ILNews

Change to public employee annuities spurs exodus in Porter County

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A northwestern Indiana judge will lose a combined 67 years of experience this month when all three of his employees retire.

Porter Superior Court Judge Roger Bradford's executive assistant, bailiff and court reporter all are retiring Aug. 29, partly to avoid reductions in the amount of money they'll receive from their public employee retirement plan annuities, The (Munster) Times reported Sunday.

Executive assistant Julie Powell said she and her co-workers on Bradford's staff must leave now to avoid watching the returns on the annuity portions of their retirement plans fall from a guaranteed 7.5 percent to lower market-based rates under changes the Indiana Public Retirement System made nearly a year ago to reduce the possibility of unfunded liabilities.

The upcoming losses proved incentive enough to persuade the three court staffers to follow through on retirement plans even after Bradford surprised them by opting to seek a sixth term, which he'll begin in January.

"We said, 'Hey, we're in the mindset to go now,'" Powell said.

The Indiana Lawyer wrote about the pending change to the guaranteed interest rate in May.  Effective Oct. 1, the Indiana Public Retirement System will reduce the guaranteed interest rate for workers who choose to annuitize investments in their annuity savings accounts. Employees covered by the Public Employees’ Retirement Fund have 3 percent of their salary invested in those accounts and may elect to invest a greater portion of their earnings.

But the interest rate the state previously guaranteed on those annuities has proved to be unsustainable. NPRS says the change was needed because Americans are living longer and guaranteed rates of return on investment have fallen. The change has prompted units of government to alert workers about how their retirement benefits may be affected.

The loss of retirement money affects not just state and local government employees, but teachers as well. While there's no mass exodus among educators, some are calling it quits to avoid losing any money on their self-funded annuities. Teachers Dave Kenning and Judy Commers are retiring this year from the Porter County Career Center, taking with them more than 60 years of combined experience and institutional knowledge, said Jon Groth, the school's director.

Officials at the Indiana Public Retirement System project about 9,700 retirements in 2014 from the PERF and the Teachers Retirement Fund.

Porter County government is losing a total of 12 employees, including Porter County Treasurer Mike Bucko and County Highway Department Supervisor Al Hoagland.

Porter County Auditor Bob Wichlinski said he was unsure how many, if any, of the posts, will be left vacant in light of the County Council's call on departments in the financially strapped county to reduce their proposed budgets by 10 percent for next year.

The Porter County Public Library System is losing three employees to the PERF change, Director Jim Cline said. That's just 5 percent of the 60 full-time employees, but two of the three have worked for the library system for more than 22 years, he said.

The Valparaiso Police Department suffered a similar loss when an administrative assistant retired due to the PERF change and took 28 years of experience with her, Clerk-Treasurer Sharon Swihart said.

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. It's a big fat black mark against the US that they radicalized a lot of these Afghan jihadis in the 80s to fight the soviets and then when they predictably got around to biting the hand that fed them, the US had to invade their homelands, install a bunch of corrupt drug kingpins and kleptocrats, take these guys and torture the hell out of them. Why for example did the US have to sodomize them? Dubya said "they hate us for our freedoms!" Here, try some of that freedom whether you like it or not!!! Now they got even more reasons to hate us-- lets just keep bombing the crap out of their populations, installing more puppet regimes, arming one faction against another, etc etc etc.... the US is becoming a monster. No wonder they hate us. Here's my modest recommendation. How about we follow "Just War" theory in the future. St Augustine had it right. How about we treat these obvious prisoners of war according to the Geneva convention instead of torturing them in sadistic and perverted ways.

  2. As usual, John is "spot-on." The subtle but poignant points he makes are numerous and warrant reflection by mediators and users. Oh but were it so simple.

  3. ACLU. Way to step up against the police state. I see a lot of things from the ACLU I don't like but this one is a gold star in its column.... instead of fighting it the authorities should apologize and back off.

  4. Duncan, It's called the RIGHT OF ASSOCIATION and in the old days people believed it did apply to contracts and employment. Then along came title vii.....that aside, I believe that I am free to work or not work for whomever I like regardless: I don't need a law to tell me I'm free. The day I really am compelled to ignore all the facts of social reality in my associations and I blithely go along with it, I'll be a slave of the state. That day is not today......... in the meantime this proposed bill would probably be violative of 18 usc sec 1981 that prohibits discrimination in contracts... a law violated regularly because who could ever really expect to enforce it along the millions of contracts made in the marketplace daily? Some of these so-called civil rights laws are unenforceable and unjust Utopian Social Engineering. Forcing people to love each other will never work.

  5. I am the father of a sweet little one-year-old named girl, who happens to have Down Syndrome. To anyone who reads this who may be considering the decision to terminate, please know that your child will absolutely light up your life as my daughter has the lives of everyone around her. There is no part of me that condones abortion of a child on the basis that he/she has or might have Down Syndrome. From an intellectual standpoint, however, I question the enforceability of this potential law. As it stands now, the bill reads in relevant part as follows: "A person may not intentionally perform or attempt to perform an abortion . . . if the person knows that the pregnant woman is seeking the abortion solely because the fetus has been diagnosed with Down syndrome or a potential diagnosis of Down syndrome." It includes similarly worded provisions abortion on "any other disability" or based on sex selection. It goes so far as to make the medical provider at least potentially liable for wrongful death. First, how does a medical provider "know" that "the pregnant woman is seeking the abortion SOLELY" because of anything? What if the woman says she just doesn't want the baby - not because of the diagnosis - she just doesn't want him/her? Further, how can the doctor be liable for wrongful death, when a Child Wrongful Death claim belongs to the parents? Is there any circumstance in which the mother's comparative fault will not exceed the doctor's alleged comparative fault, thereby barring the claim? If the State wants to discourage women from aborting their children because of a Down Syndrome diagnosis, I'm all for that. Purporting to ban it with an unenforceable law, however, is not the way to effectuate this policy.

ADVERTISEMENT