although approximately 37 counties out of 87 did not respond and we have concerns about the quality of the data we did receive. The current information may be sufficient to allow the Commission to judge general county support for these proposals, but the prospective additional coverage group has not been fully or correctly identified. We can not accurately estimate the number of individuals who might be transferred to a different pension plan under these proposals, nor can we estimate the cost implications.
For the counties that did respond, the data contain various errors. For some counties, not all potentially eligible employees were identified. For example, the administrator from Houston County indicated that the county interpreted the proposed legislation as not including probation officers in the proposed change. Therefore, they did not send any probation officer data. They added, though, that if the proposed legislation did have the effect of shifting coverage for these individuals, the county does not support the change. In other cases, we suspect that some individuals that were identified by the counties are already in the PERA-Correctional Plan. In part, this stems from the multiple responsibilities that many county and local employees have. Individuals who are jailers or who have correctional guard responsibilities may also spend part of their time taking 911 calls or doing other dispatcher duties, and some of these individuals are in the PERA-Correctional Plan due to the jailer or correctional guard duties. The dispatcher duty, however, is included in the job title, and when the counties identified 911 dispatchers by their job titles, we suspect that some 911 dispatchers/jailers or 911 dispatchers/correctional officers, who are already in the PERA-Correctional Plan, were included in the data the county transmitted. We observed cases where a county included a cover letter noting that the county had dispatchers already in the PERA-Correctional Plan due to other duties they performed at the county correctional facility. It was not clear, however, whether the data they were now providing included only those dispatchers who were not currently in the PERA-Correctional Plan, or all their dispatchers.
Discussion
Table 1
Cities and Counties Providing Employment Position Information
|
Counties |
Cities |
|
|
Aitkin County |
McLeod County |
Albert Lea |
|
Anoka County |
Meeker County |
Bloomington |
|
Benton County |
Mille Lacs County |
Brooklyn Center |
|
Big Stone County * |
Morrison County |
Burnsville |
|
Blue Earth County |
Nobles County |
City of St. Paul |
|
Brown County |
Olmsted County |
Hutchinson |
|
Carver County |
Otter Tail County |
Maplewood |
|
Cass County |
Polk County |
Minneapolis |
|
Chippewa County |
Pope County |
Minnetonka |
|
Chisago County |
Ramsey County |
Richfield |
|
Dakota County |
Red Lake/Polk/Norman County |
West St. Paul |
|
Douglas County |
Renville County * |
|
|
Faribault County |
Rice County |
|
|
Fillmore County |
Rock County * |
|
|
Freeborn County |
Scott County |
|
|
Grant County |
Sherburne County |
|
|
Hennepin County |
St. Louis County |
|
|
Houston County * |
Stearns County |
|
|
Isanti County |
Steele County * |
|
|
Jackson County |
Stevens County |
|
|
Kanabec County * |
Waseca County |
|
|
Kandiyohi County |
Washington County |
|
|
Kittson County |
Watonwan County |
|
|
Lake of the Woods County |
Winona County |
|
|
Le Sueur County * |
Wright County |
|
*These counties sent a response indicating that they had no positions in the applicable classes.
We asked the counties to identify 911 dispatchers, community corrections/probation officers, and non-peace officer county court bailiffs. Job titles vary among the counties, given the unique nature of each county and the range of duties the employees perform. The administrator who answered our data request used his or her discretion in identifying the specific job titles that fell under our data request. This diversity is reflected in Table 2, which lists each county and the job titles they identified as falling under the general category of 911 dispatcher, community corrections/probation officer, or court bailiff.
We observed, in entering the database, that counties make use of part-time employees in these job categories. That has significance because Minnesota’s defined benefit public pension plans, particularly public safety plans like PERA-P&F or PERA-Correctional, are not well suited to handling part-time employees. In some cases, the part-time employment is identified in the job descriptions. Those cases, however, understate the extent of part-time employment in these categories. The database indicates many cases where employees with many years of service are earning about half of the total salary earned by similar employees in the same county. The most likely explanation is part-time employment, although that is not indicated in the job title. Regarding situations where the part-time employment is specified in the job title, rural counties are more likely than the more populated, urban counties to specify part-time employment in dispatcher, corrections/probation officer, bailiff categories. Otter Tail County, for instance, lists part-time employees who are 911 dispatchers, bailiffs, and probation officers. Similarly, Meeker County lists part-time 911 dispatchers, bailiffs, and correctional officers.
Table 2
Employment Positions Identified and Number of Employees by County
Aitkin CountyGrant County
Hennepin County Career Probation/Parole Officer - 222
In Table 3, we took all the specific titles and job classifications that were identified by the counties, as indicated in Table 2, and also job titles identified by the cities, and we group these under the broad job categories of 911 dispatchers, community corrections/probation officer, and court bailiff. The table lists 41 separate job titles that at least some cities and counties contend are 911 dispatchers or similar employees, or who have sufficient 911 dispatcher responsibilities that they could be included in the PERA-Correctional Plan under the proposed expansion. Some of these job titles do reflect duplication ("chief 911 dispatcher" and "head 911 dispatcher" presumably describe two very similar positions in two or more counties), but clearly there is a considerable range of possible employment positions. Similarly, the counties responded with 21 different employment titles when asked to identify the community corrections/probation officer positions. For court bailiff, seven positions are identified.
The extensive list of job titles has implications for how the Commission may need to approach this PERA-Correction Plan coverage expansion study. If the Commission concludes that it is appropriate to provide some expansion of positions eligible for PERA-Correctional Plan coverage, the list suggests that it will not be practical to specify specific employment titles. The list is too long, and the counties and cities will be revising titles over time, leading to continual questioning regarding which positions are eligible for PERA-Correctional Plan coverage and which are not. The Legislature will also need to contend with frequent legislative proposals to modify or expand coverage groups. Given the long list of job titles, it may be necessary to specify the general nature of the employment to be covered based on the responsibilities of the employment, leaving the counties considerable discretion regarding which employees meet the criteria for inclusion in the plan.
Table 3
Employment Positions Identified within Employment Groups - Cities and Counties
|
911 Dispatchers |
Community Corrections/Probation Officers |
|
911 Call Taker |
Career Agent |
|
911 Center Coordinator |
Career Probation/Parole Officer |
|
911 Database Manager |
Comm Corr Wkr 1 |
|
911 Dispatch Lieutenant |
Comm Corr Wkr 2 |
|
911 Dispatch Sergeant |
Comm Corr Wkr 3 |
|
911 Dispatcher |
Correctional Officer |
|
911 Dispatcher Supervisor |
Corrections Agent |
|
911 Dispatcher/Jailer |
Court Services Director |
|
911 Dispatcher/Jailer/Clerk |
Court Services Officer |
|
911 Dispatcher/Records |
Part-time Correctional Officer |
|
911 Dispatcher/Records Supervisor |
Part-time Probation Officer |
|
911 Lead Dispatcher |
Probation Agent |
|
911 Public Safety Dispatcher |
Probation Officer |
|
Assistant Jail Administrator |
Probation Officer I |
|
Asst. Dir. of Emergency Communications & Records |
Probation Officer II |
|
Chief 911 Dispatcher |
Probation Officer III |
|
Civilian Communication Officer |
Probation/Parole Officer |
|
Communication Shift Supervisor |
Program Coordinator |
|
Communication/Dispatch Sergeant |
Senior Agent |
|
Communications Sergeant |
Senior Probation Officer |
|
Confidential Exec Secy/911 Dispatcher |
Senior Probation/Parole Officer |
|
Director of Emergency Communications & Records |
|
|
ECC Manager |
Court Bailiffs |
|
ECC Shift Supervisor |
Bailiff |
|
Emergency Comm Specialist |
Jury Attendant |
|
Fire Dispatcher |
Law Library Secretary |
|
Head 911 Dispatcher |
Non Peace Office Court Bailiff |
|
Jail Administrator |
Part-time Bailiff |
|
Jailer/911 Dispatch Administrator |
Part-time Court Bailiff |
|
Lead 911 Dispatcher |
Part-time Court Bailiff (Detention Officer I) |
|
Part-time 911 Dispatcher |
|
|
Part-time 911 Dispatcher/Jailer |
|
|
Part-time 911 Dispatcher/Jailer/Clerk |
|
|
Part-time 911 Dispatcher/Records |
|
|
Police Dispatcher |
|
|
Public Safety Answering Point (PSAP) Supervisor |
|
|
Public Safety Dispatcher |
|
|
Radio Dispatcher 1 |
|
|
Sheriff's Telecommunicator |
|
|
Telecommunicator |
|
|
Terminal Agency Coordinator |
Comments on 911 Dispatcher Group.
The Commission may wish to consider whether the emotional or psychological stress created by a particular type of employment is sufficient justification for inclusion in a public safety plan. Including positions in PERA-Correctional due to the stressful nature of the employment, rather than the more specific risk of injury or death due to responsibilities for the custody and control of inmates, would be a fundamental shift in the criteria for plan inclusion, and would represent a reversal of recent direction.
The Commission may recall that in 1999, after a Commission interim study and following considerable deliberation and controversy, the Legislature enacted a new Local Government Correctional Service Retirement Plan (PERA-Correctional). The plan was developed in response to public employee demands for improved retirement coverage beyond the General Employee Retirement Plan of the Public Employees Retirement Association (PERA-General) and beyond the 1998 special local government correctional employees duty disability coverage. The plan initially applied to local government employees who are employed in a county-administered jail or correctional facility or in regional facilities, who are certified by the employer to have 95 percent inmate contact, and who would otherwise be a PERA-General member.
In 2000, the PERA-Correctional Plan eligibility requirements were further refined at the request of the Association of Minnesota Counties. The original and revised criteria are summarized in the following chart. Any individual who met the 1999 eligibility requirements but failed to meet the 2000-2001 revised requirements was permitted to remain in the PERA-Correctional Plan for the duration of the current employment.
|
1999 PERA-Correctional Plan |
2000-2001 PERA-Correctional Plan |
Persons: (1) employed in a county administered jail or correctional facility or regional correctional facility administered by multiple counties; (2) spends 95 percent of working time in direct contact with persons confined in the jail or facility, certified in advance by the employer; and (3) is eligible for PERA-General plan membership, but not a member of the Public Employees Police and Fire Plan (PERA-P&F). |
A person certified by the employer as: (1) employed in county correctional institution (newly defined term): (2) employed as correctional guard or officer, joint jailer/dispatcher, or supervisor of correctional guards or officers or of joint jailers/dispatchers; (3) directly responsible for security, custody and control of correctional institution and inmates; (4) expected to respond to institutional incidents as part of regular employment duties and is trained to make the response; and (5) is eligible for PERA-General plan membership, but not a member of PERA-P&F. |
The revised 2000-2001 criteria narrowly define the coverage group to include only employees in county correctional facilities, in certain positions, who are responsible for the custody, security, and control of inmates and who are required to respond to incidents that may occur at the institution. Employment as a 911 dispatcher may be stressful, but that specific work does not expose these employees to the physical demands and physical dangers to which current PERA-Correctional Plan members may be exposed. The job descriptions and comments provided by the counties indicate that in some cases 911 dispatchers may be located at a county correctional facility, or in other cases, in an entirely separate facility, possibly many miles from the correctional institution. Dispatchers, as part of their 911 dispatcher duties, have no contact with inmates regardless of where the employee is located.
Inmate contact, including responsibility for security, custody, and control of inmates, may occur in situations where a 911 dispatcher has multiple responsibilities. In some cases, this is suggested by the job titles, like the 911 dispatcher/jailer employment title, although in many cases the numerous responsibilities of an employee are not indicated by the job title. In some cases the multiple duties assigned to dispatchers are sufficient to permit them to qualify for coverage under the existing criteria of the PERA-Correctional Plan, under the jailer/dispatcher category noted in the current eligibility criteria.
Job Stress, Addressing by Diversifying Responsibilities. 911 dispatcher duties unquestionably involve stress. In our review of the job titles and employment descriptions, it is evident that a sizable majority, perhaps approaching 100 percent of the job positions, involves multiple responsibilities. The individuals are dividing their time between handling emergency calls and various other tasks. In part, this may be a response by the employer to the stressful nature of handling emergency calls. To help minimize that stress, other duties are assigned to the employees so only part of the work day involves handling these stressful calls. In other cases, there may not be enough emergency call activity to justify having one or more people concentrate entirely on that activity for a full eight hour work day. This is suggested by some of the job titles listed under 911 dispatchers in Table 3, such as confidential executive secretary/911dispatcher, or 911 dispatcher/records. However, even in situations where the job title suggests that the individual is solely or primarily involved in handling 911 calls, the position descriptions suggest that the individuals handle a wide range of tasks. These may include handling administrative calls, keeping records of 911 and administrative calls, testing communications equipment, monitoring and assisting in fire drills at public schools and other public buildings, handling other clerical work in the office on an as needed basis, fingerprinting individuals after arrest, and performing television monitoring of building entrances.
Even with higher-level managers and administrators removed from the group, the remaining group includes many individuals with employment having little direct connection with 911 activity. In part, this identification problem stems from the tendency, commented upon above, for 911 dispatcher job descriptions to list numerous responsibilities or tasks, only some of which are related to emergency call activities, and only some of which may be stressful. Another problem is the difficulty in determining who is truly "on the front line," rather than having a role later in the chain of events, and general difficulties determining which positions are truly comparable across cities and counties. When we asked the counties and cities to identify the 911 dispatcher positions, some of the job titles and position descriptions we received are called 911 dispatchers, while others are called police dispatchers, fire dispatchers, radio dispatchers, telecommunicators, among numerous others. Certainly, some of these various job titles are correctly considered to be 911 dispatchers. In some cases, the different terminology stems from job descriptions last revised before the 911 systems were implemented. Thus, 911 call responsibilities are not specifically mentioned in the job description, but would be if those descriptions were revised to reflect current duties and terminology.
In other cases, however, it is possible that 911 call responsibilities are not specifically mentioned in the job description because the individual does not directly receive the incoming 911 call. Rather, the individual’s duty is to respond to a request from the 911 call center, indicating a need for police, fire, or emergency medical personnel at a specific address. Some of the fire dispatcher or police dispatcher positions may be of this nature. The Commission may wish to reflect on the difficulty of determining, from the available information, which positions directly receive 911 calls rather than being involved in the subsequent chain of events, and the Commission may wish to ask whether these other individuals are subjected to the same stress as the initial 911 call recipient.
The Commission may also wish to consider that many job descriptions may include a responsibility to take 911 calls, but the individual may take those calls rarely, if ever. Ultimately, everyone who works at a 911 communications center has a responsibility to take emergency calls if no one else is available. This may create a tendency to list 911 call responsibilities in position descriptions of individuals who usually are not involved in that activity. For instance, the data we received includes higher-level positions where the individual’s primary responsibility is to maintain all communications systems. These include the phone systems (both emergency and administrative), radio communications, and computer systems. Computer responsibilities include sending, receiving, and maintaining computer data bases shared by various law enforcement units across the state and country, and assisting the computer network administrator. Because the individuals work at the 991 call center at least part of the time, the long list of job responsibilities include taking 911 calls, if needed.
Given the difficulty in identifying specific positions directly involved in 911 call activity, and where a sufficient percentage of time is spent in that activity, the Commission and Legislature may choose to seek some other approach to addressing the stress of 911 dispatcher employment, rather than attempting to address this through revised pension plan coverage. If the Commission does choose to revise pension plan coverage, it may choose to limit the coverage group to those most connected with the activity and their immediate supervisors, and setting a threshold for minimum percent of time spent on these activities. The counties would be given the task of deciding which positions or individuals met the criteria.
With public safety plans like the PERA-Correctional Plan coverage now under consideration, the policy conflict caused by part-time employment is greater. Public safety plans are designed with features that reflect the need for a young, vigorous workforce to perform the required duties. It is expected that these individuals will be in situations where there is physical danger, and that strength is needed to respond to the situations which the employee (firefighter, police officer, correctional guard, or similar occupations) will encounter. Therefore, public safety plans have a low normal retirement age, age 55, and provide higher benefits per year of service than a general employee plan, in order to provide sufficient income during retirement despite the early retirement age. Full-time 911 dispatcher work is likely to be stressful, but the duty does not require considerable strength or place the individuals in physical danger. Part-time 911 dispatchers are presumably under less stress than full time employees providing similar service, further lessening the justification for including part-time 911 dispatchers in the PERA-Correctional Plan. If they are included in plan, the benefit they will receive based on the service and salary will not be sufficient to allow them to truly retire from the labor force. The public policy objectives reflected in the public safety plan design do not carry over to the part-time employment situation. The individual will receive a somewhat higher benefit than if they remain in a general employee plan, but the transfer of the part-time dispatchers and possibly the full-time dispatchers does not seem consistent with typical public safety plan policy objectives.
The following table (Table 4) is Commission staff’s effort to provide some indication to the Commission regarding the percentage of employees in the broad "911 dispatcher" category who are part-time employees rather than falling into various full-time employee groupings. The categories are based directly on the job classifications and position descriptions we received. We present this table because, despite its shortcomings, it is the best indication we currently have. In total, 3.8 percent (or 26 employees) are identified in the job titles as being part-time employees. That percentage of part-time employees is understated because other employees are working part-time, but that is not indicated in the job titles. The data we received indicates some employees within a county receiving salary that is about half of that received by comparable fellow employees. The most likely explanation is part-time work. For other categories, we estimated from the job titles and position descriptions that at least 11.2 percent of the employees are full-time but not in direct 911 positions. Rather, they are in related positions or in management. An additional 18.5 percent of the employees in the 911 grouping have job titles that specifically split responsibilities, such as the 911 dispatcher/jailer/clerk, 911 dispatcher/records, and confidential executive secretary/911 dispatcher job titles. The remaining two-thirds (66.6 percent) have job titles which suggest specific 911 responsibilities and no other responsibilities are mentioned in the job title. However, as noted earlier, job descriptions indicate that these individuals perform many other functions in addition to handling incoming 911 calls.
Table 4
911 Operator Category, Percentage in Various Classifications
|
Specific Classification |
Classification Total |
Percent of Total |
|
Full-Time 911 Call Takers, Dispatchers, & Supervisory Positions |
458 |
66.6% |
|
Full-Time Employees, Multiple Responsibilities |
127 |
18.5% |
|
Full-Time Employees, Related Positions, Management |
77 |
11.2% |
|
Part-Time Employees |
26 |
3.8% |
|
Total |
688 |
|
Comments on Community Corrections/Probation Officer Group.
As indicated in an earlier table, the data request to the counties resulted in 21 job titles that fall under the general category of community corrections/probation officer. Unlike the 911 dispatcher category, however, where there were several employment titles that may be only marginally related to incoming emergency calls, the jobs in the community corrections/probation officer category all appear to have a strong connection to community corrections/probation officer work. Thus identifying the coverage group for purposes of inclusion in the PERA-Correctional Plan may be more straight forward than in the 911 dispatcher situation.
We have attached community corrections/probation officer job descriptions from three counties for your review, as being fairly representative of the group. These position descriptions are from Hennepin County, Dakota County, and from the tri-county association of Red Lake, Polk, and Norman counties. Regarding the nature of the employment, the individuals may work in a wide variety of situations involving adults or juveniles. Responsibilities may include pre-conviction activities and working with clients in a post conviction probation or parole work. The work may involve conducting drug screening, drug testing, and urinalysis. The work may occur in county office buildings, but some of the work is done in the community, in client homes, and in schools. The description from Dakota County indicates that the individual must be able to lift up to 35 pounds on an occasional basis, and must be capable of using a personal computer, telephone, fax, and copy machines. A valid driver’s license is required to enable the employee to visit schools, client homes, and other locations as needed.
Minimum qualifications typically include a bachelor’s degree in sociology, psychology, criminal justice, education, or a related behavioral science field. The position descriptions stress a need for communication skills.
The position descriptions do not specify a need for police officer certification or for any police officer training. The position descriptions do not suggest that the employee is expected to carry weapons, or that the employee is authorized to carry a weapon.
If the Commission wishes to pursue this coverage study further, it may be useful to request information on injury/disability rates for community correction/probation officers, which could be compared to rates for the broader PERA-General coverage group. That may indicate whether there are higher rates for the community correction/probation officers than for the general coverage population.
Table 5
Community Corrections/Probation Officers, Full-Time and Part-Time
|
Specific Classification |
Classification Total |
Percent of Total |
|
|
|
|
|
Full-Time Community Corrections/Probation Officers |
1043 |
99.6% |
|
Part-Time Community Corrections/Probation Officers |
4 |
0.4% |
|
Total |
1047 |
|
Comments on Non-Peace Officer Court Bailiff Group.
Argument for Inclusion. The Commission heard testimony that Washington County is unique in using non-licensed bailiffs, and that the bailiff employees are responsible for escorting defendants into and out of the court, and that bailiffs are responsible for maintaining control in the court room.
Several counties, in addition to Washington County, use non-licensed court bailiffs. An earlier table indicated there are ten counties that have court bailiffs who are not covered by PERA-P&F, suggesting that they use bailiffs who are not licensed police officers. Position descriptions from a few of these counties are attached. Unfortunately, we do not have bailiff position descriptions for Washington County. The materials we received from that county indicate several bailiffs, in addition to 911 dispatchers and community corrections/parole officers, but only 911 dispatcher and community corrections/parole officer position descriptions were provided.
The various bailiff position descriptions we did receive, and also comments provided by other counties, suggest a wide range of approaches for handling bailiff functions, and great differences in perceived physical risk involved in the occupation. Bailiff position descriptions typically specify that bailiffs are involved in preparing the court room for trial or hearing, and in dealing with the jury. The bailiff may advise the jury on court room procedures, monitor the actions of jurors during breaks to ensure no improper actions or communications occur, and provide beverages and meals for jurors. The position description may contain a statement that the bailiff is responsible for maintaining control and generally responding to incidents in the court room.
The perception of the physical risks involved in the responsibility to maintain control and respond to incidents in court room varies greatly across counties. Many counties may feel a need to have licensed peace officers in the bailiff function, presumably due to the perceived need for physical strength in any confrontation, and the physical danger that may be involved. Those courts might hire peace officer bailiffs directly, or more likely, an individual from the sheriff’s office is assigned. That person is likely to have PERA-P&F coverage. The counties that responded to our data request use a different approach, at least in part. We requested the counties to identify bailiff positions who are not licensed peace officers. It is possible that some of the counties that responded have some licensed police officer bailiffs to deal with the more difficult or dangerous situations, and some bailiff positions where that is not required. Some of these counties might occasionally request a person from the sheriff’s office be assigned, on a temporary basis when needed, as a bailiff, to supplement other non-police officer bailiffs. Other counties might use non-licensed bailiffs entirely, and still other counties may rarely use any bailiffs, licensed or otherwise. The perception obtained from the position descriptions and the county comments is that non-licensed bailiffs are unlikely to be placed in dangerous situations, although there may be a statement in the position description that the bailiff is responsible for maintaining order in the court room.
We also note that in responding to the information request for identification of court bailiffs, one county included a law library secretary, and a few counties included a position called jury attendant. According to the position descriptions, jury attendants act as a liaison between the court and the jury, and attend to the needs of the jury, including obtaining beverages and meals. These individuals have no responsibility to maintain order in the court and respond to situations in the court room. If the Commission were to include bailiffs in PERA-Correctional Plan coverage, presumably the Commission would seek to define the position or occupation group to exclude jury attendants, among others.
Table 6
Court Bailiffs, Full-Time and Part-Time
|
Specific Classification |
Classification Total |
Percent of Total |
|
|
|
|
|
Full-Time Bailiffs |
38 |
64.4% |
|
Part-Time Bailiffs |
21 |
35.6% |
|
Total |
59 |
|
Age Issues. It is generally argued that public safety plan coverage is appropriate for occupations which are public safety in nature, and where strength and youth are required to perform the duties and there is noticeable risk of physical harm. Information on the county bailiff group indicates that these conditions are not consistently encountered in the non-licensed bailiff function across counties. This suggests that the individual counties should be left to determine how to best meet their needs for a bailiff function, with pension plan coverage, public safety or otherwise, following from that decision. If a county contends that licensed police officers, possibly from the sheriff’s office, are needed, the applicable individuals are likely to have PERA-P&F coverage. If a county concludes that it is not necessary to have licensed officer provide bailiff functions, that indicates that, at least in some circumstances, public safety plan coverage is not appropriate for the individual providing bailiff services in that county. The dangers and physical demands of that position in that county do not warrant the public safety plan coverage. Action by the Legislature to mandate public safety plan coverage for all bailiffs may not be an optimal response.
The high percentage of part-time employment in bailiff functions, noted above, suggests that public safety plan coverage may not be a good fit. The age of many individuals providing bailiff functions also argues against public safety plan coverage. Table 7 in the next section indicates the average age and age range of the reported bailiffs, by county. Mill Lacs County reported several non-license bailiffs, with the youngest being a 63-year-old female, suggesting that youth and strength are not necessary to perform the function and risk of physical harm is minimal, at least in that county. Other counties reported bailiffs who are over 70 years of age. Otter Tail County and St. Louis County reported one or more 80-year-old bailiffs. For the entire identified court bailiff group, the average age is nearly 61, approximately six years older than the age 55 normal retirement age (full unreduced retirement age) of the PERA-Correctional Plan. Coverage by a public safety plan, where full unreduced retirement is permitted at age 55 presumably because the physical demands and danger of the covered occupations requires a low normal retirement age, does not appear appropriate for this non-peace officer court bailiff group.
According to the PERA-Correctional Plan July 2000 actuarial valuation, the most recent available as of this writing, the average age of active plan members was 37.5 years. According to Table 7, the average age of the dispatcher, community corrections/probation officers and court bailiffs are all greater than that age. The average ages of dispatchers, community corrections/probation officers, and court bailiffs are 39.2 years, 41.1 years, and 60.9 years, respectively. This suggests that the plan normal cost would increase by adding these groups. This would impact not only the cost of adding these additional employees, but it would increase employer and employee contribution requirements for all existing PERA-Correctional Plan members, due to increased contribution requirements.
Within any of the groups noted in Table 7, there is a fair amount of variability from one county to another. This variability is most noticeable in the court bailiff category. Within that group, the variable would be less if the certain employment positions were eliminated. Pope County has the youngest average age, age 40, but that is due to reporting only a single individual, the law library secretary. If the Commission were to decide that position is not sufficiently similar to typical court bailiff functions and should be removed from consideration, Sherburne County would have the lowest average age, at approximately 44 years. Some other counties have average ages in the 70s, indicating strong reliance on part-time retirees to serve as bailiffs.
Table 7
Average Age and Range of Ages for Proposed
PERA-Local Correctional Plan Additional Positions
|
911 Dispatcher |
Community Corrections/Probation Officer |
||||
|
Cities: |
Age Range |
Avg. Age |
Counties |
Age Range |
Avg. Age |
|
Albert Lea |
23-54 |
36.7 |
Aitkin County |
33-33 |
33 |
|
Bloomington |
25-47 |
36.3 |
Anoka County |
27-60 |
39 |
|
Brooklyn Center |
25-61 |
38 |
Blue Earth County |
24-50 |
36.3 |
|
Burnsville |
23-49 |
34.8 |
Brown County |
25-41 |
33.7 |
|
City of St. Paul |
21-64 |
38.7 |
Cass County |
36-50 |
43 |
|
Hutchinson |
19-56 |
39.8 |
Chisago County |
24-48 |
39.6 |
|
Maplewood |
28-53 |
41.8 |
Dakota County |
25-63 |
39.9 |
|
Minneapolis |
18-56 |
37.4 |
Freeborn County |
31-59 |
41.6 |
|
Minnetonka |
31-50 |
42.6 |
Hennepin County |
23-73 |
43.3 |
|
Richfield |
31-46 |
40.7 |
Jackson County |
28-47 |
37.5 |
|
West St. Paul |
40-51 |
45.6 |
Kandiyohi County |
30-50 |
38.2 |
| Meeker County | 19-56 | 43.6 | |||
|
Counties |
Age Range |
Avg. Age |
Nobles County |
27-53 |
41.2 |
|
Aitkin County |
22-55 |
38.1 |
Olmsted County |
23-59 |
36 |
|
Anoka County |
21-52 |
38.3 |
Otter Tail County |
23-46 |
32.8 |
|
Benton County |
22-49 |
35.8 |
Pope County |
32-32 |
32 |
|
Blue Earth County |
21-44 |
30.7 |
Ramsey County |
23-65 |
41.7 |
|
Brown County |
30-55 |
43 |
Red Lake/Polk/Norman |
25-57 |
32.6 |
|
Carver County |
26-51 |
36.6 |
Rice County |
24-55 |
31.7 |
|
Cass County |
25-59 |
42.2 |
Sherburne County |
24-50 |
31.6 |
|
Chippewa County |
27-61 |
41.3 |
St. Louis County |
28-59 |
41.8 |
|
Chisago County |
31-54 |
43.3 |
Stearns County |
26-53 |
38.6 |
|
Dakota County |
22-55 |
35.8 |
Waseca County |
24-31 |
27.5 |
|
Douglas County |
31-54 |
41.5 |
Washington County |
26-67 |
41.7 |
|
Faribault County |
24-50 |
39.2 |
|||
|
Fillmore County |
29-54 |
41 |
Community Corrections/ |
||
|
Grant County |
40-53 |
49.1 |
Probation Officer Total: |
19-73 |
41.1 |
|
Hennepin County |
23-51 |
37.2 |
|||
|
Isanti County |
34-51 |
43.2 |
|||
|
Jackson County |
24-51 |
34.5 |
|||
|
Kandiyohi County |
24-53 |
34.4 |
Court Bailiff |
||
|
Kittson County |
37-60 |
50.5 |
|||
|
Lake of the Woods |
44-59 |
51 |
Counties |
Age Range |
Avg. Age |
|
McLeod County |
23-57 |
39 |
Benton County |
78-78 |
78 |
|
Meeker County |
25-57 |
46.3 |
Kandiyohi County |
68-79 |
73.5 |
|
Morrison County |
30-55 |
41 |
Meeker County |
66-70 |
68 |
|
Otter Tail County |
23-61 |
42.4 |
Mille Lacs County |
63-67 |
65.2 |
|
Polk County |
32-62 |
45 |
Olmsted County |
51-74 |
64.7 |
|
Pope County |
22-42 |
32.1 |
Otter Tail County |
42-80 |
62.5 |
|
Ramsey County |
24-53 |
38 |
Pope County |
40-40 |
40 |
|
Scott County |
24-58 |
43.2 |
Sherburne County |
41-46 |
43.5 |
|
Sherburne County |
24-49 |
35.4 |
St. Louis County |
44-80 |
65.0 |
|
St. Louis County |
22-61 |
43.1 |
Washington County |
30-58 |
45.1 |
|
Stearns County |
23-56 |
37.7 |
|||
|
Stevens County |
32-52 |
44.2 |
Court Bailiff Total: |
30-80 |
60.9 |
|
Waseca County |
24-61 |
38.4 |
|||
|
Washington County |
22-53 |
34.8 |
Total All Empl. Groups |
18-80 |
41.0 |
|
Watonwan County |
43-60 |
50.2 |
|||
|
Winona County |
23-60 |
46.6 |
|||
|
Wright County |
22-48 |
36.7 |
|||
|
911 Dispatcher Total: |
18-64 |
39.2 |
|||
Fiscal Impact. Table 8 provides a preliminary indication of the fiscal impact on counties and cities if all the identified employees in all the employment categories were to transfer from PERA-General to PERA-P&F. There is a fiscal impact because PERA-Correctional Plan employer contribution rates are higher than those required by PERA-General. In total, 1794 positions are assumed to transfer, and the total fiscal impact in the first years is estimated to be $2.497 million ($2.219 million on the counties, and $278,635 on the cities).
Several factors will change these estimates. Many counties did not respond to the data request and therefore are not included in the table, and we have no data on the HCMC Protection Officers. Although we believe we have identified all the cities, it is possible there are omissions there as well. Obtaining data from additional counties and from the medical center would identify fiscal impacts on those counties and the medical center, and would increase the total statewide fiscal impact. If the Commission were to drop certain jobs from consideration, the fiscal impact would be less. The table assumes employer contributions at the rates currently required under PERA-General and PERA-Correctional. The total general plan employer contribution rate is 5.53 percent, assuming that all the applicable employees are coordinated rather than basic members. The current PERA-Correctional Plan employer contribution rate is used, 8.75 percent, but as noted above, there may be a need to increase that contribution rate due to the impact of the transferred employees on the PERA-Correctional Plan member demographics. This would increase the total cost estimate by increasing the required employer contributions not only for the newly added members, but also for existing PERA-Correctional Plan members. Finally, we note some error may occur by assuming that all the employees currently have PERA-General Plan coverage and are making contributions to that plan. In the case of court bailiffs and others who are part-time employees or part-time employed retirees, it is unclear whether some of these individuals have any current pension plan coverage.
Table 8
First Year Fiscal Impact on Counties and Cities, Assuming All Identified Positions
(911 Dispatchers, Community Corrections/Probation Officers, Court Bailiffs)
Transfer to PERA-Local Correctional Plan Coverage, Current Law Contribution Rates
|
|
Total Positions |
Salary |
Correctional Plan |
PERA-General Plan |
Increased |
|
Counties |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Aitkin County |
23 |
$703,195 |
$61,530 |
$38,887 |
$22,643 |
|
Anoka County |
90 |
$4,089,184 |
$357,804 |
$226,132 |
$131,672 |
|
Benton County |
9 |
$244,252 |
$21,372 |
$13,507 |
$7,865 |
|
Blue Earth County |
27 |
$843,276 |
$73,787 |
$46,633 |
$27,153 |
|
Brown County |
14 |
$513,232 |
$44,908 |
$28,382 |
$16,526 |
|
Carver County |
13 |
$410,500 |
$35,919 |
$22,701 |
$13,218 |
|
Cass County |
11 |
$397,252 |
$34,760 |
$21,968 |
$12,792 |
|
Chippewa County |
9 |
$270,934 |
$23,707 |
$14,983 |
$8,724 |
|
Chisago County |
18 |
$491,334 |
$42,992 |
$27,171 |
$15,821 |
|
Dakota County |
89 |
$3,800,056 |
$332,505 |
$210,143 |
$122,362 |
|
Douglas County |
10 |
$285,361 |
$24,969 |
$15,780 |
$9,189 |
|
Faribault County |
4 |
$112,000 |
$9,800 |
$6,194 |
$3,606 |
|
Fillmore County |
4 |
$129,800 |
$11,357 |
$7,178 |
$4,180 |
|
Freeborn County |
6 |
$260,042 |
$22,754 |
$14,380 |
$8,373 |
|
Grant County |
7 |
$160,306 |
$14,027 |
$8,865 |
$5,162 |
|
Hennepin County |
388 |
$18,460,931 |
$1,615,332 |
$1,020,890 |
$594,442 |
|
Isanti County |
7 |
$208,379 |
$18,233 |
$11,523 |
$6,710 |
|
Jackson County |
12 |
$378,074 |
$33,081 |
$20,907 |
$12,174 |
|
Kandiyohi County |
31 |
$1,095,304 |
$95,839 |
$60,570 |
$35,269 |
|
Kittson County |
6 |
$133,426 |
$11,675 |
$7,378 |
$4,296 |
|
Lake of the Woods County |
5 |
$144,893 |
$12,678 |
$8,013 |
$4,666 |
|
McLeod County |
11 |
$300,876 |
$26,327 |
$16,638 |
$9,688 |
|
Meeker County |
21 |
$367,300 |
$32,139 |
$20,312 |
$11,827 |
|
Mille Lacs County |
4 |
$23,654 |
$2,070 |
$1,308 |
$762 |
|
Morrison County |
6 |
$177,371 |
$15,520 |
$9,809 |
$5,711 |
|
Nobles County |
5 |
$189,720 |
$16,601 |
$10,492 |
$6,109 |
|
Olmsted County |
47 |
$1,225,376 |
$107,220 |
$67,763 |
$39,457 |
|
Otter Tail County |
27 |
$536,196 |
$46,917 |
$29,652 |
$17,266 |
|
Polk County |
7 |
$198,833 |
$17,398 |
$10,995 |
$6,402 |
|
Pope County |
11 |
$202,419 |
$17,712 |
$11,194 |
$6,518 |
|
Ramsey County |
288 |
$20,182,481 |
$1,765,967 |
$1,116,091 |
$649,876 |
|
Red Lake/Polk/Norman County |
12 |
$381,295 |
$33,363 |
$21,086 |
$12,278 |
|
Rice County |
12 |
$415,234 |
$36,333 |
$22,962 |
$13,371 |
|
Scott County |
17 |
$499,806 |
$43,733 |
$27,639 |
$16,094 |
|
Sherburne County |
25 |
$823,976 |
$72,098 |
$45,566 |
$26,532 |
|
St. Louis County |
134 |
$4,471,319 |
$391,240 |
$247,264 |
$143,976 |
|
Stearns County |
54 |
$2,015,473 |
$176,354 |
$111,456 |
$64,898 |
|
Stevens County |
4 |
$100,056 |
$8,755 |
$5,533 |
$3,222 |
|
Waseca County |
9 |
$65,978 |
$5,773 |
$3,649 |
$2,124 |
|
Washington County |
68 |
$2,798,595 |
$244,877 |
$154,762 |
$90,115 |
|
Watonwan County |
5 |
$106,841 |
$9,349 |
$5,908 |
$3,440 |
|
Winona County |
13 |
$337,938 |
$29,570 |
$18,688 |
$10,882 |
|
Wright County |
11 |
$ 370,904 |
$ 32,454 |
$ 20,511 |
$ 11,943 |
|
Total |
1574 |
$68,923,370 |
$6,030,795 |
$3,811,462 |
$2,219,333 |
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
Total Positions |
Salary |
Correctional Plan |
PERA-General Plan |
Increased |
|
Cities |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Albert Lea |
8 |
$239,570 |
$20,962 |
$13,248 |
$7,714 |
|
Bloomington |
13 |
$489,060 |
$42,793 |
$27,045 |
$15,748 |
|
Brooklyn Center |
6 |
$223,922 |
$19,593 |
$12,383 |
$7,210 |
|
Burnsville |
11 |
$306,557 |
$26,824 |
$16,953 |
$9,871 |
|
City of St. Paul |
70 |
$3,256,935 |
$284,982 |
$180,109 |
$104,873 |
|
Hutchinson |
7 |
$78,106 |
$6,834 |
$4,319 |
$2,515 |
|
Maplewood |
9 |
$365,105 |
$31,947 |
$20,190 |
$11,756 |
|
Minneapolis |
73 |
$2,853,193 |
$249,654 |
$157,782 |
$91,873 |
|
Minnetonka |
8 |
$305,548 |
$26,735 |
$16,897 |
$9,839 |
|
Richfield |
9 |
$324,246 |
$28,372 |
$17,931 |
$10,441 |
|
West St. Paul |
6 |
$ 211,017 |
$ 18,464 |
$ 11,669 |
$ 6,795 |
|
Total |
220 |
$8,653,259 |
$757,160 |
$478,525 |
$278,635 |
|
Total All Sources |
1794 |
$77,576,630 |
$6,787,955 |
$4,289,988 |
$2,497,967 |
County, City Support for Proposed Transfers. Table 9 is Commission staff’s effort to summarize the comments we received from the counties and cities, when asked if they supported the proposed transfer. No county or city gave unqualified support for the transfer. Only two, Lake of the Woods and Ramsey Counties, gave conditional support, indicating that they would support the expansion providing the state covered, through additional state aid, the full additional required contributions. Several counties reserved judgement, indicating that the county had not yet reviewed the question and therefore had no formal position on the matter, at this time.
Some of the typical comments have been mentioned earlier. Some respondents stated that the proposal amounts to abandoning the new criteria added in 2000-2001, which were requested by the Association of Minnesota Counties. Others comment that a change in pension plan coverage is not the best way to address concerns about stress incurred in various job classifications. Others felt there might be some justice in the proposed changes, but opposed the changes due to cost, or due to fear that there would be no way to stop a wide range of other occupations (social workers, snow plow drivers, road construction and road maintenance workers were mentioned), from demanding and receiving a similar change in pension coverage.
Table 9
City and County Responses; Support for Expanding PERA-Local Correctional Plan
|
Counties: |
No |
Government Unit Has Not Adopted A Position On This Question |
Supports |
Supports Expansion Only If Add’l Cost Covered By State Aid |
Opposed |
Reservations About Proposed Expansion |
|
Aitkin |
3 |
|||||
|
Anoka |
3 |
|||||
|
Benton |
3 |
|||||
|
Blue Earth |
3 |
|||||
|
Brown |
3 |
|||||
|
Carver |
3 |
|||||
|
Cass |
3 |
|||||
|
Chippewa |
3 |
|||||
|
Chisago |
3 |
|||||
|
Dakota |
3 |
|||||
|
Douglas |
3 |
|||||
|
Faribault |
3 |
|||||
|
Fillmore |
3 |
|||||
|
Freeborn |
3 |
|||||
|
Grant |
3 |
|||||
|
Hennepin |
3 |
|||||
|
Isanti |
3 |
|||||
|
Jackson |
3 |
|||||
|
Kandiyohi |
3 |
|||||
|
Kittson |
||||||
|
Lake of the Woods |
3 |
|||||
|
McLeod |
3 |
|||||
|
Meeker |
3 |
|||||
|
Mille Lacs |
3 |
|||||
|
Morrison |
3 |
|||||
|
Nobles |
3 |
|||||
|
Olmstead |
3 |
|||||
|
Otter Tail |
3
* (County is |
|||||
|
Polk |
3 |
|||||
|
Pope |
||||||
|
Ramsey |
3 |
|||||
|
Red Lake/ Polk/Morrison |
3 |
|||||
|
Rice |
3 |
|||||
|
Saint Louis |
3 |
|||||
|
Scott |
3 |
|||||
|
Sherburne |
3 |
|||||
|
Stearns |
3 |
|||||
|
Stevens |
3 |
|||||
|
Waseca |
3 |
|||||
|
Washington |
3 |
|||||
|
Watonwan |
3 |
|||||
|
Winona |
3 |
|||||
|
Wright |
3 |
|||||
|
Cities: |
No |
Government Unit Has Not Adopted A Position On This Question |
Supports |
Supports Expansion Only If Add’l Cost Covered By State Aid |
Opposed |
Reservations About Proposed Expansion |
|
Albert Lea |
3 |
|||||
|
Bloomington |
3 |
|||||
|
Brooklyn Center |
3 |
|||||
|
Burnsville |
3 |
|||||
|
St. Paul |
3 |
|||||
|
Hutchinson |
3 |
|||||
|
Maplewood |
3 |
|||||
|
Minneapolis |
3 |
|||||
|
Minnetonka |
3 |
|||||
|
Richfield |
3 |
|||||
|
West St. Paul |
3 |
Pension Policy Issues
The proposal under study is to expand the PERA-Correctional Plan membership to include some or all of the following groups: 911 dispatchers and similar occupations, community corrections/probation/parole officers, and non-peace officer court bailiffs. The proposal raises several pension policy issues. Due to problems in the data we did receive, its incomplete nature (The HCMC and counties which did not respond to the data request), preliminary decisions that the Commission may make regarding whether to continue to include some of the groups in the proposed expansion, and the lack of the 2001 actuarial valuations, a full discussion of pension policy implications currently is not possible, and a request for actuarial work is premature. We can, however, begin to sketch out some of the issues.
Sufficient Need for Legislative Action. The issue is whether some or all of the proposed coverage groups have a problem that warrants legislative action. The Commission may wish to consider each group separately, reflecting upon the nature of the employment provided by the group and whether that employment is consistent with coverage by a public safety plan. Public safety plans have a low normal retirement age, age 55, because the covered occupations require a young, vigorous workforce, due to the physical demands and the dangerous nature of the employment. Public safety plans provide a high level of benefits per year of service, to permit a high level of income in retirement despite the low retirement age and resulting fewer years of service. The high benefits provided by public safety plans and the low normal retirement age make public safety plan coverage attractive to employees, leading to frequent legislative requests to include particular employee job categories in a public safety plan rather than in a general employee plan. Public safety plan coverage, however, is expensive for employers to provide. This leads to a need for the Legislature, when these coverage proposals occur, to consider their merit with considerable care. If the Legislature concludes that a group does have a problem worthy of legislative attention, it is appropriate to consider whether a change in pension plan coverage, rather than some other employment related action, is the best response.
For community corrections/probation officers, stress is likely and there can be some physical danger. In a few responses we received from counties where comments on the community corrections/probation officer group was provided, the respondents contend that the danger is not frequent and does not compare to the dangers faced by the correction guards and similar employees currently covered by the PERA-Correctional Plan.
For the non-peace officer bailiff group, the data does not lend much support for state-level action to mandate public safety pension plan coverage. Part-time employment is common, and several counties are filling these positions with elderly retirees. The information suggests that non-licensed bailiffs do not generally face dangerous situations, and that youth and strength are not typically required to respond to situations that occur.
The Commission may wish to consider issues posed by part-time employment, which occurs in all the occupations under consideration. Part-time employees presumably are exposed to less stress and less frequent danger than their full-time counterparts, and the nature of part-time employment seems generally inconsistent with the purpose of public safety plans.
Problems Due to Combining Service in Public Safety Plan With Non-Public Safety Plan Service. The Commission may wish to consider complications that arise when individuals have service credit in a general plan and some service in a public safety plan. That will be the case with all or most employees identified in our data base if they are permitted to transfer to the PERA Correctional Plan. The general employee plan has an age 65 or later normal retirement age. Individuals can retire as early as age 55, but there will be a considerable reduction in the benefit amount (early retirement penalties) to compensate for early receipt of benefits. In contrast, the public safety plan has an age 55 normal retirement age. Individuals can retire from that plan at age 55 with full, unreduced benefits. The individual with coverage split between the two plans faces a problem. He or she may decide that due to the late normal retirement age in the general employee plan which provided coverage earlier in his or her career, it is not feasible to terminate from current service, now covered by the PERA Correctional Plan, and draw benefits. They continue in current employment earning additional service in the public safety plan well beyond age 55. Alternatively, they may conclude that they can retire at an early age, using the higher benefits paid by the public safety plan to offset the early retirement reductions they incurred in the general plan.
Either outcome may not be fully consistent with the usual policy purpose and justification of the public safety plan. Also, the LCPR may have requests in the future to permit transfers of past coverage, to allow the employee to avoid problems caused by the different normal retirement ages in the two plans. That relief, however, might cause financial harm to one or both plans.
Level of County/City Support. No counties or cities endorse the proposed changes, for any of the employment groups. Two support the changes conditionally, if the state covers the full added costs through additional state aid.
Reversal of Policies Reflected in 2000-2001 PERA-Correctional Plan Eligibility Criteria. Two years ago the Legislature adopted changes in PERA-Correctional Plan eligibility provisions as recommended by the Association of Minnesota Counties. The change narrowly limited eligibility to those positions which the counties felt most warranted that coverage: guards and joint jailer /dispatchers and their supervisors at county correctional facilities, who are responsible for the custody, security, and control of inmates, and who are required to respond to incidents in the institution. The current proposal reflects a considerable reversal of that policy, by extending coverage to individuals who may not be located at these institutions, who are not responsible for the security and control of inmates, and who may have no contact with prisoners whatsoever.
Additional Requests. The current proposals, if adopted, are likely to lead to similar requests by other employee groups.
Alternatives to Pension Plan Expansion. Given the nature of the employment of some of the proposed coverage groups, the Commission may wish to consider legislative alternatives to revising pension plan coverage. The stress of 911 dispatcher work and also of community corrections/probation officer work has been noted. Rather than altering pension coverage, the Legislature may encourage cities and counties to limit time spent in the stressful activity. Employees could be assigned a variety of duties, lessening overall stress levels. We noted in discussing 911 dispatcher activities that the employers are taking steps that have that effect. The employer motivation may be to minimize the stress on the employee, or it may indicate that 911 duties may not keep individuals occupied for a full work day, at least not consistently. Cities and counties might also explore expanded use of part-time workers. The Legislature may also wish to consider creating employment preference rights. Individuals who have spent many years in stressful or physically dangerous activities can be given expanded re-employment or job transfer rights, giving them a preference in moving to other jobs in the city or county. The Legislature may wish to consider whether that preference should extend to other public employment within the same city or county, or whether the preference right could be exercised by the individual in public employment throughout the state. The Legislature may also wish to consider retraining programs, either separately or in conjunction with employment preference rights. The retraining programs could assist the employees in developing new skills to prepare them for other public employment positions.
PERA-Correctional Plan, Current Condition, and Possible Impacts. The issue is the condition of the PERA-Correctional Plan and possible impacts on the plan caused by a coverage expansion. The condition of the plan as indicated in the most recent actuarial report (July 1, 2000) is shown below.
PERA-Correctional Actuarial Report Results
|
|
2000 |
|
|
Membership |
|
|
|
Active Members |
|
2,781 |
|
Service Retirees |
|
9 |
|
Disabilitants |
|
3 |
|
Survivors |
|
0 |
|
Deferred Retirees |
|
0 |
|
Nonvested Former Members |
|
0 |
|
Total Membership |
|
2,793 |
|
|
|
|
|
Funded Status |
|
|
|
Accrued Liability |
|
$10,195,000 |
|
Current Assets |
|
$11,116,000 |
|
Unfunded Accrued Liability |
|
($921,000) |
|
Funding Ratio |
109.03% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Financing Requirements |
|
|
|
Covered Payroll |
|
$80,818,000 |
|
Benefits Payable |
|
$20,000 |
|
|
|
|
|
Normal Cost |
14.26% |
$11,520,000 |
|
Administrative Expenses |
0.16% |
$129,000 |
|
Normal Cost & Expense |
14.42% |
$11,649,000 |
|
|
|
|
|
Normal Cost & Expense |
14.42% |
$11,649,000 |
|
Amortization |
(0.05%) |
($40,000) |
|
Total Requirements |
14.37% |
$11,609,000 |
|
|
|
|
|
Employee Contributions |
5.83% |
$4,712,000 |
|
Employer Contributions |
8.75% |
$7,072,000 |
|
Employer Add'l Cont. |
0.00% |
$0 |
|
Direct State Funding |
0.00% |
$0 |
|
Other Govt. Funding |
0.00% |
$0 |
|
Administrative Assessment |
0.00% |
$0 |
|
Total Contributions |
14.58% |
$11,784,000 |
|
|
|
|
|
Total Requirements |
14.37% |
$11,609,000 |
|
Total Contributions |
14.58% |
$11,784,000 |
|
Deficiency (Surplus) |
(0.21%) |
($175,000) |
The total number of active plan members was 2,781 individuals. There are 688 individuals in the 911 dispatcher group. If all those individuals were added to the plan, that would be a 25 percent increase in the number of active members. There are 1047 individuals in the community corrections/probation officer category. Adding those individuals to the July 1, 2000 active members would be a 38 percent increase in the active membership. There are 59 bailiffs identified. If those individuals were added to the membership, that would be a two percent increase in membership.
Adding all three groups to the July 1, 2000 active membership amounts to a 65 percent increase in covered members, which is clearly a major increase in the coverage group of this plan. If the newly added group or groups are not very similar demographically to the existing group, a noticeable change in plan required contribution rates may occur, due to a change in plan normal cost, and possibly due to the creation of unfunded obligations. The actuarial cost of this proposal has not been estimated, but we noted in an earlier table that the groups currently proposed for addition to the plan have a higher average age than current plan members, suggesting that adding these new member groups will increase required plan contribution rates.
PERA-General will also be impacted, by the loss of active members from that plan. PERA-General Plan costs may fall, but the impact on contribution rates may not be significant. PERA has in excess of 135,000 active members. The loss of these transferred job classes is small in percentage terms.
Actuarial Cost. The issue is the actuarial cost of the proposed changes. It is premature to seek an actuarial cost estimate. The Commission may first wish to further refine the coverage group to be included, and more work is needed on the data to accurately capture the proposed new coverage group or groups. We lack information from the counties that did not respond to the data request and from the HCMC, and there may be double counting within the sample we currently have.
Transfer Procedures and Terms. If the Commission concludes that all or some of the identified employee groups should have coverage transferred to PERA-Correctional, the Commission may wish to consider the terms. This will have cost and other implications. The transfer can be for prospective service only (service provided after the effective date of the legislation), or could also be extended to certain past service similar in nature to the service that will now be covered by the PERA-Correctional Plan. If the change in coverage applies only to service after the effective date of the applicable legislation, PERA-General receives contributions related to these employees up to that date and bears the resulting liabilities for that service. After the effective date, the PERA-Correctional Plan receives the contributions and bears all liabilities related to the new service. If the legislation were to permit a transfer of some past service from PERA-General to PERA-Correctional, it is necessary to eliminate service credit in PERA-General and transfer assets and liabilities from that plan, and create additional service credit in PERA-Correctional. In determining the amount to be transferred, the Commission may wish to consider that PERA-General is not fully funded, and care would be needed to avoid harm to PERA-General.
PERA-Correctional is quite new, established in 1999, with revised eligibility criteria and coverage groups enacted by the 2000-2001 Legislature. Transfers of past service in PERA Correctional Plan coverage revisions have not been given legislative consideration.
On some occasions, transfers of some past service have been allowed when the coverage group in the Correctional Employees Retirement Plan of the Minnesota State Retirement System (MSRS-Correctional), a plan somewhat similar to PERA-Correctional, was expanded. Arguments for not permitting any transfer are that the individual freely chose to provide service, although the coverage at the time was in a general employee plan, and any authority to now transfer that service to a public safety or quasi-public safety plan provides a windfall to the individual. It can be difficult to determine whether the service being transferred is truly similar to that now approved for coverage by the public safety plan. Finally, transfer of service credit involves transfer of assets and liabilities between funds, leading to complications and in some cases tradeoffs in attempting to transfer sufficient assets to the new plan without harming those who remain in the prior plan.