Patricia Giammarco

Please consider this a formal recommendation submitted to the Advisory Group for discussion and consideration:

Return the 3% compounded COLAs, with interest, to all pre-RIRSA retirees. This should be given serious consideration since state and federal laws were subverted, as well as was a US Supreme Court decision, in the passage of the illegal and unconstitutional RIRSA 2011, as well as its progeny, the Settlement Agreement of 2015. No state, I'm sure, wants the dubious distinction of being voted in the top 10 most corrupt states in the US- RI came in 4th last year - but actions such as the aforementioned make the vote eminently understandable.

The utter lack of attention to the pension fund in the face of hundreds of millions of "free" dollars coming into the state, as well as the then-Governor's 2015 outrageous-yet-aceeded-to request that excess revenues be funneled AWAY from the pension fund, when the then-current law stated that they go directly INTO the pension fund, clearly signaled to anyone with a functioning brain that the whole pension overhaul was a sham, clearly conducted for reasons other than those stated at the time.

When dealing with matters as critical as following the law, it's clear that where money is concerned, following the law means finding the money wherever it has to be found. To use an analogy I used in an earlier submission, if I contract to paint your house and fulfill that contract, the law will never support your refusal to pay me because your VISA bill came in and you're making a choice to pay that bill instead of paying me. A contract is a contract.

The contracts of those who retired prior to the passage of RIRSA 2011 were fulfilled. The state owes the constitutionally-promised, contractually-guaranteed COLAs - with interest - to those retirees. It's the state's responsibility to find the money, whether through passage of bonds; reapportioning the moneys given to different departments and agencies; utilization of the highly-anticipated marijuana revenues; or even following the state actuary's original recommendation, something that was termed a more moderate course of action. I'm sure there are many other possibilities. I've given you at least four to consider.

Submitted via online webform