Retirement issues resolved: You lost
June 11, 2008
Keene Sentinel
Dennis Kinnan was apparently still asleep when I called him at 6:30 a.m. So I left a voice mail telling him I was on my way to the gym and would be having yogurt and orange juice for breakfast when I got back. I also called him to say I had finished folding the laundry and was taking my golden retriever, Alice, to the vet for a checkup. And I called him in the afternoon to say that my husband and I were thinking of going to the Chinese restaurant to have lemon chicken for dinner.
I’ve been trying to keep Dennis aware of my comings and goings to save him the trouble of following me. He’s a retired state employee from the Department of Corrections who now works for the state employee union – the State Employees Association or SEA. And he’s been following me around Concord and then e-mailing my activities to the several thousand members of his union. I don’t know whether following me is his idea or part of his job with the SEA.
What I do know is that the SEA and the other public employee unions are really mad at me for siding with the taxpayers in the battle over reform of their pension system. The New Hampshire Retirement System is a mess. It’s $2.7 billion in the hole, has been bleeding red ink for years, and is in the worst shape of almost all the state retirement systems in the country.
So my N.H. House committee worked through legislation that over a period of years and decades would restore the system to health. The full House overwhelmingly went along with our changes and sent the bill to the Senate. The Senate gutted most of our reforms and sent the bill to a committee of conference to resolve the differences between the Senate and House versions.
The committee of conference was a breathtaking example of special interest politicking. The two sides were unevenly matched. On one side were the approximately 77,000 current and retired public employees in the retirement system. At risk for them were the changes the House had proposed: capping retirement benefits at 100 percent of salary (So we don’t end up paying people more not to work than to work.), a reduction in the medical subsidies that reduce the cost of retirees’ health insurance, replacement of the union majority on the retirement system board with some financial experts, and requiring newly hired police and firefighters to work for 25 years, as they do in 48 other states, rather than the 20 years they work here.
On the other side were the 1.1 million typical taxpayers of New Hampshire who don’t belong to the retirement system. At risk for them were: the 15 percent increase in contributions by towns, cities and school districts (meaning property taxpayers) that had already occurred in the previous two years, a potential 53 percent increase in those contributions in coming years if the system is not reformed, and (eventually) getting stuck with the $2.7 billion bill if the system collapses.
It turned out to be no contest. The 77,000 members of the retirement system easily bested the 1.1 million taxpayers. They boasted of mobilizing 1,000 members to send hundreds of e-mails to legislators; they recruited so many retirees to show up for the committee of conference that I couldn’t open the door of my hearing room because of the crowds in the hallway; and mostly they flexed their muscles in the Senate.
During the committee of conference negotiations, the union reps routinely intruded into the proceedings, handed notes to the senators, and summoned senators into the hallway for additional instructions. And in one episode I found particularly troubling, a union lobbyist, in the wee hours of the morning when everyone’s nerves were frayed from a long day of negotiations, stood in the corridor openly screaming at the Senate president, the second highest elected official of our state.
And from the other side, the regular taxpayers, there was silence, because those 1.1 million people didn’t know what was being done to them. In my case, versus the hundreds of e-mails, the dozens of phone calls, and the corridors crowded with union people, there was a grand total of two phone calls from ordinary taxpayers.
The triumph of special interests is as old as politics. But there is an aspect to this episode that is unique to New Hampshire. The founders of our bicameral system envisioned that the lower house would be closer to the people and the upper house would be able to take the longer view, watching out for the interests of the body politic as a whole. And from that synthesis, according to the bicameral theory, should come good public policy.
That theory didn’t work in this instance because of numbers and dollars. The New Hampshire House, with its 400 members, is indeed close to the people. And it’s hard for special interest groups to corral 201 members to their way of thinking. But in the 24-member Senate, the lobbyists only have to round up a baker’s dozen of senators – 13 is a majority – to control the legislative process.
And many senators are eager to be rounded up. In the six years I’ve been in the Legislature, the cost of a Senate campaign has risen even faster than the price of gasoline. In 2002, Senate campaigns cost around $20,000. This year, many senators are talking about spending more than $100,000 on their coming campaigns. So they need the support and the donations of special-interest groups.
And that is why, when the interests of 77,000 public employees collide with the interests of 1.1 million ordinary taxpayers in the Senate, the taxpayers don’t have a chance.
Anne-Marie Irwin, D-Peterborough, represents Greenville, New Ipswich, Peterborough and Sharon in the New Hampshire House of Representatives. She chairs the Executive Departments and Administration Committee.