Westfield's Mayor Addresses State Pension Report
The Town of Westfield was named among 58 municipalities in a report from the state comptroller that shows that 202 independent contractors should have been removed from the state's pension fund.
The following letter was sent to Patch from the office of Westfield Mayor Andy Skibitsky:
The Office of the State Comptroller (OSC) surveyed 58 of 1,162 municipalities and school districts regarding the pension reform law passed by the State in 2007 and put into effect in 2008. On July 17, 2012 the OSC issued a report entitled “Improper Participation by Professional Service Providers in the State Pension System” (“Report”). In simplest terms, the specific issue at hand is who is an employee and who is an independent contractor, using IRS rulings as the guideline. According to the IRS, “In each case, it is very important to consider all the facts – no single fact provides the answer.” It should be noted that while Westfield did respond to the OSC’s survey, Westfield was not specifically mentioned in the Report.
Let me assure the public that the Town was well aware of the 2007 pension reform law. (Had the Leader checked its own archives, it perhaps would have discovered that I had written about the change in the law in a previous letter to the editor.) Upon the law’s passage, the Council’s Finance and Personnel Policy Committee examined the 46 page law. Rest assured, since the new law went into effect, the new enrollment criteria has been applied and all new hires and appointees are properly enrolled in the pension plan prescribed by the State.
I have said this many times before. In any discussion about public pensions, keep in mind that it is the State of New Jersey, not the Town of Westfield, that mandates who must enroll in the State pension system and in what plan. Prior to the enactment of the 2007 law, the State required all non-seasonal, non-police and fire employees earning over $1,500 per year and not collecting another government pension to enroll in the State’s Public Employees Retirement System (“PERS”) as a condition of employment. (In fact, any governmental entity that did not comply was assessed “delinquent enrollment charges”.) The 2007 reforms established new enrollment thresholds for PERS and also created a new pension plan, the Defined Contribution Retirement Program (“DCRP”), for local appointees and new employees who do not meet the new PERS thresholds. The Town of Westfield followed in good faith the instructions included in a notice issued by the State, “An individual who was a member of PERS prior to July 1, 2007 may continue their PERS membership when appointed to a DCRP position, if the person has ‘continuously’ been a member since that time.”
The Report concludes with recommendations, not indictments. Those recommendations include referring the names of the service providers referenced in the Report to the Division of Pension and Benefits for further review, and the implementation of a comprehensive checklist modeled after the certification form the State of New York uses to determine who is an employee and who is an independent contractor. (To illustrate just how complex making the determination can be, the NYS form lists 21 factors to consider.) Perhaps such clarification from the State is long overdue, given the complexity of the issues at hand and that 57 of 58 entities interpreted the law similarly.
Finally, regarding the quest for names of individuals, when contacted directly, the OSC would not reveal to the Town of Westfield the names of the service providers referred to the Division of Pension and Benefits for further review, even when specifically asked by the Town if any present or past Westfield Town employees are so named.
Hoopdie Damn Doo
11:57 am on Thursday, July 26, 2012
Looks like a lawyer wrote that. Skibitsky isn't smart enough to put his position into words. PATCH, have you gotten a verbal response from the phone messages left for town official's? The Mayor is clearly shifting blame when he and the administrator of Westfield knew what was being done was questionable and deemed "pension abuse" by the state.
Sally McBride
12:02 pm on Friday, July 27, 2012
And people wonder why officials do not "answer the question" when really all people want to do is take the chance to insult people. Hopefully you are not in charge of anything (and probably will never be).
Holden MaGroin
12:30 pm on Thursday, July 26, 2012
I'm Holden MaGroin and Fanwood has the same problem. I wrote the below in the SPF Patch, but it fits here also.
Today's Times/Leader has an article on this.Let me summarize the 2 mayors' comments.
"The State of NJ determines who does and doesn't participate in the pension system"
"Lets not rush to judgement"
"We followed the rules in good faith"
"We were not mentioned in the report" - this one makes me laugh the hardest. I read the report. The "report" gives anecdotal examples and names only a couple of the 57 communities. So yes, Fanwood and Westfield were not on the "report". But they were on the "list". It's the "list" that is causing us more money.
"We take these matters very seriously"
"There were 21 confusing and difficult questions that determine eligibility" That came from Westfield but I'm sure if pressed, Fanwood could have come up with that as well.
"The State wouldn't tell us who the employee(s) are"
Well I'm not a very smart man, but I was able to find someone on that report with a few keystrokes. I may not have also got all 21 questions right, but I think I could have passed the test.
Believe it or not, i'm currently at a loss for words. I would think that instead of all the quotes from above, they may have said "we goofed". "We're sorry, it was a mistake that shouldn't have happened and it won't happen again." People may have been annoyed at first, but I admire someone who can admit that they are not perfect in every action. Oh well.