“They’re not sitting silently and hoping for change,” comments Legislative Chairman Bill Hill. “Just the opposite, they’re stepping forward and demanding it.”

Maureen Lucey, a retired teacher now living in Jupiter, Florida, whose Social Security benefits are being reduced by the WEP, is one such member. This summer she attended a local town meeting which was being conducted by her congressman, Mark Foley (R-West Palm Beach) who has signed onto the WEP Relief bill, H.R. 1073.

Lucey seized the opportunity to speak out against the WEP. Coincidently, there were two other Mass retirees, who were also hurt by that law, at the meeting.

Then, after hearing that President Bush had established a special commission to study Social Security, she wrote the President. In her own words, this is what Lucey had to say about the WEP.

“Three years ago, I was informed that I fall into the Windfall Elimination Provision category and will not be able to collect my allocated Social Security monthly allowance. As a single parent who raised and educated two children, I feel this is grossly UNFAIR.

... Fifteen years ago, I relocated to Florida and began contributing to the Social Security System.

At age 55, I was advised to commence my Massachusetts pension... so I could be assured to have health insurance benefits. Now at age 63, I am devastated to learn that instead of being eligible to receive approximately $530 monthly Social Security Benefit, I will receive approximately 40% of that amount YET I must continue contributing the regular deduction [for my insurance]. Both these pensions are SMALL. I am not asking for anything for which I am not entitled. I have contributed and am trying to seek justice.”

Some members have questioned whether it would be more effective to challenge these laws in court and focus less on the Congress. Can’t the courts act quickly and order relief?

“Unfortunately, treating a group of public retirees differently under Social Security does not, by itself, provide sufficient grounds to successfully challenge these laws in court,” comments Association Counsel Bill Rehrey. “Other organizations, most notably NARFE (National Association of Retired Federal Employees), have taken a long hard look at this and concluded the chances of winning in the courts are slight at best.”

But in cases such as the GPO and WEP, the federal court would apply a much less stringent test. Under the “weaker” test, the court would uphold the statute if there is a constitutional purpose behind it and as long as the government had some “rational basis” for treating a particular group differently.

Legal experts believe that the GPO and WEP would satisfy the “weaker” test, principally because it would be (and has been successfully) argued, in support of the laws, that Congress has a legitimate concern in strengthening the solvency of Social Security and, therefore, saving money for the system. In fact, the GPO has twice been challenged and twice been upheld by the courts, most recently in the 1993 federal case titled Clifford v. Sullivan.

“We understand our members may not agree with the courts and strongly believe that the GPO and WEP are unfair and discriminatory,” comments Rehrey. “But with the legal tests being what they are, we expect our members also realize that it would be a wasted effort to mount a challenge against these laws in the courts and our time can be much better spent with the Congress and White House.”

As for more developments on the GPO/WEP front, the number of sponsors to the major relief bills apparently has not peaked in the Congress. At press, there are: 265 sponsors to H.R. 664 (eliminates GPO on first $1,200 of pension and Social Security benefits); 25 sponsors to S. 611 (companion bill to H.R. 664); 200 sponsors to H.R. 1073 (eliminates WEP on first $2,000 of pension and Social Security benefits, with partial relief up to $3,000); and 114 sponsors to H.R. 848 (eliminates WEP).

Association officers continue to work closely with NARFE at all levels of the national organization. Recently, Association President Ralph White met with NARFE’s Greater Boston (No. 34) Chapter, and its president, Sid Sternick, on the GPO and WEP. (See related article on p. 15, explaining the GPO and WEP.)