菲尼克斯投票追求养老金改革抵抗公共安全

On Tuesday voters in Phoenix will take to the polls to decide the future of the city pension system. Proposition 487 would reform the $2.2 billion City of Phoenix Employees’ Retirement System (COPERS) by establishing a defined contribution fund for new public employees and clamping down on the practice of so-called pension spiking, in which employees convert benefits, such as unused vacation and sick time, to boost payouts.

The ballot measure, however, has sparked strong opposition, with detractors alleging that it will put public safety in Phoenix in jeopardy and that the amount saved by the bill is far less than its proponents allege.

主题487还吸引了关键养老金改革利益集团的关注和货币支持，包括劳拉和休斯顿约翰阿诺德，基于弗吉尼亚州的非营利性自由倡议基金。

In this, the second of a three- part series on养老金和2014年选举,亚博赞助欧冠examines the pension controversy and referendum in Phoenix.

The Arizona capital has made several attempts in recent years to reduce the cost of its pension plan, which has a funding ratio of only 56 percent and a $1.5 billion unfunded liability. In March 2013 the city voted for Propositions 201 and 202, both resulting from recommendations by a city council pension reform task force. The reforms continued the defined benefit fund but split retirement contributions evenly between the city and employees and hiked the minimum retirement age some 3.5 years on average. In addition,the council passed a measure that tried to tackle the spiking problem.

有些人觉得这个命题201，命题202和反潜措施没有足够的步骤。特别是议员Sal Diciccio一直直言不讳地看到，需要更多的改变。“公众尚未从这些养老金中看到真正的金融危机。更多削减服务和更高的税收。现在的问题是公众没有看到对自己的直接影响，“在最近的陈述中说。“修复它很简单：这是数学。一种方法是要求政府和受益人在没有把它粘在纳税人身上的情况下偿还不断资金的金额。它并不复杂。这笔钱是欠的，所以那些受益的人和那些管理它应该支付的人 - 而不是纳税人。“

进入命题487. 2014年，一组名为“凤凰养老金改革的公民”开始收集签名，以便在选票上提出第487项。该倡议将结束养老金飙升，并将新员工转换为401（k）的退休基金。该集团由现行倡议，自由倡议基金，亚利桑那自由企业俱乐部和工作和进展基金资助。位于西切斯特，俄亥俄州，工作和进展基金以前支持辛辛那提养老金改革倡议失败。

现在的行动倡议是一项501（c）（4）组织，并从阿诺德斯提供资金。John Arnold首先使他的财富成为安然的能源交易者，然后是对冲基金经理。自2010年以来，这对夫妇致力于慈善事业，养老金改革了三大公共政策领域之一。由于他们的财富，活动和约翰阿诺德的历史，他们成为养老金改革对手的目标。

The in-state backer of Citizens for Phoenix Pension Reform is the Arizona Free Enterprise Club, a 501(c)(4) established in 2005 as “a free market, pro-growth advocacy group dedicated to Arizona issues and politics.” President and executive director Scot Mussi is also chairman of Citizens for Phoenix Pension Reform.

委员会于3月中旬收集了超过54,000名签名，足以在11月4日投票中放置第487名选票。“从凤凰居民的支持突然出发，希望真正的养老金改革巨大，”莫伊在集团宣布签名的新闻稿中表示。“市政厅的电力经纪人拒绝修复我们破产的养老金制度，而是通过虚假改革来思考他们可以隐藏纳税人的问题。”在6月2日会议上，市议会投票赞成继续探索其养老金改革方案。

在会议上，理事会对用于描述选票上的主张的语言投票。距离该会议几分钟看出有争议的养老金是多么的养老金。问题是，是否在投票的50字摘要中包括火灾和警察养恤金领取者。Eventually, the council voted seven to four against using language that would have made clear that, as the proposed summary stated, “the initiative would no longer allow the city to put money into [Arizona’s] Public Safety Personnel Retirement System for firefighters and police officers, and did not affect other employees in the police and fire departments.” Those who voted against the language, including DiCiccio and Vice Mayor Jim Waring, felt strongly that safety workers were not affected by the initiative.

Today others continue to insist that safety workers would be affected by the changes. As in San Jose, California, which亚博赞助欧冠focused on in Part One of this series, such groups are pointing to a potential public safety crisis if benefits for these workers are cut. In an open letter to the police published on his Facebook page, DiCiccio argued that Phoenix Mayor Greg Stanton, with the support of the firefighters union, had added fire and police to the ballot “so they could get the sympathy of the public for our dedicated police officers” in order to “wage a campaign of disinformation” and “move the electorate” against the bill. In fact, as DiCiccio points out, the “initiative clearly states police and fire are excluded” from the reforms.

DiCiccio has a point: The preamble to the proposal states that “this Act is not intended to affect individuals who are members of, or are eligible to join, any other public retirement system in the State of Arizona, such as the Public Safety Employees’ Retirement System.” But a June 2 report from Phoenix deputy city manager Rick Naimark raised questions about the ability of Phoenix to pay into the defined benefit fund if the bill passed. According to Naimark’s analysis, “The initiative specifically states contributions can only be made to COPERS or the defined-contribution plan.” And despite the preamble, “the text of the charter amendment does not exclude police and fire employees.”

Also up for debate is how much, if anything, Phoenix would save under Proposition 487. The issue here is that, whereas over the long run the city would save money by switching to a defined contribution plan, the up-front costs will actually rise because there is less new money going into the defined benefit fund, the already-promised obligations still have to be met, and the city still needs to pay down $1.09 billion in unfunded pension obligations. A report from financial analysis firm Cheiron puts the up-front costs of the switch at $358 million over the first 20 years. Depending on how the reforms are implemented, however, they could save the city as much as $275 million over those 20 years.

即使命题通行证 - 公共安全问题似乎已削减初始支持对衡量标准 - 凤凰官员正在通过法院支撑挑战。凤凰城的养老战争是远远漫长的道路。