Patricia Giammarco

I previously submitted and had published two articles in the Your Turn section of the Providence Journal. I'd like to quote from one of them: "Lost in all of this is the fact that following the law doesn’t require an auditor’s report or a Treasurer’s study commission. Following the law means that it’s the state’s responsibility to find the money, whether from its $14 billion budget (a budget that has almost doubled in the last decade); floating a bond the way it allowed Providence to do; or from the state’s inflation-protected revenue sources." Another General Assembly Mum on COLA Fix for State Retirees, Providence Journal, Commentary Section, 9-17-2023.



In 2008, Attorney Daniel Kinder, an expert in pension and employment law, was asked to prepare a report advising the House of Representatives on federal and state laws regarding potential pension reform. Kinder, in his report, informed the House Commission that changing pension benefits prospectively, especially for those who were newest to the system, was likely safe but that the longer employees had worked for the state, the riskier it became. The greatest risk, he advised, was with those who had already retired, and he counseled against it. Interestingly, then Governor Chafee said publicly that he would not change the benefits of those who had already retired because he knew the likelihood was that he would be reversed in court.



Despite this, in 2011 federal and state laws were skirted in order to force through a bogus pension reform package and in order to satisfy one woman's lust for political power and recognition. State employees and retirees became the sacrificial lambs at the altar of her ambition.



1. Arena v. Providence – In 2007, the Rhode Island Supreme Court ruled that contractual COLAs, once earned, cannot be changed retrospectively. Our contractual COLAs were changed retrospectively.



2. United States Trust Co. v. New Jersey (431 US 1) - The primary holding in 431 US 1, a United States Supreme Court ruling is this: Prioritizing some programs as more important than others for receiving funding does not allow a state to avoid its obligations. Justice Blackmun, writing for the majority, had the following to say: Appellees contend however, that choosing among these alternatives is a matter for legislative discretion. But a State is not completely free to consider impairing the obligations of its own contracts on a par with other policy alternatives. Similarly, a State is not free to impose a drastic impairment when an evident and more moderate course would serve its purposes equally well.



Both Joseph Newton, the state's own actuary, and Spencer Dickinson, then a member of the House of Representatives, had more moderate courses of action to introduce. Mr. Newton testified under oath at the 2015 “Fairness Hearing” that his more moderate course of action was not adopted. Mr. Dickinson reported that he was not even allowed to introduce his; rather he was gaveled down by the then Speaker of the House.



With all due respect to this Advisory Group, it's beyond outrageous to see this matter continue to be tossed around like a political football, this time with an overlay of "fiscal feasibility" when it never should have had to be discussed at all. Following the law doesn’t require an auditor’s report or a Treasurer’s Pension Advisory Working Group. Following the law means that it’s the state’s responsibility to find the money. Pure and simple.



The evidence pretty clearly shows that there were never any "unintended consequences". All of the consequences were entirely intended - and foreseeable. The projected date for the pension fund to reach 80% is 2032. Actuarially, all of the retirees affected will likely be dead. The best indicator of intended consequences was this. No sooner had the ink dried on the forced Settlement Agreement of 2015 than Governor Raimondo, through her state budget request, persuaded the General Assembly to change the law that previously had all excess revenues going into the pension fund, and instead changed it to have them go into the General Fund. Funding the pension system was the furthest thing from her mind. She was living for the accolades she received by exploiting state workers and retirees. She was glowing in her sleight-of- hand patina of fiscal responsibility.



The final insult is that when and if the pension fund reaches 80%, the COLA meted out will not begin to resemble the COLA that was in place when it was unlawfully changed. To even call it a COLA is a joke of the most horrendous proportions.



We have fought tirelessly for what was rightfully ours. The state has the RESPONSIBILITY to find the funds to fulfill its part of the contract that promised retirees a 3% compounded COLA. That's what we worked for, that's what we were promised, that's what we deserve, and that's what we will continue to fight for, and nothing less. I personally refuse to come and ask for any largesse based on the current financial status of retirees. I don’t care if I’m a millionaire or homeless. The law is the law. If I came to paint your house for a contracted-upon price, do you think for a minute that you could get away with not paying me once the painting was completed because your VISA bill came in? Who do you think the law would uphold? Well this was about completed house painting but on a much larger scale. We all painted, and twelve years later, we’re still waiting for the agreed-upon compensation. THE LAW IS THE LAW.



We retirees have had to deal with a morally bankrupt cast of characters since 2011. We’re hoping that we’re finally dealing with thoughtful, unbiased individuals. Time will tell that tale, but come what may, and despite what we’ve gone through, we remain unbowed. Having truth on one’s side provides the strength to stand upright and soldier on. We’re comfortable to be able to look ourselves in the mirror at night and sleep well. At the end of this process, hopefully the same will hold true for all of you.

Submitted via online webform