Thursday, May 12, 2016

2016 VEA Passes in Senate (May 5) and Assembly (May 18), on to the Governor

I As promised by the sponsors following the stinging defeat in the budget process, both bills have  rapidly passed  the respective houses:

S07160/A9531 Actions:

BILL NOS07160
04/01/2016REFERRED TO FINANCE
04/11/20161ST REPORT CAL.591
04/12/20162ND REPORT CAL.
05/03/2016ADVANCED TO THIRD READING
05/05/2016PASSED SENATE
05/05/2016DELIVERED TO ASSEMBLY
05/05/2016referred to ways and means
05/18/2016substituted for a9531
05/18/2016ordered to third reading cal.618
05/18/2016passed assembly
05/18/2016returned to senate
05/19/2016DELIVERED TO GOVERNOR





Governor Cuomo will veto, sign or negotiate.

II What we can do right now: Respond to falsities concerning the bill.

  A. When and where it is falsely described as a bill for 'peacetime service' (for example in the April 1 2016 Times Union article, here and again (!) on May 5, 2016 here) respond vigorously. Remind the author the majority of veterans who will be newly eligible for the existing military service credit buyback program  are wartime veterans of the current  Gulf War Era. Not peacetime at all. Further remind the author that combat veterans of Afghanistan, Bosnia, Kosovo, and Somalia (Blackhawk Down) are currently excluded from the existing buyback program and under the new bill will be eligible. Not peacetime either.

  B. When and where it is falsely described as a free benefit, respond vigorously.  Veterans want the opportunity to PURCHASE military service credit as part of the current and well-established  BUYBACK program. Our service in defense of the United States (and New York State) should not disadvantage us vis a vis our non-serving peers in the New York State retirement system.

  C. When and where it is falsely described as a large and expensive new program respond vigorously. It is a modest reform of a current program . Note that the original intent of the law is for all wartime veterans to be included and yet some  wartime veterans of the Gulf War Era are now excluded (and all of these veterans, of course, aided in the war effort). Those who served in active combat in Somalia and Afghanistan are among those excluded. Further, the contributions of peacetime soldiers (including Cold War soldiers) should be honored. 

D. Thank the American Legion for finally understanding the bill and almost correctly describing it (though they still don't seem to get that the majority of those to be covered are wartime vets and many of those served in the war zone and in active combat...they also don't seem to get that this will be a PURCHASE by the veterans.). Kudos on  awakening from a three-year stupor on this important legislation via this inclusion in the American Legion's Legislative Guide:


EXTENDS THE VETERANS SERVICE CREDIT LAW of 2000 TO ALL VETERANS WHO HAVE SERVED IN THE MILITARY
The bill offers veterans service credit to ALL veterans, not just Veterans who served "in theater." It will have a big impact on female veterans who served but were not "in theater" for their service. Provides up to three years of service credit to members of public retirement systems of the State for military service rendered during specified periods of hostilities, as well as so-called “peace time.” Requires such members to have at least five years of credited service, not including military service. In 2014 and 2015 the bill was passed by the Legislature, only to be vetoed by the Governor, who cited cost and failed to provide adequate funds in the budget.
Sponsors Paulin & Larkin are aggressively pursuing a new Bill to be initiated & passed before the last session in June 2016. A9531 Paulin 04/11/16 Reported Referred to Ways & Means
S7160 Larkin - 04/12/16 2nd Report CAL.

  D. Educate yourself. Get to know these three slides intimately so you can explain the glaring inequities in the current military service credit buyback system.



 

56 comments:

  1. The latest from today's Capital Confidential (http://blog.timesunion.com/capitol/archives/249253/veterans-have-success-in-property-tax-exemptions-still-looking-for-pension-buyback/):

    "While military veterans who now work in the public sector are still hoping for a buy-back provision that would broaden the ranks of those who can buy pension credits, there is a decided bright spot in the way New York’s approximately 900,000 veterans are treated — when it comes to school tax exemptions."

    And

    "With that in mind, Becker and other veterans advocates are hoping that this year, after two vetoes by Gov. Andrew Cuomo, that a buy-back bill is signed into law. The bill would extend the three-year buy-back option available to all veterans who work in the public sector. That option is available to most veterans but some, depending on their dates of service, are excluded.

    The Senate has already passed such a bill again and a similar measure is expected to pass in the Assembly. Proponents are hoping that a potential change opening the buy-back only to those who have 20 years before using a buy-back would make it more acceptable to the governor who has previously said he fears it would be too costly to sign.

    “We don’t want a third veto,” said Hannan."

    For starters, it is nice to see the false and deceptive word 'peacetime' is no longer being flung around reference this bill AND the word 'buyback' (not pension sweetener) is used repeatedly. And, it is clear from the reading this is a reform to a current program (not a new program).

    For seconds, this is an interesting idea someone is floating in Capitol Confidential. A couple of thoughts jump out regarding the merits of such an idea (if the Governor would agree to it as a compromise) for included and currently excluded veterans of various retirement systems here in NYS.

    Thoughts?


    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. So doesorry this mean u wouldn't be able to buy military time on the front end only?and u would have to wait 20 years to do so?

      Delete
    2. yes , u would have to have 20 years of state service ( as opposed to 5 years as is currently required ). This change would def. not hurt cold war veterans as most of them have 20 years of state service already !)

      Delete
  2. Sounds like the municipal option (counts at the end and not beginning). I do not think the governor cares where in their career one applies the credit, it's the costs going forward. He is going to ask for more of a reduction in costs and a reduction in veterans who can participate. Sorry ladies, affirmative action won't apply here, without it also extending to other male veterans he wants to exclude. His fallback position is identical to his starting position. VETO.

    This Governor is not a man of his word, he is not losing sleep over this issue.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Municipal option means they don't have to participate.

      Apart from that, 20 years would be back end for some uniformed folks, but not for 30 year folks (if I am guessing correctly based on info).

      Delete
  3. 20 years before? Does this mean 20 years already in state service or 20 years left to go in state service

    ReplyDelete
  4. I assume it means 20 years in state service ( as opposed to 5 years as is currently required ) . I can live with this change !

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I can live with it also, I have 28 in just wanna buyback 2 years. But I'm not being optimistic ! Still think Andy takes the 50cal to this bill.

      Delete
  5. The advantage to the state in forcing 20 years or more to apply is that it costs the veteran more and it is closer to that veteran's expected retirement pension. For example if someone buys at 30,000 a year in income early in their career or 60,000 at the end of their career the difference is pretty significant. The cost for three years to the vet is 2700 for three years at the start or 5400 when at a 60,000 salary at 20 years assuming a 3 percent per year and 3 years purchase. It seems realistic but is unlike other service credit buy back programs.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes , but the 3 years can still be used to get to 25 or 30 years !
      an eligible employee can easily save the required funds in deferred comp so there will be no " out of pocket " expense once they reach 20 years and can buyback their time.

      Delete
    2. (Anon 5:07) Deferred compensation does not exist for many state workers.

      This is back end for folks in 20 year plans.

      Interedting but probably not happening (doesn't shave much cost at all)

      Delete
    3. Deferred compensation ( Section 457 ) DOES exist for almost ALL State employees , whether the employee can afford to contribute is the question!

      Delete
    4. Shaving costs is not really the issue , its the APPEARANCE of shaving costs that could FINALLY help get this bill passed. We all know the actual number of veteran's that will qualify for this is low ( and they all do not even have 3 years to buy back )

      Delete
    5. Anon 5:01. You may want to re-read:"opening the buy-back only to those who have 20 years before using a buy-back".
      It is large savings for the state by back-ending the 20-year folks and has nothing to do with a slight change in purchase price. If I am reading it correctly.

      Delete
  6. Opening offer from our side. Changes current MSC setup- somewhat more costly to purchase at 20 year and back ends 20 year uniformed folks but does include all vets.
    Return offer from gov side (this is a negotiation) will probably trim down number of vets.
    Maybe this idea leaked to the press is just what is needed to get real negotiations started.

    ReplyDelete
  7. I also like the way the article quotes two military guys - keeps a veteran's face on the issue.

    ReplyDelete
  8. "Proponents are hoping that a potential change opening the buy-back only to those who have 20 years before using a buy-back would make it more acceptable to the governor who has previously said he fears it would be too costly to sign."
    We need more detail first.
    Who are these "proponents"? Have they gotten the bills sponsors and cosponsors onboard?
    From the statement, it sounds as if there will be no issue PURCHASING early, as opposed to having 20 years in service before USING it. For example, employee with a 20 year retirement would not be allowed to retire at 17 years, plus 3 years of credit, but at 20 years of service, would be credited with 23 years.
    Still don't like the TU slant against Veterans. Portrays us as being already overly compensated for our service, and asking for more.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Agree. Remember, Cuomo proposed back-ending for ALL purchasing vets in exchange for allowing women, Afghan, Somalia into the current program. This is saying, we accept back-ending for our 20-year folks (uniformed) but not for our 25 and 30 year pension folks. A compromise on one portion of the previous negotiation.

      (note - back-end is shorthand for allowing credits to be used for pension percentage on top of 20 (or 25 or 30) but not for qualifying years (18, 19, 20 for example in 20 year retirements)...saves the state big-time.)

      Delete
    2. "Proponents?" If they are not directly involved, and are just standing on the peripheral, then all of this is pure conjecture at this point.

      Don't get your hopes up unnecessarily. Cuomo wants huge changes to the MSC and exclude as many vets possible so he can say he saved on runaway pension costs.

      This chatter isn't even a step forward. It's half a step backwards on the "proponents" part, in hopes the gov will take the bait. After 2 vetoes and bouncing the VEA out of the 2016 budget process, I am certain that this proposal isn't enough for the governor. If and when he counters, it's going to be painful. Stand by. This isn't done by a long shot.

      Delete
  9. Well 20 years is too much to give...10 would be the healthy compromise....Since I only have 10...20 would exclude me and a lot of my coworkers

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Your precise number is the healthy compromise. Refreshing honesty.

      Delete
  10. I could see 20 years working even though I have a couple more to do if there is no cut off date for the buyback.

    ReplyDelete
  11. I thought that the Assembly was going to pass this in time so that if Cuomo was going to veto it then it would have been on Memorial Day...doesn't look like that is going to happen now.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Would this change apply to qualifier veterans who have already purchased time ?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. TBD (would be an educated guess) along with those who have already qualified and are wisely waiting to hit the 10-year mark (vesting) prior to purchasing.

      Delete
    2. If you have already purchased military time under the current MSC law, this change would not affect you , if you are waiting it MAY affect you and make your waiting period up to 15 years longer !

      Delete
    3. cptave - you may be misinterpreting your idea of a "waiting period' .

      Read it again: "opening the buy-back only to those who have 20 years before USING a buy-back" (my capitals for emphasis). Doesn't say purchasing it says "using". This would save big bucks for the state (when applied to back end and not front end of 20-year pensions).

      Am I wrong here?

      Delete
    4. from the new article .....A potential compromise was to limit the program to those who have already served at least 20 years in the public sector.
      ///
      My reference to 15 years was the difference between the current law ( 5 years ) and the 20 years .

      Delete
    5. Current law is 5 years before purchasing.... but where the heck do you get the idea that this new idea would make you wait 20 before purchasing?

      I can see where it says USING....but not where it says purchasing (two different things).

      Delete
    6. That is the change that i see being proposed, 20 years of public service before u can purchase or use . i could be wrong , the fine print will tell if i am right . ( if ever enacted !)

      Delete
  13. My thoughts:

    Go with the assumption the 'proponents' in the article are tied in.

    Remember that Cuomo wanted changes to current MSC structure (he demanded back-end and municipality option) in exchange for permitting a few vets (AFG, SOM, women) to join (AKA 'scope'). So, think of structure and scope.

    This trial balloon idea is a slight retreat on structure (back end for 20-year folks).

    We'll see if it results in any movement on the part of the Governor's side on structure or scope.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That is a very clear analysis. Scope will narrow (wartime?, remove medals and in theatre restrictions, etc) if there is to be an agreement and that structural tweaking might not be enough.
      We'll see.

      Delete
  14. Back ending guts the primary benefit of MSC program. Everybody currently qualifying would have to be grandfathered in to make it palatable. Far less participation if all are back ended (and not just 20 year types). Huge concession to GOV if report in paper is correct.

    ReplyDelete
  15. http://www.timesunion.com/tuplus-local/article/Veterans-school-tax-exemptions-are-growing-7516470.php

    ReplyDelete
  16. Bottom line is, until he is out of office, the idea of a buyback bill is never going to happen!! He has shown us from day one, he does not like, support or even cares for US veterans. I have completely given up on the system!!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Completely? Your still posting. We are all holding hope

      Delete
  17. Can someone explain "back-ending"? How is that different from the current MSC program?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. MSC law currently allows qualified veterans to buy back their time once they have completed their first 5 yrs of pensionable service. It would count immediately towards retirement. This current proposal would move that 5th yr to your 20th year. It would count towards retirement once you have achieved 20 yrs of pensionable service.

      Delete
    2. 3% of your Salary at 20 years is a good chunk to pay up front. Maybe allow it at 17 years at least give an early retirement option and then they can save money when they hire a new salaried employee who falls under the new tier system allowing the higher salary employee to retire.

      Delete
    3. Might go without saying but front end is FAR more favorable to vets...big cost savings for state to switch to back end via negotiations.

      Delete
    4. Back ending means the years count at percentages on the back end of your final calculations for retirement. Not as qualifying years (18, 19, 20 for example.
      Article notes not being able to count them until you hit 20 (silent on when you could purchase them). That would have the effect of back-ending for 20-year folks.

      Delete
    5. PURCHASE after five years of service (lower cost); USE after 20 years of service (maximize benefit)?
      Possibility of 15 years worth of raises. Initial cost based on 12 months prior to purchase (newer employees may not be at top pay). Benefit based on Final average salary calculation (Best three consecutive years for NYCERS).
      How would vesting affect this (10 years for tier VI, I believe)?
      How would this work for a retired career military veteran (i.e.:20 or more years of service), who chooses a second career in public service in New York State, and opts to buy back service credit with five years of credited service, but later decides against staying for 20 or more years In civil service?
      Or any veteran for that matter?
      Details are too sketchy at this point, and there are many variables.

      Delete
  18. Not a lot of clarity on this “back end” issue. It doesn’t appear that anyone here knows, FOR SURE. Speculation!

    Last Fall there was discussion, not on this site, that one of the Gov’s concerns was in regard to police, fire, and other individuals eligible to collect their pensions after 20 years with no age limitations. He didn’t want them all to just work 17 years quit and collect immediately and for a long time. Maybe that is the root concern of this conversation.

    I don’t know?

    ReplyDelete
  19. Re; "municipal option":
    Mayor DeBlasio will never allow this for New York city municipal employees.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Municipal option (almost no municipalities would go for it, NYC is not alone) and back end for all veterans are the reason we walked out in Cuomo at the act negotiation.

      Delete
    2. That would be a killer for least probably half the stakeholders in this and you know diblasio would exercise that option.

      Delete
  20. Diblasio isn't thinking about how to kill this bill. He's trying to keep his job and stay out of jail. Don't put too much of him in this. He is fast becoming personanongrata.

    In the same context...don't put too much weight in one small blurb in an article about wishful thinking. You are all going to get bent out of shape if this doesn't come to fruition. The vibe I get is cuomo is going to sabotage negotiations again with ridiculous changes to the current MSC law.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Don't forget that Cuomo has his own legal issues to contend with, as well as other legislators.

      Delete
  21. First of all I haven't seen anything written other than the 5 years to qualify in the bill. The 20 year thing is a suggestion...whoever is talking that is not one of the major bill sponsors from what I have been reading. Second, they should use an age restriction if they want to even attempt to keep Cuomo happy. He doesn't want to pay someone who is 39 years old with 20 years of service for the rest of his or her life. If you kick it to say age 50 or 55 before you can apply the buyback then at least it would force someone to work to 50 or 55. It would also restrict those who could retire with just 20 years from leaving (e.g. fire and police) which would keep the NYC Mayor happy. Face it, Cuomo doesn't like any kind of deal for a state employee not just vets. If he had his way everyone would be in 401k's right now but that isn't going to happen so this is the only way he can still screw with people and right now vets are a hot rich target environment for his wrath against state employees.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Relative to the 30-year (age 55 minimum) pension folks those age concerns are moot.

      That is why the 20-year back end makes a bit of sense (not that I like it, I am just saying the quoted folks realize this was a Cuomo concern in the previous negotiation...and directed his general back-end idea (for all vets) to those specific folks who actually most concern him (20 year pension vets).

      Delete
  22. On today's Assembly Calendar (scroll down it is under Assembly # 618): http://assembly.state.ny.us/leg/?sh=sked2&calnum=66&calver=

    May be possible to view Assembly Passage (hopefully) live for those with time on their hands (via the same site).

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I see it, thank you! It's on today's agenda and is cal. number 618.

      Delete
    2. I was mixing up the "cal.66" and "cal.618" as being part of the same heading reference.

      Delete