The Utah Legislature is about to consider whether or not to make major changes to the Utah Public Employee Retirement System.  Senator Dan Liljenquist, R—Bountiful, is proposing a set of bills that would dramatically reform retirement compensation to public employees.  One of Liljenquist’s proposals would do away with the state’s defined pension system as we know it today for individuals hired after July 1, 2011. 

I believe this is the wrong approach, and that making a major change such as this one is not in the best interest of Utah’s future.  Advocates for Utah’s state employees have called upon the Senator to slow down, study the issue very carefully, and proceed with caution.  I agree with them.  There are many things at stake, and while some changes to the employee pension system may be necessary and prudent, our highest priority must be the economic viability of our state, not only for today, but also for the future.

I applaud the Senator’s recognition that we have contractual obligations to current employees, and his  efforts to ensure they are not affected by this legislation.  That is an important and meaningful gesture.  We know that many Utah families have seen difficult times during our current economic downturn.  Utah’s public employees have been no exception.  As a state, we are facing huge budget deficits.  Many of Utah’s teachers, police officers, firefighters, those who protect the most vulnerable, etc. have been required and will be required to take days off without pay.  Some may even lose their jobs as we cut budgets and begin our recovery from this recession.  We are continuing to ask public employees to do more with less and they are living up to the challenge.

What concerns me most, however, is Senator Liljenquist’s insistence that we absolutely must rush to a decision this legislative session.  I believe that a change as major as this one needs greater input and a more open and collaborative process.  We must consider the opinions and perspectives of legislators, stakeholders, public employees, universities, future college graduates, and the public in general. Coming to solutions together requires a much more cooperative and engaging process, much like what we have done in our state health care reform efforts.  In our discussions, we need to ask one question:  “What does a major change like this mean for the future of our state?”

It is my belief that Utah’s future stability relies on our ability to hire and retain the best teachers, police officers, fire fighters, etc.  With the proposed changes on the table, what would Utah’s future workforce look like?   Would our compensation and benefits package be enough to encourage a career in public service?  Or, would state employment be considered as a launching pad to other opportunities?    When public service is viewed this way, institutional knowledge can be lost and the efficiency of state agencies could be compromised.

Public employment in Utah must remain a viable career option.  Therefore, I strongly encourage my colleagues in the Utah Legislature to slow down and engage all stake holders more thoroughly and responsibly, so that we can keep the Utah Retirement System strong for all public employees – now and in the future.