- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
MPERS Refuses To Pay New BRPD Retirees Retirement Benefits
Posted on 1/11/18 at 11:47 am
Posted on 1/11/18 at 11:47 am
quote:
A disagreement between City Hall and the Municipal Police Employees' Retirement System recently reached new heights, and the fallout means Baton Rouge police officers hired since 2000 now cannot successfully apply for retirement benefits once promised to them.
The Municipal Police Employees' Retirement System, MPERS, has spent years fighting a policy that allows Baton Rouge police officers to apply overtime payments toward their retirement calculations. Officers who pad their salaries by working overtime can receive higher annual retirement payments than they might have otherwise.
But MPERS last month drew a line in the sand that affects any employee hired since 2000 who is now trying to retire. The change also could have ramifications for those already drawing retirement checks.
The retirement system cites state law that says they cannot use overtime contributions to determine retirement compensations.
MPERS Executive Director and General Counsel Ben Huxen said Wednesday that Baton Rouge officers hired since 2000 who apply through the MPERS board for retirement will have their application rejected and will not receive benefits. Those already receiving checks from MPERS have received letters saying the amount is subject to change once MPERS determines how much overtime was counted toward their retirement.
quote:
City-parish officials declined further comment, citing "pending or anticipated litigation." The Baton Rouge Police Department referred comment about the issue to their union.
Baton Rouge Police Union President Sgt. C. Bryan Taylor described the move from MPERS as a bluff.
"They are not going to stop payment to any of our members, nor will they reject an application for retirement," he said. "That's when we will then get involved. They may be in peaceful litigation with the city-parish but they are not going to screw over a member of the union of police."
Taylor said officers deserve to be compensated in their retirement for the overtime that they worked.
The city-parish started using MPERS as its retirement system for police in 2000, and officers hired before then are excluded from the current controversy. But Huxen said Baton Rouge is the only municipality MPERS works with that uses overtime to calculate retirement.
quote:
Huxen sent a warning letter to Baton Rouge officials in late December about taking action, and said he never received a response. He said MPERS needs City Hall to break down salaries and overtime contributions so that the retirement system employees can properly calculate how much retirement pay officers should earn.
Huxen said no potential applicants for retirement have come before the MPERS board since the change has been made. He said that the city-parish is also paying too much contribution money toward officers' retirement because they are matching the inflated, overtime figures.
quote:
Baton Rouge Councilmen Buddy Amoroso and Matt Watson both firmly took the side of the city-parish and the BPRD union. Amoroso said the agreement between MPERS and the city-parish from 2000 may have been more of a "gentleman's agreement" rather than written in stone, but that MPERS should still honor it. He said the retirement system has been paying out retirements based on overtime for 17 years, and that "it would be hard to turn that clock back."
Not a good week for BRPD recruiting. Retirement benefits being cut and the pay raise being pulled. Sucks.
The Advocate
14
Posted on 1/11/18 at 11:48 am to TigersSEC2010
Somalia is going to get a lot more violent.
Posted on 1/11/18 at 11:52 am to TigersSEC2010
quote:
Amoroso said the agreement between MPERS and the city-parish from 2000 may have been more of a "gentleman's agreement" rather than written in stone, but that MPERS should still honor it.
Eeehhhh, not so sure about that one.
Posted on 1/11/18 at 11:53 am to TigersSEC2010
Let it burn
Wanna let it burn, wanna let it burn
Wanna wanna let it burn
Wanna let it burn, wanna let it burn
Wanna wanna let it burn
Posted on 1/11/18 at 11:54 am to TigersSEC2010
quote:
police officers hired since 2000 now cannot successfully apply for retirement benefits once promised to them
How many years do they have to work before getting retirement?
Posted on 1/11/18 at 11:56 am to TigersSEC2010
quote:
The retirement system cites state law that says they cannot use overtime contributions to determine retirement compensations.
If this part is true, it doesn't seem like BRPD will have much of a case to make.
quote:
Amoroso said the agreement between MPERS and the city-parish from 2000 may have been more of a "gentleman's agreement" rather than written in stone, but that MPERS should still honor it.
That's not how this works.
Posted on 1/11/18 at 11:57 am to TigersSEC2010
Those pensions are paying for the transition teams' all expenses paid trip to the bayou classic
Posted on 1/11/18 at 12:00 pm to TigersSEC2010
I know with state employees non of your OT is figured into your retirement, just your base salary/hourly rate.
Can't say that I disagree with them discontinuing it, but I don't see how you can retroactively drop benefits that were promised to people hired 18 years ago. If you make a new policy for people hired henceforth then cool, but those people were promised this benefit when they were hired.
Can't say that I disagree with them discontinuing it, but I don't see how you can retroactively drop benefits that were promised to people hired 18 years ago. If you make a new policy for people hired henceforth then cool, but those people were promised this benefit when they were hired.
Posted on 1/11/18 at 12:32 pm to TigersSEC2010
Fun fact: Carl Dabadie was on the Board for MPERS. He "retired" in July - this issue was officially reported to the Legislative Auditor in December. Coincidence?
Posted on 1/11/18 at 12:33 pm to TigersSEC2010
What’s the funding level?
Posted on 1/11/18 at 1:22 pm to TigersSEC2010
I'm sure all the fraudulent overtime claims coming to light lately aren't helping things. Allowing OT to have significant impact on retirement pay is practically encouraging the cheaters to do so more often as it rewards them far into the future.
I could see there being an incremental increase structure applied to benefits that would reflect OT hours worked. It could be that it kicks in X amount of time following retirement. That way OT claims could go through some sort of independent verification process. The state may just get the ball rolling with a thorough review of their own...
I could see there being an incremental increase structure applied to benefits that would reflect OT hours worked. It could be that it kicks in X amount of time following retirement. That way OT claims could go through some sort of independent verification process. The state may just get the ball rolling with a thorough review of their own...
Posted on 1/11/18 at 1:43 pm to yurintroubl
By state statute, they were never supposed to be including the OT in their contribution calculations provided to the system - BRPD did so either intentionally or through their own ignorance of the law. Makes you wonder how many raises or new hires could have been afforded if they hadn't been over-paying retirement contributions for 17 years.
Posted on 1/11/18 at 3:23 pm to Brummy
It's my understanding that the prior retirement system (CPERS) allowed overtime to be calculated into benefits. When the switch was made to MPERS, they guaranteed no loss of benefits by switching systems. The union members voted on switching to MPERS based upon the guarantee there would be no loss of benefits to the CPERS members. New hires after the switch knew overtime was not included. If anyone was misleading or ignorant of the law it seems it was MPERS. Now they are trying to stop what was the only thing that got them voted in to begin with.
Posted on 1/11/18 at 4:00 pm to Bucket
That may the "gentlemen's agreement" they referred to - that's pretty messed up if true. Still hard to believe that the city attorney or finance director wasn't aware of the statutes governing a state retirement system before making a move like that.
Posted on 1/11/18 at 4:09 pm to brass2mouth
quote:
Can't say that I disagree with them discontinuing it, but I don't see how you can retroactively drop benefits that were promised to people hired 18 years ago.
quote:
Amoroso said the agreement between MPERS and the city-parish from 2000 may have been more of a "gentleman's agreement" rather than written in stone
I don't think they should have been including overtime in the retirement factor since the beginning, but it sounds like they are trying to change it back dated to 2000. Sucks if they were promised it, but did they get a contract/document actually saying that?
Posted on 1/11/18 at 10:17 pm to Bucket
quote:
The union members voted on switching to MPERS based upon the guarantee there would be no loss of benefits to the CPERS members.
Sounds like the union lawyers should have read the agreement before telling their members to vote for it.
State law is correct in establishing no OT to be calculated in retirement distribution. Just another example of cops abusing OT rules to literally steal money from LA state taxpayers.
Posted on 1/11/18 at 10:49 pm to MikeD
So, MikeD, I have no knowledge of the contracts agreed upon so I can’t respond.
But tell me how the officers working overtime to supplement their base income were stealing from the taxpayers? The retirement benefits weren’t established by nor controlled by them. Please don’t talk about the scandal involving LSP.
But tell me how the officers working overtime to supplement their base income were stealing from the taxpayers? The retirement benefits weren’t established by nor controlled by them. Please don’t talk about the scandal involving LSP.
Posted on 1/11/18 at 10:58 pm to Bucket
as I asked earlier, what is the funding level?
Posted on 1/11/18 at 11:06 pm to Bucket
quote:
But tell me how the officers working overtime to supplement their base income were stealing from the taxpayers? The retirement benefits weren’t established by nor controlled by them. Please don’t talk about the scandal involving LSP.
I believe he's talking about the questionable amount of overtime hours many cops have claimed.
Posted on 1/11/18 at 11:42 pm to Bucket
quote:
But tell me how the officers working overtime to supplement their base income were stealing from the taxpayers?
No one claimed the overtime itself was theft, however claiming it in retirement calculations clearly is as it is illegal.
But you knew this before throwing out your red herring didnt ya chief?
Page 1 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News