Which if that is the law, you will see Municipalities stop funding pension funds totally and giving insane pensions as they won't have to fund them as the state will save them.
What you have just mentioned is what I would call the *opposite* of losing local control. Local control isn't just how the money is invested. It's also how much the pensions will pay.
I agree, You couldn't have local control if the state is on the hook for any contract that had a pension with it, from the beginning of even offering it the state would need to sign off.
There are communities now that pay special milage for pensions that court settlements have placed on them, how would this bankruptcy filing change that? Would those communities then sue saying the state needed to make up their pension shortfalls vs just that local community? The court has many interesting questions to answer.
That's a good group of questions. I think the state may take the position that if you are bankrupt, and have gone through the EM process, then and only then can you get some state relief.There are communities now that pay special milage for pensions that court settlements have placed on them, how would this bankruptcy filing change that? Would those communities then sue saying the state needed to make up their pension shortfalls vs just that local community? The court has many interesting questions to answer.
In a "politics makes strange bedfellows" moment, the result would be that some localities with the strongest opposition to PA 436 will rush to go through that process to get out of the pension shortfall funding obligation. Maybe.
|
Bookmarks