PERI Board Adopts a Position on OPERS Health Care and Pension Challenges

PERI Closely Following OPERS Proposed Changes to Health Care
July 12, 2019
Package 5
August 29, 2019

PERI Board Adopts a Position on OPERS Health Care and Pension Challenges

(August 23, 2019)  After multiple meetings over many months with OPERS senior staff and leadership, PERI has decided to take action designed to support the long term stability of the Pension and Health Care Funds.  While health care is not a guaranteed benefit, retirees have overwhelmingly said that they see it as an important benefit and want it to continue.  In order for the Health Care Fund to potentially receive sufficient contributions from OPERS employer contributions and investment returns to support long term solvency, there must be changes made to the Pension Fund to shore up its funded status and reduce its amortization period.  Just one or two poor years of investment returns or a recession would almost certainly send the Pension Fund into a fiscal situation that would legally require OPERS to dramatically reduce its unfunded liabilities through severe plan design changes.  These would include a long term suspension or permanent reduction of the COLA for retirees.  Health Care would almost certainly be eliminated once the funds are depleted.

While we do not support the concept of reducing or suspending a COLA for current retirees, we realize that retirees will likely lose much more if a modest concession is not made.  After much discussion with PERI, OPERS staff agreed to a two year suspension of the COLA effective January 1st 2022 versus other options more costly to retirees.  Additionally, we were able to secure an agreement that the COLA would return to all OPERS retirees after December 31, 2023 based on their current condition.  For example, any pre-2013 retiree receiving a fixed 3% COLA would see that fixed 3% after the suspension.  PERI believes our new position on pension provides the best opportunity for the preservation of health care benefits and a stronger pension fund.  Without these changes and given the likelihood of a recession in the next two years and OPERS current Pension Fund amortization period at such a high level, there is virtually no chance of employer contributions being directed to health care now or in the future.  We believe that doing nothing to support the Pension Fund will lead to the loss of all health care benefits.

For the first time, OPERS proposed changes include driving cost efficiencies through plan design changes for future public sector hires as well a 1% increase in the employee contribution for this group.  This was a major issue we communicated with legislators during the debate on HB 413 two years ago.

PERI’s position also includes support for one of five changes to health care (Package 5) that in our opinion, would provide benefits albeit at a reduced level, for the greatest number of both Pre-Medicare and Medicare eligible retirees.  These packages are available for review by the public on OPERS website.

If OPERS Board of Trustees does not agree to the positions PERI has adopted, the PERI board reserves the right to rescind its support for these changes.  OPERS is expected to take action in the next 30 to 60 days.  Please read the following position paper to learn more about this topic.


PERI Position on OPERS Health Care and Pension Concerns

August 2019

PERI’s Board of Trustees recently made a very difficult decision to support OPERS efforts to shore up the pension fund that could also provide sustainability for retiree health care benefits. While this decision is a departure from our position to protect retiree’s COLA at all costs, there are new factors in our opinion  that will provide retirees with longer term security and certainty when it comes to their benefits.

Please read the rest of this position paper to learn more about the actions that may be taken and why we believe retirees will benefit in the long run.

Since the spring, OPERS has held a series of meetings around the state with retirees to share their concerns over the financial condition of the Health Care and Pension Funds.  Although the funds are separate, the ability for retirees to continue to receive meaningful health care benefits as well as their pensions rests on the financial strength of both funds.

While retirees should already be aware that health care is not a statutorily guaranteed benefit, it has been enjoyed by retirees for more than 50 years.  After that period of time, health care benefits may feel like an entitlement.  Not surprisingly, more than 90% of retirees have said it is important for OPERS to continue to provide meaningful health care benefits.

OPERS has identified a serious funding shortfall with the Health Care Fund that endangers its long term solvency.  In fact, OPERS states the fund will be insolvent in eleven years.  How could this occur when changes were made to both the pension and health care plan designs in 2012 that at that time were expected to protect both funds?  There are several reasons.

First, health care premium inflation has been increasing at rates no one expected to see.  This is not a problem of OPERS’ making, rather it is a national crisis with no solution in sight.  Medicare eligible retirees were moved to a connector model through One Exchange in 2016 which helped OPERS better manage health care costs.  Despite Medicare eligible retirees’ concerns at that time with becoming accustomed to a new health care delivery system, they now receive their benefits more efficiently and with substantial savings to OPERS.

Despite these savings, OPERS is faced with escalating health care premiums for pre-Medicare retirees.  Specifically, this population constitutes only 20% of the total retiree population but is consuming 60% of the annual cost of health care provided by OPERS!  This is an alarming development that is caused by healthy retirees leaving OPERS’ group plan to find less expensive options in the private market.  This adverse selection leaves OPERS with an ever increasing population of unhealthy retirees, which is driving annual premiums to unsustainable levels.

All retirees have seen changes to health care such as the phasing out of spousal premium reimbursement and the increased cost of prescription medications.  These cuts have inconvenienced retirees who may be better off financially, but in some cases has made it extremely difficult for lower income retirees to make ends meet.  We believe all retirees need some sense of predictability when it comes to their health care benefits.

To this end, OPERS has spent significant time and effort to examine a variety of proposals that would shore up the Health Care Fund and give retirees some sense of predictability.  To OPERS’ credit, they would prefer to develop a sustainable funding model for health care despite its voluntary status as a benefit, because it is so important to retirees.

At the very least, OPERS needs to be able to direct a minimum of 2% of the employer contribution to the Health Care Fund annually and count on investment portfolio returns of 6.5%.  This is only achievable as long as the Pension Fund is on solid financial footing.

Remember, we said earlier that the solvency of the Health Care Fund is eleven years.  The funded status of the Pension Fund is currently at 77% and the amortization period (the amount of time it takes to pay off all unfunded liabilities) sits at 28 years.  OPERS and their actuaries have calculated that the Pension Fund will not be at a sufficient level of solvency to direct any portion of the employer contribution to the Health Care Fund until 2034, fifteen years from now.  As you can see, the Health Care fund will run out of money in 2030, and unless reforms are made, health care will be gone for good.

OPERS’ current unfunded liabilities in the Pension Fund sit at $24 billion, the highest level in their history.  This is primarily due to challenges to meet their annual investment target which now sits at 7.2% annually.  It is also a function of a reduction in their investment return target from 8% two years ago to 7.5% and to a level of 7.2% today.

Some will argue that the stock market average over the past decade has easily exceeded 8% and therefore the Pension Fund should be better funded than it is.  PERI would agree with this assessment if OPERS had most of their portfolio invested in stocks, but they don’t.  Any fund investing billions of dollars as OPERS does, must have a diversified portfolio in order to protect against wild swings in gains and losses from year to year.  Because of this reality, OPERS’ diversified portfolio will generally earn about 60% to 70% of what we see in U.S. equities markets.  While this is less than what they might be able to achieve if fully invested in the markets, they also benefit in down years by not losing as much as they might have otherwise.

By their own admission and despite their reasonably good financial standing, OPERS is only one bad year away from potentially sliding into a fiscal situation that would lead the General Assembly to make drastic changes to Pension Fund benefits, as we saw in 2012.  We have experienced the longest economic expansion in our nation’s history and are overdue for a recession.  It is prudent for OPERS to take steps now to avoid the financial mess that occurred after the last recession a decade ago.

OPERS has presented several packages designed to lower the pension fund’s unfunded liabilities.  Each involves some form of suspension or permanent reduction in the COLA payment given to retirees in addition to other plan changes that would impact future retirees.  Additionally, actives upon retirement would be required to wait until their second year to receive their initial COLA payment.  The goal to share plan design changes with actives as well as retirees is welcomed.

PERI believes that because retirees strongly want to retain health care benefits, the only prudent action is to find a solution that is a “win-win.”  We believe a COLA suspension versus a permanent reduction in COLA payments is better for retirees in the long run, especially those who retired prior to 2013 and receive the fixed 3% benefit.  OPERS has made no secret their preferred solution would be to cap the COLA for everyone.  Their other preference is to freeze COLAs for up to three years and potentially cap at a lower level.

These options were not acceptable to PERI.  We held the line at a two year suspension with the understanding that OPERS must return all retirees to their current conditions at the conclusion of the suspension period.  This protects retirees receiving the 3% COLA and provides the best opportunity to save health care benefits.

There will be arguments presented suggesting any new restrictions that might be needed to improve the Pension Fund would only impact future retirees since current retirees’ pension benefits are protected by law.  While this is the case, if such an action were to be passed by the Legislature, there is absolutely no guarantee that if lawsuits were pursued, the Ohio Supreme Court would ultimately rule to protect current retirees.

Retirees should also remember that if OPERS made the changes we anticipate they will make to the COLA, and we fight to have them rejected once they arrive in the General Assembly, and we possibly succeed, we could very well find ourselves facing more drastic circumstances in a few short years.

Consider this: if OPERS is unable to lower their unfunded liabilities and we experience a serious economic recession, then our success is short-lived.  OPERS could easily recommend to the General Assembly that all COLAs be suspended or permanently frozen to get the Pension Fund back to a reasonable amortization period and funded status.  Don’t forget, health care benefits would very likely be discontinued.  Our experience suggests legislators would be receptive to these arguments.

A prudent and responsible approach is the one we currently support that will allow us to achieve the following:

  • A pension fund on solid financial footing in a position to provide the maximum level of benefits possible for our retirees.
  • Protect retirees eligible to receive a 3% COLA from having their COLA permanently capped at a lower level.
  • By shoring up the Pension Fund, place OPERS in a better position to begin funding health care again and increasing its solvency by directing a portion of the employer contribution to the Health Care Fund.
  • Protection of the Health Care Fund to ensure that, although not a legally protected benefit, retirees can count on meaningful benefits in future years.
  • Restore 85% purchasing power for older retirees to serve as a buffer against long term inflation.
  • Increase the qualifying standards for low income retirees to receive financial assistance for health care. We want to protect those most vulnerable within the retiree population.

PERI’s position is contingent upon OPERS Board of Trustees accepting our recommendations for the selection of Health Care Package 5 (which would benefit the most retirees possible of the five packages presented) and acceptance of COLA Package Three, which would only suspend the COLA effective January 1, 2022 through December 31, 2023 and return all retirees to their COLA current condition at that time.

PERI’s Board of Trustees reserves the right to rescind its position if OPERS Board of Trustees alters its position from what PERI has agreed to support.


  1. Ken Rieman says:

    You do not address pre medicare retirees and the higher health subsidy they are receiving.

    Why should premedicare retirees receive more support than medicare retirees?

    This difference in the amount received amounts to age discrimination.

    The amount people receive should be the same—people who retire before medicare age will have to decide what they can afford

  2. Daniel says:

    Does anyone have a link so we can review the health care package 5. Could not find it on OPERS website.


  3. Jim says:

    You state: “PERI’s position also includes support for one of five changes to health care (Package 5) that in our opinion, would provide benefits albeit at a reduced level, for the greatest number of both Pre-Medicare and Medicare eligible retirees. These packages are available for review by the public on OPERS website.”

    A link to these proposals on the OPERS website would be helpful.

  4. Jim says:

    I paid into OPERS for more than 36 years. For each pay period within those years, part of my payment went to fund my future retirement and part was paid to fund my future health care needs. Now, my understanding is that those hired within the past seven years have paid a very low percentage toward their future health care needs, and those hired within the past two years have seen no contribution toward their health needs. OPERS states that they wish to, “Preserve funds for future retirees”…those not contributing anything at the current time. This seems unfair to those of us who have contributed to the fund throughout our working careers.

    While PERI has clearly outlined some of the sacrifices we have already made: removal of spouses, meteorically increase our premiums, increase deductibles, increase out of pocket and co-pay expenses, still I understand the two year COLA sacrifice PERI is suggesting.

    What I have not seen, however, is any proportionate sacrifice from Executive Director Karen Carraher and others at OPERS. Wage increases and bonuses continue even when funds are reportedly sustaining loses of 6, 7 and 8 percent.

    A two year COLA loss would be a lot more palatable if the sacrifice were across the board. Also, an air tight guarantee of a return to our current COLA must be enshrined in writing to negate some of the long term damages which we will all sustain.

    Thank you.

  5. Donna says:

    PERI, thank you for all the good work you do. I would be amenable to this change if I could trust OPERS to restore the COLA after two years.

  6. The Windfall Elimination Provision, which drastically reduces Social Security Benefits for retirees who have worked in both the public and private sectors, causes ongoing financial hardship to persons like myself who fall into that category.
    I would like to see PERI be actively involved in trying to repeal that legislation. Legislation has been proposed many times, but has not moved forward to my knowledge.


    Well based on the economy and the uncertainty of the future markets, it make sense to suspend the cola for two years and then reinstate it, People want and need health care
    and we have to help in some way. I agree with your proposal as long as OPERS doesn’t change it.

  8. Ken Rieman says:

    You do not address pre medicare retirees and the higher health subsidy they are receiving.

    Why should premedicare retirees receive more support than medicare retirees?

    This difference in the amount received amounts to age discrimination.

    The amount people receive should be the same—people who retire before medicare age will have to decide what they can afford

    I cannot find option 5 on opers website

  9. LFZ says:

    Please post exactly what OPERS , Health Care Package 5 , states.
    I am unable to find it on the OPERS Website.

  10. Where can we read about what is contained in Healthcare Package 5 ?

  11. Hazel G. Chapman says:

    I don’t agree with the decision that has obviously been made mainly because I have trust issues with a number of decisions made by government and their interest in our pension fund and the amount of money that is in it, this is evidenced by the number of bill that have repeatedly been introduced over the years. I don’t know if it is possible for those retired employees that represent us to fight harder for less control by big money government, but I truly wish they would try .

  12. Steve Carter says:

    What are the provisions in Health Care Package 5?

  13. Diane Mallory says:

    PERI was absolutely wrong to agree to any reduction in our guaranteed benefits. OPERS has been making cut after cut to health care benefits using the argument that health care was never a guaranteed benefit. Although those cuts were disappointing to retirees, it is true that health care was never a guaranteed benefit. COLA is a guaranteed benefit. By agreeing to that reduction in our COLA, you have opened the door to further cuts to our guaranteed benefits. When (and it is only a matter of time) OPERS wants to reduce our pensions, we will not be able to argue that they cannot cut guaranteed benefits, because they have already done so with the agreement, approval and consent of PERI. So now, OPERS will reduce our COLA and will still further reduce our health care benefit. What did that accomplish?

    Many of us realize that eventually OPERS will discontinue any health care benefits. They will have to with the increasing costs of health care. PERI should be advocating that OPERS strengthen the pension fund in order to avoid reductions in our guaranteed benefits.

    Your statement implies that retirees agree that COLA should be cut in order to preserve a (reduced) health care benefit. I don’t know how you made that call. I certainly do not agree, and PERI never asked me. I know many retirees who do not agree with that.

    • Rick says:

      I agree 100%

      • Donna says:

        I take back my comment about being ok with a 2 year freeze. It sets a dangerous precedent. Our 3% COLA was passed into law, yet OPERS is trying to take it away. I don’t trust that they would restore our COLA. And I suspect if they are successful at freezing our COLA, they’ll do it again. And again.

        PERI, I hope you will do everything to preserve our COLA. OPERS can cut our health care at will, but it is a lot harder for them to cut our COLA.

      • Ginny says:

        I agree. Giving up is a slippery slope to never ending cuts in COLA and pension benefits.

      • Maria says:

        I am also concerned about losing the guaranteed benefit. And, the cumulative effect of losing the COLA for two years is significant. For example, if my 3% COLA is $1,000 per year and I lose two years of it for the rest of my expected life, maybe 25 years, then I’ve lost $49,000 of what I thought was my contracted pension amount during my lifetime. That’s significant. I am a pre-medicare retiree, but before retiring from public service, I made certain I would obtain health care outside of OPERS. To subsidize the pre-medicare benefit when I am not taking advantage of it is jarring.

    • Jim says:

      The more I look at the current proposals, the more I fall in line with what Diane Mallory is expressing.

  14. Joseph Matasy says:

    Can you tell me (and fellow OPERI members) how to obtain the text of “Health Care Package 5” and “Cola Package 3” ? I could find no information on these “numbered” packages on the OPERS website. I assume they (OPERS) will provide additional details in their upcoming “Fall 2019 Newsletter.” However, if OPERI can provide the text of these “recommended” packages in advance, I believe OPERI members would be greatly appreciative. Thank you, OPERI, for what you do for retirees. I constantly urge my fellow OPERS retirees to join OPERI.

    • Fred says:

      There are five posts in this section asking for PERI to either post or link PERI members to OPERS “Health Care Package 5”, but they have not done so.
      I am beginning to wonder if “Health Care Package 5” even exists.
      I have checked the OPERS website and find no reference to this health care package.
      PERI please respond to your members.

      • Peri says:

        PERI provided information on how to access information about all of the packages that OPERS is proposing back in August on our News page. To repeat this information; go to the OPERS website, click on Board of Trustees, meetings, 2019, August Agenda. There you will find not only the agenda but the entire package presentation.

  15. Jerry M. says:

    After the C.O.L.A. freeze in 2022 and 2023, Peri must assure retirees that the C.O.L.A. will be reinstated as agreed. As a retiree, I do not trust Opers. I am concerned they will attempt to use this situation to further reduce the C.O.L.A. in the future. Peri and all retirees must hold Opers accountable when an agreement is made at the end of the year.

  16. Dale Harmon says:

    I question whether suspending the COLA for those retirees who retired prior to 2013 is legal. Effective 1/7/2013, the COLA (ORC 145.323) was specifically removed as a vested benefit in ORC 145.561. This indicates that prior to 1/7/2013 it was a vested right, or at least the Ohio legislature believed that the COLA was a vested right. The vesting statute, ORC 145.561, states “…to receive such retirement allowance, annuity, pension, or other benefit at the rate fixed at the time of granting….” The COLA for those retirees who retired prior to 2013 was fixed at the rate of a 3% simple interest.

    Further, in the case of John J. Mascio, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. PUBLIC EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYSTEM OF OHIO; November 04, 1998, the court found that the retirement benefits of Ohio public employees vest, by statute, at the time when the retirement allowance or pension is granted by the public employees retirement board. The effect of which is to form a contract giving to the pensioner a vested right in his pension which cannot afterwards be impaired or revoked.

    When I retired more than a decade ago, OPERS staff made many promises to me and my wife concerning health care, etc. Based on what I consider to be broken promises, I am certainly not in favor of giving up a vested benefit in return for more health care promises.

  17. Ginny says:

    I do not agree with OPERS or PERI on freezing the COLA for 2 years. Is the Ohio legislature going to change the vesting statue so OPERS can freeze or change the COLA anytime they feel like it? PERI should be protecting retirees and standing up for us, not giving in and believing OPERS. I believe most PERI members think much of this issue is a false narrative. Maybe OPERS top tier management could take a cut in pay/benefits to show they have some skin in the game.

    • ja says:

      Instead of complaining about this stuff on electronic blogs, let’s find our state reps/senators and write to them asking their help in keeping our COLA and also let’s ask them to pass a new law preventing OPERS from trying to confiscate our COLA (or freeze it, or reduce it) every year.

      I had problems with the portal and was told by a rep’s office that it wasn’t that reliable, either. So find your rep and then google him to get better e-mail information. What you post on the portal might become public information anyway…..or call to get the e-mail.

      Hopefully if we band together we might make a difference.

      Thank you. JA

      • Alan Morris says:

        This is exactly what you have to do. Express your views to your elected reps. That is why they are there. Follow up on how they voted also!

  18. John K says:

    I don’t understand why OPERS needs to reduce anything. There was an October 2018 article in the Dayton News Paper, see

    It says OPERS finances were OK until they reduced their expected rate of return to 7.2% – much less than other Ohio pension systems. With that reduction they were immediately in the red. All of a sudden they had a deficit. They couldn’t get the Ohio General Assembly to approve a COLA reduction, so they created a desperate need, at least in their spreadsheets.

    Now lots of folks are arguing about what OPERS should cut, essentially saying Cut someone other than me.

    It reminds me of the story where 5 people are at a donut shop, sitting at a table with 5 donuts on a center plate. Some big guy walks in and takes 2 of the donuts for himself. Then he looks at 3 of the people and says “those other 2 folk are trying to figure out how to get your donuts.”

    The president tells us the economy is doing Great. I don’t understand why the Expected Rate of Return needed to be reduced to 7.2% unless it was to justify taking my donut.

  19. Richard Bartley says:

    Is it time to file a class action law suit to protect our cola?

  20. Richard Bartley says:

    I wasn’t promised HC. I was promised vesting in a retirement plan. All I want is what was promised at the time I retired.

  21. Richard Bartley says:

    PERI is refusing to post critical comments? It’s failing to represent its members in and open and transparent way?

  22. Richard Bartley says:

    Once OPERS establishes it has the right to renege on a vested retirement benefits, i.e. *contractual liabilities*, they will be able to cancel or modify any of the other vested retirement benefits we have.

  23. Steve Christofis says:

    We need to wait and see what the legislation looks like. I don’t like the two year COLA freeze. I also don’t trust OPERS. Their stories change every year or two on why the need to make changes to our pensions. When the legislation is written and it not what they promised , we need to pressure on our legislators.

  24. Jennifer Conley says:

    Please explain what Healthcare Package 5 and COLA Package 3 are in detail.


  25. Jennifer Conley says:

    There are numerous posts asking about what the provisions are in Healthcare Package 5 and COLA Package 3 on this site… Why don’t you just post the provisions of the packages RIGHT HERE!!!

    • Peri says:

      We have had several people request the information in OPERS’ package 5 as presented at their August board meeting. The following is a copy from the OPERS website, with an update on the COLA from the September board meeting.

      August 2019 OPERS Board Meeting:

      Package 5- provides health care to all eligible retirees • Promotes high service requirements if you wish to retire at an earlier age and receive health care assistance, while maintaining current Medicare eligible requirements of age 65 with 20 years of service • Maintains grandfathered population eligibility but with reduced allowances verses phasing out those currently on the plan • All retirees subject to the full structure of the allowance table – allowances range from 51% to 90%

      Package 5- Non-Grandfathered Retiree Example:

      Cathy Retired: 01/01/2009 Service: 32 years Current age: 70 On Jan. 1, 2022, Cathy will be impacted by the reduction in the base allowance which will impact her current allowance amount. Now: 75% x $450 = $337 2022: 75% x $350 = $262 34

      Package 5 – Grandfathered Retiree Example:

      Denise Retired: 1/1/2013 Service: 12 years Current age: 70 On Jan. 1, 2022, Denise will maintain eligibility but will receive a reduced allowance based on the 51% allowance floor. Now: 75% x $450 = $337 2022: 51% x $350 = $178 35

      Package 5 – Pre-Medicare Retiree Example:

      Joe Service: 33 years Current age: 58 On Jan. 1, 2022, Joe will no longer be in the OPERS group plan and will be provided an allowance subsidy to purchase a plan on the individual market. Now: 76% x $1,306 = $992 (premium reduction) 2022: 76% x $900 = $684 36

      Package 5 – Pre-Medicare Retiree Example:

      Frank Service: 25 years Current age: 57 Frank is a future retiree with an effective date after Jan. 1, 2022. He will retire with a reduced benefit at age 57 with 25 years with no health care coverage. He will age in to health care at age 65. 76% x $350 = $266 @ age 65

      Options – During the August through October 2017 Board meetings, the Board evaluated various COLA packages. For purposes of beginning this discussion, staff are presenting the final four packages updated with slight modifications and updated savings estimates.

      Package 3 (Freeze 2 years) – Savings $3.44 Billion • No COLA’s granted during calendar 2022-2023 (2-year freeze) • Following the freeze, future COLA’s would return to current conditions* • 85% purchasing power restored • First COLA for future retirees delayed to 2nd pension anniversary (all retirees subject to 2-year freeze)

      *The term “Current Conditions” is defined to mean that retirees receiving a fixed 3% COLA prior to the freeze would return to receiving a 3% COLA following the freeze. Retirees receiving a CPI-based COLA prior to the freeze would return to receiving a CPI-based COLA following the freeze period.

      September 2019 OPERS Board Meeting:

      Ms. Carraher and Mr. Foster made a presentation to review the various options presented to the Board at the August 2019 meeting regarding changes to the COLA. They reviewed the funding path forward, reviewed a summary of pension changes to date and under consideration, the current unfunded liability, and several COLA options and packages.

      After discussion, Mr. Mabe moved, Ms. Sledz seconded, to approve the following as discussed with staff: • No COLA’s granted during calendar 2022-2023 (2- year freeze) • Following the freeze, future COLA’s would return to current conditions • 85% purchasing power restored • First COLA for future retirees delayed to 2nd pension anniversary

      Roll call vote was taken as follows: Ms. Albers, aye; Mr. Damschroder, aye; Mr. Desposito, aye; Mr. Elliott, aye; Mr. Mabe, aye; Ms. Sledz, aye; Mr. Steitz, nay; Mr. Tilling, aye; Mr. Toth, nay; Mr. Thomas, aye. The motion passed with all eight ayes and two nays.

  26. D. Carter says:

    When OPERS exempted spouses of State employees from healthcare benefits (except Cobra, if anyone can afford that) all I heard was how this would take care of healthcare going forward and that our pension was in good shape. You all just keep cutting-no good news going forward. Now, you want to freeze our GUARANTEED COLA for two years-I just know this won’t help a thing, just hurt those of us that have paid our dues and no longer work. Shame on you and our legislature if they pass this. I will be sending messages to my representatives to let them know that this need nipped in the bud. A better idea is to check out how our money is being invested and just why there has been no improvement since the last big healthcare cut.

  27. Les Gruseck says:

    Peri should never agree to any suspension of the COLA. Many of those that retired pre 2013 did so with a very strong implication, a virtual pledge and guarantee, from OPERS that no further change to COLA would take place for them. Many would have worked a few more years if they knew OPERS was going to renege a few years later. It seems to me a case could be made that it (COLA) was a contractual obligation for pre 2013 retirees and thus a basis for legal action. As far as giving up our healthcare, that would not be very palatable either. I personally rely on that help. However, OPERS has always said that healthcare benefits wasn’t a contractual obligation.

    Also as PERI stated above “Additionally, we were able to secure an agreement that the COLA would return to all OPERS retirees after December 31, 2023 based on their current condition.” I’d say based on those last 5 words, that leaves OPERS with an opening to, yet again, mess with the COLA. I decided to join PERI because strength in numbers has a louder voice and also with the expectation that PERI would fight to keep what we have. PERI is in fact not even considering potential legal action but instead caved. This agreement PERI has made with OPERS isn’t what I expected and now I need to rethink renewal of my membership when the time comes..

Leave a Reply

Rules for Posting on the PERI Website

  • This website and the opportunity to post replies to news stories is for the benefit of PERI and its members.
  • You must be a member in good standing of PERI in order to post content.
  • No profanity, disrespectful remarks, inaccurate information or other inappropriate content is allowed.
  • PERI reserves the right to manage content as it sees fit and at its sole discretion may determine that certain posters be banned from posting on this website.
  • PERI expects that any content submitted for posting will have been vetted by the writer for accuracy and be fact-based.  Let common sense and good judgment be your guide.
  • By submitting a post you agree to the terms and conditions above

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *