Employer contributions to New York State and Local Retirement System will decrease for fiscal year 2016-17

Employer contributions to New York State and Local Retirement System will decrease for fiscal year 2016-17

Source: Office of the State Comptroller

On September 4, 2015 New York State Comptroller Thomas P. DiNapoli announced the New York State and Local Retirement System (NYSLRS) employer contribution rates will decrease for fiscal year 2016-17 and the assumed rate of return for NYSLRS will be lowered from 7.5 percent to 7 percent.*

The average contribution rate for the Employees’ Retirement System (ERS) will decrease from 18.2 percent of payroll to 15.5 percent. While the average contribution rate for the Police and Fire Retirement System (PFRS) will decrease from 24.7 percent of payroll to 24.3 percent. This is the third year in a row that there will be a decline in pension contribution rates as a result of solid investment returns DiNapoli said.

Predicting a “tougher investment climate ahead,“ the Comptroller said that assuming a lower assumed rate of return is fiscally prudent and will better position the state pension fund for the future.**  Employer rates are determined based on actuarial assumptions recommended by NYSLRS’ actuary Michael R. Dutch.

The announced rates will apply to each employer’s salary base during the period April 1, 2015 through March 31, 2016. Payments based on those rates are due by Feb. 1, 2017, but may be pre-paid by Dec. 15, 2016. Projections of required contribution rates will vary by employer depending on factors such as retirement plans, salaries and the distribution of employees among the six retirement tiers.

This is the second time since becoming State Comptroller in 2007 that the Comptroller has lowered the assumed rate of return. In 2010, he lowered the assumed rate of return from 8 percent to 7.5 percent. According the National Association of State Retirement Administrators, the median assumed rate of return for public pension funds is 7.75 percent.

The Annual Report to the Comptroller on Actuarial Assumptions is posted on the Internet at:

http://www.osc.state.ny.us/retire/word_and_pdf_documents/reports/actuarial_assumption/aa_2015.pdf

A chart of historical employer contribution rates is posted on the Internet at:

http://www.osc.state.ny.us/press/releases/sept15/1972-2017_Hist_Emp_Contrib_Avg_Rates.pdf

A “fact sheet” about the NYSLRS is posted on the Internet at:

http://www.osc.state.ny.us/retire/word_and_pdf_documents/general_info/nyslrs_fact_sheet.pdf

*  The National Association of State Retirement Administrators reports that the median assumed rate of return for public pension funds is 7.75 percent.

** The audited value of the New York State Common Retirement Fund as of March 31, 2015 was $184.5 billion.

Testing positive for marijuana

Testing positive for marijuana

OATH Index No. 1686/15

OATH Index No. 1685/15

In OATH 1686/15 the employee attributed his violation of his employer’s substance abuse policy to the employee’s difficulties with his former spouse.  

Following an accident involving a sanitation worker's truck and a civilian car, which resulted in injuries to passengers in both vehicles, the employee submitted to drug and alcohol testing in accordance with the department's substance abuse policy. At the OATH hearing the employee admitted to testing positive for marijuana and testified on own his behalf in mitigation of the employer's proposed penalty.

Although the employee attributed his violation of the policy to difficulties with his former wife, OATH Administrative Law Judge Ingrid M. Addison was not persuaded that he was not a risk to relapse. Judge Addison recommended that the employee be dismissed from his position, noting that the employee had violated the substance abuse policy three times, and had previously received a 44-day suspension for similar conduct.

In contrast, in OATH 1685/15 the employee’s claim that he had innocently ingested marijuana” as his defense after testing positive for marijuana was credited by the Administrative Law Judge.

In this case, the employee charged with testing positive for marijuana raised the defense of "innocent ingestion" of the drug. OATH Administrative Law Judge Kevin A. Casey recommended dismissal of the charge.

The worker testified that he attended a party, where he got into an argument with an acquaintance. As a “joke,” the acquaintance later gave the employee a marijuana-laced brownie, without telling him that it contained marijuana. The employee testified that he then ate the brownie not knowing that it contained marijuana. Judge Casey found that the acquaintance’s credible testimony corroborated the employee's version of events, particularly because the acquaintance had no motive to lie and she testified to participating in illegal activities against her own interests.

Finding that the employee did not knowingly ingest marijuana, ALJ Casey recommended that the charges be dismissed. 

The 1686/15 decision is posted on the Internet at:

http://archive.citylaw.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/17/oath/15_cases/15-1686.pdf

The OATH Index No. 1685/15 decision is posted on the Internet at:

http://archive.citylaw.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/17/oath/15_cases/15-1685.pdf

________________

The Discipline Book -- A 448 page e-book focusing on disciplinary actions involving State, municipal and school district officers and employees. For more information click on http://thedisciplinebook.blogspot.com/

________________

Using personal cell phones in the course of conducting “official business”

Using personal cell phones in the course of conducting “official business”

Glenda Nissen v Pierce County, Supreme Court of the State of Washington, Docket #90875~3

In 2010 the Supreme Court of the State of Washington ruled that the State’s Public Records Act (PRA) applied to a record stored on a personal computer. The court explained that "[i]f government employees could circumvent the PRA by using their home computers for government business, the PRA could be drastically undermined."*

In the Nissen case the Washington Supreme Court considered a similar issue: Does the PRA apply when a public employee uses a private cell phone to conduct government business?

The court held that "text messages sent and received by a public employee in the employee's official capacity are public records of the employer, even if the employee uses a private cell phone.”

Presumably any record regardless of its format concerning or related to “official business” found or stored on the private cell phone of a public officer or employee would be viewed by the court as a public record subject to the State of Washington’s PRA.

* O'Neill v. City of Shoreline, 170 Wn.2d 138

The decision is posted on the Internet at:

http://hr.cch.com/ELD/NissenPierceCounty.pdf