In taking office last January, Romney spoke of changing our retirement plan without specifying what he had in mind. When Bulger, who he had been attempting to nudge out of the UMass job, filed retirement papers this September, Romney saw his opening, but again was not specific. His communications director, Eric Fehrnstrom, indicated only that his boss would offer a broad pension overhaul package as part of next January's budget proposal.

Romney's headline-grabber was a blast at Bulger's attempt to include his housing allowance and special annuity as income for retirement purposes, which would have increased his pension from about $200,000 a year to roughly $230,000. Romney called it an abuse of the system.

Ironically, at almost the same time, Romney had appointed his friend, longtime Belmont Selectman William Monahan, as chairman of the Civil Service Commission at $80,000 yearly. Monahan would have been able to count his 24 years as a selectman toward a pension. If he had served three years as Civil Service chairman, he would have been eligible for a pension of about $54,000. For personal background reasons, Monahan resigned (or was asked to resign) shortly after his appointment. Monahan subsequently said he didn't resign and went on to challenge the legality of his removal.

"I'm sure that Governor Romney knew what the pension benefit to his friend would be when he made the appointment," said Association President Ralph White. "It's ironic that at the same time he railed about the formula that gave Bulger such a large pension."

White, a member of the State Retirement Board, is himself opposed to housing allowances being used as a pension add-on. "It's not a Bulger issue," said White. "Several college and university presidents have been looking at their housing allowance as a pension booster. These are six-figure pensions, and while the legality of such a practice is possible, it sends a wrong message to rank-and-file public employees. I'm against any such extra pension credit."

Romney's attack on public pensions did mention the use of employees' average salary for their last three years of service in calculating a pension. "To receive a pension based upon a few years of high income after many years of more normal income makes no sense. It's wrong and we're going to propose that's changed in a pension reform plan," Romney was quoted as saying.

"On the contrary," said Legislative Chairman Bill Hill. "It rewards a person whose longevity and acquired expertise over a lifetime of work, has often elevated them to supervisory and administrative positions, and their pensions will reflect this status. It is the fairest and most equitable way of recognizing the contribution that a person has made over the years. He or she did not come, just for a cup of coffee. It certainly is not a brief interlude. We would oppose any attempt by Romney to change the current formula.

"Actually, the Governor can't change the retirement plan of employees currently vested, and any change would require the approval of the Legislature, which we don't see happening," Hill added.

"Romney might present a mandatory defined contribution plan (DC Plan) for new hires with an option for current employees to switch over. Under such a plan, the employee invests his own contribution plus a contribution by the government, similar to a 401k plan. Under a DC Plan, the employee has no guaranteed pension. His retirement fund depends on how well his investments have done over the years. The employer is completely off the hook after the worker retires. Such plans are common in the private sector, where Romney's background lies," said White.

"Employee and retiree unions are strongly against any change from our defined benefit plan, whereby an employee has a guaranteed pension formula, which is not affected by market conditions. Employees are attracted to the public sector by secure, contractual pensions and post-retirement benefits."

Representative Robert Koczera of New Bedford, who is the House Chairman of the Public Service Committee, feels that Governor Romney is painting a cynical impression of government employees in the eyes of the public.

"The Governor has been making reckless and erroneous statements about our retirement plan, which strike a nerve in the eyes of the public. The public is cynical enough about state government without dragging down our employees and retirees.

"We have dedicated, competent workers who deserve a reasonable retirement plan. Our retirement laws were not created overnight... They were the result of years of study and cost analysis, yet the Governor would tear them down with very little thought.

"Layoffs and cutbacks have added to the burden of our state and local government workers. Morale has been ebbing and here we have a governor adding to their burden by attacking their pension formula. It's the wrong approach by a person who is supposed to be our state's leader."

Our defined benefit plan (Chapter 32) owes much of its success to the requirement that it is the only plan - with one small exception - that is offered to public sector workers in our state. To offer or require alternative plans would erode the strength of our Chapter 32 plan by decreasing the pool of investment revenue. Our plan depends on both employee and government contributions, prudently invested, plus a Legislature united behind and dedicated to this plan.

It is doubtful that Governor Romney will be able to make pension reform a top priority in 2004 any more than he was in 2003. Although state tax revenues have picked up in recent months, he will be facing another budget deficit and there will be far more immediate matters at hand to deal with.

In any event, our Association and the employee unions, working with the Legislature, will not take Romney pension rhetoric lightly - pensions are a top priority with us.