Linda O'Malley

This letter is submitted on behalf of Kevin and Linda O’Malley

Dear Sir or Madame:

My husband and I are both retired state employees. He worked for DEM for over 30 years, and I worked for DCYF for approximately 27 years. If our employment records still exist, they would reflect each of our excellent work histories.

Whenever the state needed to make cutbacks it would inevitably mean they would start with state agencies. For example, both of us suffered the cuts by the former governor, Governor Sundlun, where for some time we worked five days a week and were paid for four days. The conditions of the various buildings I worked in while in child welfare were usually poor and possibly unhealthy. Over the years I worked in buildings with mold, flooding, and non-potable drinking water. I drove state vehicles badly in need of repair as a social caseworker.

My husband and I felt that, with our guaranteed retirement packages, as well as loving what we did, it was worthwhile to stay the course, even though my husband and I could have found work in the private sector with our respective experience and education. The contributions we made to our retirement funds continued to go up in percentage as the years went by, but we continued to stay the course.

My husband, a Vietnam veteran, retired first, in 2004. His projections for receiving COLAs were a big part of his retirement plans. I recall the day I told him that the state was planning to stop them. He did not believe me.

I was still working when the “reform” to our retirement was voted on. I had over 20 years of service at the time, and I was initially put in the hybrid plan, but several years later I was returned to the plan for those with that seniority. The plan under TIAA had made very few returns on the investments given my brief years in that plan, and I lost the (slightly) higher percentage of contributions by the state for those years. I was deeply discouraged and realized then that, no matter how long I worked I would not retire with nearly what I was promised and for what I had planned to receive.

I am now 70 and my husband is 73, nearly 74. We decided to move to New Hampshire as that state does not tax our pensions. Both of us continue to work part-time. We live in an over-55 condo and cannot help but notice how well other retirees fared in states other than RI with their retirement packages.

I agree with Ms. Crowley’s argument that it is not possible to live on 38, or even 40% of one’s income. Many retirees who have managed with a similar formula for the past 12 years can attest to that fact.

You have been selected to be on this panel due to your area of expertise and hopefully, you did not accept the assignment with a preconceived opinion or decision. I feel that we have all spent enough time reviewing the reasons behind the pension reform. I suspect that what was done could not have been entirely legal, but passing these changes into law made sure they were nearly untouchable. I can’t help but see those changes as being tinged with ageism as well as elitism.

The facts that matter today are that those affected by this reform have seen our income decline for 12 years due to inflation, we are dying off, and that these changes shaped the lives of retirees permanently. Our golden years have turned to tarnished brass. Even if the COLAs were reinstated today we have lost thousands of dollars that will never be recovered. We have had to make decisions that changed the direction and quality of our lives. And kindly remember that we have a limited number of years left in our future. Waiting for a magic percentage to be reached to finally have the COLAs restored implies that we have the luxury of waiting.

You are in a powerful position. You are affecting the lives of many elderly citizens.

Please use your power wisely.

Submitted via online webform