I found the Treas report referenced above at the below address. You will see on page 29 a chart showing how ERSRI stacked up against other plan funding ratio’s. 1999-2000 appears to be the glory years for everyone.

http://linux01.crystalgraphics.com/view/9f9d0-NjJkY/Special_House_Commission_to_Study_All_Aspects_of_The_State_Pension_and_Retirement_System_flash_ppt_presentation

The Treas Office also tracked the high of the state of RI pension funding as being in late 1999 just before the dot com bubble burst. There is a chart in one of the 2008 reports I saw out of the Treas office that shows the down hill in the pension trust fund (on a percentage funding basis) that happened in the 3 years after 1999.

It never recovered

In some cases you are comparing apples and oranges. For example, only 10 years ago, West Warwick’s Pension Plan had an Unfunded Liability of only $1.6 million. The WW plan was actually funded at over 96%!!!!

You cite a current funding level of 26% but that is based upon figures from 1 July 2010. And that is based upon GASP45 standards. When you factor in Health Care under GASP25, I believe the figure drops to about 14%. And that was almost a year and a half ago!! What do you think has happened to the town’s portfolio in the interim?

What makes this particularly egregious is the fact that over the intervening years, I have personally raised red flags about the Pension Fund and was rewarded by being sued by a former Chair of the Pension Board for my efforts.

It was only after I raised the issue with former Auditor general Ernie Almonte, that the WW Town Council came up with a plan under which they should be paying 100% of the Actuary’s ARC. Yeah right. Not even close.

You can check out the last Report on the Pension Plan at:

http://www.westwarwickri.org/vertical/Sites/%7B7B7C7E47-F7C1-4511-8CF3-EA8EBAF7D539%7D/uploads/2010_PensionValuationSigned.pdf

Unfortunately, I am of the opinion that the report really doesn’t tell the entire story because it blames the current condition of the fund on a lack of contributions by the town. I’m of the opinion that there were many other factors in play but because of internal town politics, nothing was ever done nor was any forensic audit ever conducted.

The other communities you’ve cited have always had problems. WW was not in the same category. If you really want to delve into what is wrong with Municipal Pension Funds, take a long hard look at WW and the players involved.

As it stands now, the state has no idea what is owed for future benefits to those retirees. If the state took the time and made the effort to calculate those obligations, surely it would shed a whole different light on the pension reforms recently passed for those groups.

The result would easily be an eye opener, especially for the state police who have a large number of retirees that left at an earlier age than most.

RI Auditor General Reports

http://www.oag.state.ri.us/reports/MuniPensionsRI2011.pdf

US Census Quick Facts (median 2005-2009)

http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/44/4459000.html

Cranston – Total Households 29,931, income per household $58,877 local pension liability $244,833,000 (16% funded)

Providence – Total Households 59,356, Income per household $37,273, local pension liability $828,484,000 (34% funded)

Now ask the following question: If you had to lend money to either of the two cities above, which would it be?

In spite of Providence having a better percentage pension funding, it doesn’t take much to realize which city has the better ability to carry the mortgage.