Chad Burkitt memo for Pension Working Group is wrong!

 On November 8th, Chad Burkitt, Analyst for the LCPR published a Memo on the Agenda for the 911 Telecommunicator Pension Benefits Working Group. 

He cites Minnesota Statute 353.63 which spells out which Public Employees receive special provisions for retirement, disability , etc.  "...Since this work is hazardous, special provisions are hereby made for retirement pensions, disability benefits and survivors benefits based on the particular dangers inherent in these occupations..."

He then compares it to the State Plan under MSS 352.90 which specifically mentions "certain correctional employees..." 

Mr. Burkitt then comments on the bottom of the first page of his memo, "We found no similar policy statements for the PERA Local Government Correctional Service Retirement Plan or the MSRS State Patrol Plan." 

This is patently FALSE! The entire State Statute section of 353 is Public Employees Retirement Association (PERA) and 353.63 does not exist in a vacuum but is a comprehensive part of the PERA Correctional Plan! 

MSS 353E.o2 spells out the PERA Correctional Plan.

MSS 353.031 Sub 2 Directly ties police and fire and corrections to the Retirement plan in 353.63! 

"Subd. 2.Plan document policy statement.

 Disability determinations for the public employees general fund must be made subject to section 353.01, subdivision 19; and for the police and fire plan and the local government correctional service retirement plan must be made consistent with the legislative policy and intent set forth in section 353.63."   (Emphasis mine.)

What's the big deal? First off Chad Burkitt is an Attorney and an Analyst for the LCPR. As such his legal memos should be correct. Secondly, the LCPR is supposed to be neutral as to what this Working Group decides as far as possibly increasing 911 Telecommunicator Pension Benefits and even adding them to the PERA Correctional Plan. 

His memo appears to put his thumb on the scale in favor of adding Dispatchers to the Correctional Plan. Why is a supposed neutral party even contributing a Memo to the Agenda of the Working Group?

A good question!