Show Public Retirement I Repeal Issues Issue J The new special session of the Legislature Legislature Legis Legis- lature should not repeal the r I Act of 1951 and thus revert back to the the state retirement system Insisted Owen I Astin Executive Secretary of the Utah Public Employees Retirement Committee Commit Commit- te tee I We hope the Legislature will take take a I political non-political view of the retirement problem and amend the Act to reduce Its cost We feel he said I under no circumstances should federal coverage be sacrificed and the still more costly state retirement system be rein rein- stated As a last resort 1 If agreement cannot cannot cannot can can- not be reached on how to amend the Act then the Act should be maintained even 1 If there is an an Immediate cost of several million dollars dollars dol dol- lars because there still would be De savings In the long run under federal coverage I dOl-I as compared to the old state system Mr Astin stated that the more liberal federal benefits to a majority of employees employees em em- the greater financial soundness and the Inherent savings of over a million million mil mil- lion Pion dollars a year would ultimately offset off off- offset set the high cost of liquidation It is imperative he said that the new start I retroactive coverage to January 1 I 1951 be taken advantage of as soon as pos pos- i sible At the present time there is a rigid deadline date of December 31 for the I agreement between the federal government government government govern govern- ment and the state The majority of of employees which I represent said Mr Astin agree that the cost features of the Act can be reduced by nonpartisan nonpartisan non- non partisan cooperation of the legislators the taxpayers and the employees of this state Mr Astin traced the history of his appointment to the Utah Public Employees Employees Employees Em Em- Retirement Committee by saying that meetings were held throughout the state of Utah Invitations were extended through department heads for all employees employees employees em em- to attend As a result of numerous numerous numerous numer numer- ous meetings a committee of employee representatives were elected from 30 different different dif dif- I ferent local and state stare agencies I It was the of or this Committee Committee Com Com- Committee that some very difficult problems ems would arise and unbiased information pertaining to federal security coverage compared to state coverage was sary Many employees who are directly concerned are not aware of their own interests said Mr Astin who feels there here has been a lot of misinformation as as s a result of the heated repeal contest inthe Inthe in inthe the 19 1951 1 special session For example Mr Astin took issue with testimony offered of offered offered of- of in the Legislative Council public hearing in which Newell Knight a city i employee asserted that of the state system employees ees would be de benefited by I repeal of the federal system as the he the Act was finally passed As a matter of fact I Mr Astin countered the repeal was so liberal that all employees without ex exception exception ex- ex were were benefited and certain amendments should be made to reduce the cost of the repeal The re recent ent supreme supreme supreme su su- preme court decision upholding constitutionality constitutionality constitutionality of the repeal has made this clear The problem of the new legislature Is to reduce the cost of the repeal and still treat all employees in an equitable manner Mr A Astin in pointed out that older enl enl- who would be hurt most it If It I I reverted back back to the state system are the workers over 55 years of age who do doI donot donot not have ten years of service and will have practically no protection whatsoever whatsoever whatsoever I ever under the state system except refund re refund refund re- re fund of contributions Under the federal r system he said those older employees would have complete protection with 18 months of service Instead of the 15 years or more required by the state He stressed that employees who gain most by substitution of the federal system system I tem for the state system are the ones regardless of age or length of service who are heads of families or have de dependents de- de I He pointed out that federal security coverage provides Insurance inthe in In Inthe Ithe i the case of death to survivors up to I per month depending on the number number number num num- ber of children while the state system carried no insurance features at all except ex except except ex- ex return of contribution |