Social Security
Legislators Voice Opposition To Mandated SS | Legislators Voice Opposition To Mandated SS |
|
|
|
|
JULY 1999 - Coalition Continues Work At State House - Governor Cellucci's budget proposal to eliminate Plymouth and Bristol Counties, as of July 1, 2000, (March Voice)
does not appear in the budget passed by the Legislature. Neither the
House or Senate included the proposal in their budget versions.
"We thought the elimination of Plymouth/Bristol Counties was unnecessary when it was proposed," recalls Legislative Liaison Shawn Duhamel. "Obviously the State House agreed since the two counties continue to operate under this budget." Policy Differences Remain While Plymouth and Bristol are untouched for now, six other counties have been (or will be) eliminated. As we have been reporting, they include Middlesex, Worcester, Hampden and Hampshire, whose county government has been dissolved, as well as Essex, slated for this month, and Berkshire, whose termination date is one year from now (July 1, 2000). While the retirement systems for the 5 dissolved counties continue to operate, fundamental issues continue unanswered at least for now. While there appears to be some consensus among the leadership as to the general make-up and operation of the affected retirement boards, serious policy differences remain over whether the state, the communities within the dissolved counties, or both, would be responsible for the unfunded pension liabilities of the employees transferred to the state. When the House passed its version of the budget, it included an amendment offered by the Speaker Thomas Finneran and House Ways and Means Vice Chairman Harriett Stanley, relating to the abolished (or to be abolished) counties. This amendment would allow the state, through a complicated formula, to assess against the communities in an abolished county, a portion, if any, of the unfunded pension liabilities associated with transferred employees. As has been the history on this issue, the Senate appears to be taking a different tack. When it released its version of the budget, the Senate Ways and Means Committee did not include the House budget amendment. Instead, just before the Senate budget debate began, the committee released its own bill on abolished counties (S-1888), which was passed the same day. Contrary to the House amendment, S-1888 does not allow the state to assess any charge back to the communities, within an abolished county, a portion of the unfunded liabilities for transferred employees. As we go to press, the Senate and House conferees are meeting and deciding whether to include the House amendment in the budget or proceed with a bill, like S-1888, through the regular legislative process. |
| < Prev | Next > |
|---|