Anti-Vote Appendix 3

7/31/2019 Anti-Vote Appendix 3

1/389

I apologize for the following error. In the June 9, 2011 memo to Andrew McDonald paragraph 3 June2, 2011 should read June 1, 2011. Thank you.

[June 9, 2011 memo attached]


2/389

To: Andrew McDonald

From: Anthony McKnight Sr.

Re: Fed Complaint 3:10cv1471

Date: June 9, 2011

Dear Sir,

I am in receipt of the May 10, 2011 response to Federal Complaint 3:10cv1471 from the State of Connecticut Attorney General Office, Assistant Attorney General Maura Murphy-Osborne.

This correspondence is an attempt to bring to the attention of the Office of the Governor , thedisparities within the policy and the legal defense within the response.

For instance, on June 2, 2011, the governor during a press briefing mentioned, I believe, about adheringor abiding by the law. The response of the assistant attorney general does not reflect that policy.

State Senator Suzio mentioned during a June 2, 2011 session at hour five through hour five and thirtyminutes that the methodology (not the law) used by the state during the previous two decades orMore were fraudulent, and in fact the state kept two separate records.

Mistakes were made in the past.

The Governor stated on June 9, 2011. However, the attorneyrepresenting your administration is using the very same fraudulent arguments of the past.

I have requested a conference with defense counsel, to no avail. The state has until June 13, 2011 torespond to the complaint. Is it possible that your office can meet with defense counsel and reach acommon defense? This will save some time and costs involving the complaint.

Senator Harp retorted that what transpired during the course of the past two or more decades was notfraud. State employees intentionally misrepresented facts material to my workers compensationbenefits among other things.

If it was not fraud, then why did this happen to me? Consistent with mistakes , Why hasn t anyone

fixed this? No that you can, but assistant attorney argument indicates not fix , not mistake , not


3/389

Case 3:03-cv-00221-AVC Document 251 Filed 07/01/11 Page 1 of 23


4/389



5/389



6/389



7/389



8/389



9/389



10/389



11/389



12/389



13/389


C 3 03 00221 AVC D 251 Fil d 07/01/11 P 12 f 23


14/389


C 3 03 00221 AVC D t 251 Fil d 07/01/11 P g 13 f 23


15/389


Case 3:03 cv 00221 AVC Document 251 Filed 07/01/11 Page 14 of 23


16/389




17/389




18/389

Case 3:03 cv 00221 AVC Document 251 Filed 07/01/11 Page 16 of 23



19/389

g



20/389

g



21/389



22/389



23/389



24/389



25/389


26/389

CERTFICATION

This is to Certify that a copy of the Foregoing has been electronically mailed to State of Connecticut Assistant Attorney General Donna Hixon-Summers at [email protected]

on this 2 nd day of January, 2011.

This is to Certify that a signed copy of the Foregoing has been sent Via Facsimile this 2 nd dayof January, 2011 to Assistant Attorney General Donna Hixon-Summers at (860) 808-5387.

This is to Certify that a signed copy of the Foregoing has been posted for download atUrbnanthony.com.

A Copy of the Complaint/ Amended Complaint was mailed Via US Mail on November 23,2010 and a signed copy will be mailed January 5 th 2011 to Assistant Attorney General Donna

Hixon-Summers 55 Elm St., Hartford, CT 06106.


27/389


28/389


29/389


30/389


31/389


32/389


33/389


34/389


35/389


36/389


37/389


38/389


39/389


40/389


41/389


42/389


43/389


44/389


45/389

APPENDIX B


46/389


47/389


48/389


49/389


50/389


51/389


52/389


53/389


54/389

APPENDIX C


55/389


56/389


57/389


58/389

APPENDIX D


59/389


60/389


61/389


62/389


63/389


64/389

APPENDIX E


65/389


66/389


67/389


68/389


69/389


70/389


71/389


72/389


73/389


74/389


75/389

APPEN D I X F

PO: Hey, Anthony.


76/389

AM: Hey, hows it goin?PO: Hows it goin, man?ML: Matt LaCluyze, nice to meet you.

PO: Hows li fe, alr ight?

AM: Alright...ML: I appreciate you meetin us.

AM: if homeless is alright. If homeless is alr ight.

PO: Well , we all got our cross to bear, right?

AM: Yup.

PO: Some of the greatest.hey Im gonna walk inside. I gotta use the bathroom.

AM: Yup. Its downstair s to your right.

PO: Alr ight, thanks man.

ML: I appreciate you meetin me.

AM: Yeah, whats whats going on basicall y?

ML: You tell me, what can we do for you?

AM: Well, Im w aiting for Workers Compensation to settl e my case.ML: Okay.AM: I, ya know , I haveI heard f rom the Disabil it ies people,

ML: Okay.


77/389

AM: in front of Commissioner Delaney and

ML: Yeah.

AM: the Assistant A ttorney General, she, uh, admits to losing and destroying papers in my fi le.Thi i f il th t t d t b i fil


78/389

Things were in my f ile, that werent supposed to be in my fil e.

ML: Yup.

AM: ...They dont know w ho put it in my file. You know theythey put, somebody, uh, puttogether a Separation of State packet or w hatever, you know and I had no idea it was in there. Ididnt sign any papers or any of that thing like that

ML: Yup.

AM: You know, but what I did do I told em I would consider my r esignation, but you know yourea State Police Officer.

ML: Yup.

AM: you know that you have to retire from State Serv ice, if you get injured offwhen you getinjured on the job

ML: Yup.

AM: you have to sign your w ay, you know,

ML: Yup.

AM: your w ay out. And that never happened. You know, its been 17 years, I been trying to getthi s to happen.

ML: Yup.

AM: You know then this guy Dzuzenda or whatever his name one of the wardens from DOC, he

was in charge of the Task Force in 95

ML: Okay

AM: He looked up some things and heand they took it from there and the ball got roll ing; youknow they basically took my case from 1995 because I fi led a Federal lawsui t against John Roland

ML: Okay.

AM: and the DOC then


79/389

AM: and the DOC then

ML: Yup

AM: you know for H arassment, Discriminationor w hateverwhat have you. And then theypicked up my case and started investigating and it s too bad they didnt get Blumenthal and all ofem. They only got Roland,

ML: Yup

AM: you know, soRell s sti ll there and then thi s thing with SiscoBrenda Sisco. And shes atOPM, she was at DA S. They had the Agency for A ffirmative Action in DAS and she was doing allthis crazy stuff, you couldntyou know even w hen I fi led a complaint and I went out to theTroopers Barracks out here in Bethany

ML: yup.AM: the troopers wouldnt do anything. They wouldnt do anythi ng. They said they couldntdo anything about it . And i t w asnt until Agent Boone got involved that they really started to takeit seriously.

ML: Now, what did you tell the troopers*(cant hear w hat he said ) by that time?

AM: Oh, I told them theyre out there. I feel like thats kind of Harassment. You know, Im outhere on Workers Compensation

ML: Yup

AM: you know Im try ing to get a Doctor you know and they took my Doctor away.and then Istarted getti ng letters: Im on out on workIm on Unauthorized Leave of Absence la la la and

if you dont do this were going to termi nate you.

ML: yup

AM: You know I went in front of Workers Compensation 13 times. Thats like a kangaroo court . Imean 13 times.

ML: Yeah

AM: 13timesI went I even won my case The Commissioner ever granted me my injuri es and


80/389

AM: 13 times I went. I even won my case. The Commissioner ever granted me my injuri es andthey sti ll ,

(Cant hear w hat you said Phone call)

AM: Hm? Liz, oh Ill call her back. but you know theyre basically uh

ML: Im just gonna take notes if you dont mind

PO: Whats the current status of the Workmans Comp claim now?

AM: Well , Im w aiting (chuckle) ..

PO: I mean its been going on for so long.

AM: Yeah, but this is the thing.Delaney, Commissioner Delaney he heard the PreFormal hearingon my f ir st* in 1990 uh 95, 96, 97. He heard all of my PreFormal issues. The issues I raised in myPreFormal w as the same issues he granted Cozzoli no or Cozzol ini . The same issues that I raisedwhere he said he couldnt give me my benefi ts; the same issues that hehis attorney raised for himand he got his benefi ts. And Commissioner Delaney said so on may 5th that he actually heard hisCozzolino

PO: The white C.O., the white guy?

AM: Yeah, I mean theres a few of em. I mean, Im doing my w ork and theyr e not doing theirwork. You know, Im not stupid. If I goIf I go up in front of the Commission and Im out hereand Im interviewing Im not only out here fi ling for myself.Im out here interviewing peoplethat I worked in the union that I represented in the State of Workers Compensation issues in DM Rand the Department of Corrections.

PO: Yeah, but his situation didnt w ork out for him.

AM: Yes it did. His situation worked out great. He Reti red.

that injury and I dont get credi ted for servi ce for the time that I m off f rom w ork and he getscredited time for time hes off of w ork was the same issue. The same medical i ssue. I can not domy job any l onger and I have the same medical documentation. I mean, I researched his case. Itsthe same issue and all Im saying is how did he get credi ted for serv ice and I dont get credi ted forserv ice? How does someone put a Separation of State Form in my folder? How did I reti re and Idi dnt get any reti rement paperw ork?How did it happen? Who actually sealed this stuf f and


81/389

di dn t get any reti rement paperw ork? How did it happen? Who actually sealed this stuf f andsigned my paperwork and all thi s stuff to process me out of State Service.

ML: Now you mentioned before that there was a, um, Commi ssioner or somebody you said that,that uh admi tted to you that somethingstuf f w as in you fil e that shouldnt have been.

AM: Yeah, I mean the, I mean the, Co

ML: Do you remember?AM: Commissioner Delaney. We were.ML: No, no, no.AM:...sitting there in a PreFormalML: No, you mentioned that i t was a State, not a senator or somethin like that. I know youmentioned Delaney, you said there was somebody, I dont know if it w as DA S or w herever, yousaid they finally admit ted to you there was paperw ork in your fi le that shouldnt have been there.

Do you remember w ho that w as?

AM: No, no, no, there was aYoure talki ng about the Attorney General..

ML: Yes, okay..

AM: Assistant Attorney Donna Hixon-Smith.

ML: Okay, now she.AM: ...thats who your e * talking about (?)ML: Im just asking you because you d idnt say the name earl ier, you just menti oned somebodyfrom.

AM: From the Attorney Generals Office.

ML: Okay and that was.*(?)AM: Yeah, you could *...I mean you need to talk to her and you need to talk to

ML: What washer name again?

AM: Hey man, it w as a crazy ride. I dont know what shes doing now, but shes* its like achameleon.

PO: And shes a Assistant Attorney General.

AM: Yeah, theyl l tell you. And you might want to talk to Dianne Pierpont. She's sti ll at, uh.


82/389

AM: Yeah, they l l tell you. And you might want to talk to Dianne Pierpont. Shes sti ll at, uh.DT: Social ServicesAM: Social Services. She use to be at DOC, but shes at Social Services.

PO: Dianne? Pierpont?

AM: Pierpont. Yeah, she was managing my fi le at DOC. And Linda Fowler retired. I dontInever met M itch Drabekbut he sent

PO: Wheres Dianne at now? You said she

AM: Dianne Pierpont is at Social Serv ices.

PO: Social Services, she was at DOC.

AM: Right, now I have never met Mitch Drabek, but hes the one that sent me the termination,unauthor ized leave of absence papers.

PO: Okay, now w hos that? Whats his name again?

AM: Mitch Drabek. I dont know who this guy i s. But hes the one that sent me those papers backthen.

PO: But, hes not from DOC?

AM: Hes from DOC when I was there you know when I w as going through this

PO: Personnel Divisionor somethin?

AM: Right, I never met him, because he was saying come into my office so I could terminateyouor somethingI w as li ke terminate you I got * .this is the peculiar thing..He, They gave300 some odd days of unauthorized leave. Youits crazyI dont know what

PO: And you were out on WorkmansComp duri ng that time?

PO: YepSo thats on file now they cant touch it

AM: Yes. They cant change that. But w hat Im trying to tell you is theyre try ing to change that!This is what Im, I mean.


83/389

PO: What I dont get though is, I read your f il e and they said theres unauthorized leave ofabsence. How could you have been on Workmans Comp., but i ts sti ll techni call y leave of absence?I dont understand that. You know what I mean?...

AM: Help me.

PO: Maybe you w erent technically out on Workmans Comp. I mean were you? You cant be

AM: You want to read the decision?

PO: What Im saying isone cant be with the other.

AM: (chuckle) Hey, tw o, what did I say?

PO: you know what I mean? Hey, thats why I m asking you. Those letters say.

AM: Tw o objects cannot occupy the same space at the same given time.

PO: Those letters say, Mr. McKni ght.

AM: Yeah

PO: you need to give us medi cal information as to why you re not here; youve not been atwork. Were looking for you. You know w hat I mean?

AM: Yeah, they had all that.

PO: That doesnt make sense though. If youre technicall y out on Workmans Comp, they wouldntbe call ing you or asking you that if youre on Workmans Comp.

AM: Look man, I would say the devil, but they ll say theres something wrong with me. Youknow?....

PO: Yo nderstand o nderstand h Im asking o that?

inf irmary at the jail you know thats not a good thi ng and you would think that people wouldactuall y not make sure that your bil ls dont get paid, but thats what they did. They basicallyruined my l ife. Thats what they did. You got some evi l people in Department of Corrections.Thats just how it i s. I dont have to make it up. I dont have to make it up. I mean I got all thepaperw ork. I mean, I sent in the paperw ork if you


84/389

PO: Now let me ask you something...

AM:If you w ant to see all the paperworkheres the document

PO: No, I wanna ask you a question.

AM: Yeah

PO: Now i s thi s an issue regarding you specifi cally or an issue regarding DOC and the issue ofrace?

AM: I think i ts aWell Im a say this to youI think i ts an issueI think its an issue of how theytreat the di sabled people, it is a issue of race and when it comes out.every Negro and HispanicOfficer I spoke to and i ts been quite a few of them, uh, they all said that theyve been offered thesame Chapter 568 benefits and not the 5-142 benefits, now I dont know , that cant just be acoincidence that where if I sit here and youre the judge and the Law says well If you quali fy forthese benefi ts, uh, youre guaranteed this under the Law provided you get injured on the job. Likesay i f you w as to Thank God youGod forbid if you w ere to get shot and the Law says If you getshot whil e doing your job today that, you know, your hospital bil ls are gonna get paid and theyl lsay w ell if you cant go back to work w ere gonna continue to pay your check, which is only ri ghtyou almost lost your life.

PO: Right

AM:. doing your job defending thi s thing right here. So if the Law says that and I go to you as a judge saying you know I just got shot I got bil ls I got this and youre telling the judge wait a minute,uh, but we got something over here for you and youre saying no I, I want my benefi tsNo wellwere not gonna give you youre benefits, were gonna give you...you know $150 a week, and thenyoure gonna thi s and that and the other thing, you know, thats crazy, but then if I look on and I do

my research and I go up here to the appropriations committee and I actually l ook at the numbersand Im finding out w ell where this money is going and I go to see Mr. Cicchetti in his law firm andI see, uh, Deborah Nemeth in her l aw fi rm and I know the Corrections Officers and them that w entand they represent them and theyre telling me the same stories that Im getting and the attorneys

judge, the judge he did w ri te me. The judge said they havehe wrote me last umFriday, I gotthi s last Friday.

ML: Now, which one, which ones that?

AM: Hey man, this is the best letter I ever had. This is the judgeThe Federal Judge, downtown


85/389

judge. He wrote me last w eek. He didnt even wait for the watchahe didnt even wait for theirresponse to my complaint or nothin he just says you, you knowthis is why I thought you camefrom Workers Compensation totell Mr. Mastropietro and them, they have 19 days before theypick it up and, I mean, I dont think they w ant those people like that in their ass. Because, I hadnothing to do wi th that.

PO: Yup.

AMno one ever helped me like thi s, in 17 years. Thats why I d idnt want to, I was kind of

ML: So, they have to have the decision out for you.

AM: By next Tuesday.

ML: Okay and thats from Workmans Comp?

AM: They know I mand this is whats so funnyw hy make me wait all this time? I mean, Imsti ll homeless 6 months after the heari ng. If youre gonna give me my money couldnt you just giveit to me on the 6 th . I mean, ititsno, but w hat Im saying the people that are calling that areinterested in this case now areare not just bul lshit tin around. You know and Im saying why youneed people like that blowing smoke up your ass, just to get you moving, when this takes 17 years.Why dont you just sign the paperw ork, give me my check, give me my Blue Cross Blue Shield likeI had before so I can go to my dentist and get my jaw fixed or whatever has to be done. Ive beenbleeding for 16 years * so.

ML: Let me ask you a question, were youdid you apply before and were denied?

AM: Apply for what?

ML: Workmans Comp.

AM: No.

ML Lik b f i di d l b f did l b f ?

ML: Thats the.

AM: The 142 is the Chapter 65. See Chapter 568 deals with the Worker s Compensation Law,Chapter 65 just deals specifi cally Publ ic Safety Off icials employee of Department of Corrections,etc., etc.


86/389

ML: So, they let you retire on Workmans, but they wont let you as a State Employee, correct?

AM: They wont process my papers.

ML: Okay.

PO: Are you gonna fil e a motion about thi s or no?

AM: I just want my money. I dont want to fil e.

PO: I know, but this judge is ruli ng against you.

AM: No, hes givi ng me an extension, basicall y

PO: Well, hes saying thatthat the grounds of w hat you put forth on the claim are not suffi cientprobable cause

AM: If you just read

PO: I read the whole thing and i t says at the end that you have an opportunity to file a motion bythe 19 th .

AM: Right.

PO: Otherwise, its over.

AM: Right, this is what Im saying.

PO: Are you fil ing a motion?

AM: I w ont know. It depends on if the case is disposed of on the 2 nd . They have until the 2 nd .

PO: Okyou realize that thi s judge says the facts that you put forth

PO: Oh, because Im thinking you better do it sooner or later.

AM: I have unti l the 19 th and I have a meeting w ith the disabiliti es people, so, Theyl l besee whathappened iswhat happened i s they had athe timing the timing from the EEOC and the overlapfrom the time the Worker s Compensation has their decision is like a 2 weeks difference. So the 2weeks difference I hadtheylike I told you, if they w anted to render the decision before the

d


87/389

November 2 nd deadl ine they could have and I w ouldnt have to be going through thi s, but becausethey didnt I have to file these papers in Federal Court, to keep my options open. My Abil ity toSue them open, so this is only basically a 30 day extension.

PO (to ML): This is saying he didnt put any facts forth regarding the casetheres not sufficient

facts to even have a case and

AM: Until I file.

PO (to ML): he has to file w ith suffi cient facts

ML: Are you gonna fi le though?

AM: They said theyre gonna let me know next week.

ML: Alr ight, so, and thats from Workmans Comp, right?

AM: Right, see I cant fi le.

ML: If the Workmans Comp denies you, youll f il e a claim?

AM: If they...If they give me my decision and allow me to retire thethis is not anything.

PO: But, what Im saying is, why havent you provided them with the facts prior to this now?

AM: Because, Im sitt ing here waiti ng for the decision from OPEB

PO: Okay. AM: Im waiting for the decision from the Department of Administrative Services

PO: Yup

ML: Can I see that?

AM: They gave mesee the EEOC gave me permission to sue, but the days that they gave mepermission to sue betw een that and the time the decision is due

PO: Yup.


88/389

AM:it doesnt overlap, so, I had to fil e my papers to keep my, my...what do they call i t, myummy Abil ity to Sue open. Basicall y, what is that is, is a 30 day extension. Thats basically w hatit i s; its a 30 day extension.

PO: Yeah.

AM: But, if they dont have it done by like say if they dont have it done by the end of next week,yeah I l l have them in by the week before that.

ML: They have to havethey have to have their, uh

(Cant hear I think hes talking about the judge)

PO: Judge.

AM: Judge ?Travick*?

ML: Yeah, but your uh, you have to have your Workmans Comp thi ng out by the 3 rd ; you have tohave in your hand by the 3 rd , right?

AM: Well the case was closed on July 6 th , so he said he has 120 days.

PO: Let me ask something. What do you think the rulings gonna be?

AM: I dont know, man.

PO: You have no idea?

AM: Man, I was going through thisI have no idea.

PO: Do you think i ts gonna be in your favor?

AM: It should be I w as thinking it should have been in my favor every time I w ent in front of a

AM: Its gonnaif i ts not i ts gonna be great. I dont care which way, I been out here in the streetsleeping out here for 17 years.

PO: What do you mean by? I dont understand what youre sayingits gonna be great

AM: I mean it s gonna be great. Di d you see my w ebsite?


89/389

PO: I did, but youre saying if they rulethey rul e against you i ts gonna be great. I don t knowwhat that means.

AM: I mean if they wanna cause chaos and havoc in their lives, thats fine.

PO: Theres already a ton of chaos and havoc being caused right now, (chuckle) on everybodys

end.

AM: This is what Im saying so if they w ant to resolve thi s, they could resolve thi s.

I mean what can I do? What can I do? I cant do anything. Only thing I can do is.

PO: I think thats what were

AM:is wait.

PO: here I think thats what were here asking you.

AM: ...is settle my case. They have my settlement papers. I gave them my settlement papers.

ML: Okay

AM: Workers Compensation is

ML: Let me ask you a dumb question though, just Im gonna put it out there bluntly for ya, if theyrule against you, youre not gonna try anythi ng stupid , right?

DT: Hm!

AM: Stupid?

AM: No, no, no. Stop, stop, stop. I havent done anything of a criminal nature since I w as .Im46, stop playing.

PO: We dont even know w hy w ere here.

DT: I mean he did hi s job. You did your job. Let them do theirs.


90/389

AM: This is whyl isten.Youre here because.

PO: As an agent of the State. (chuckle)

AM:...Youre here as an agent of the State. But because, Mrs. Obama cared enough to make surethat I stop sleeping on the street. Thats why youre here. You dont know why youre here,

because I understand

PO: I dont know about that. She didnt call me, but, yeah (chuckle).

AM: Hold on hold on, No, no, no. This is not funny. You asked me a question

PO: I know

AM: This is why you are here; their job is not to tell you why youre here. Youre job is a lawenforcement official. Youre job is to go when the say go and to do what they say do when they saydo it. I understand that. I took the oath and I was in there, Im trained just like you were trained.So if Im telling you that if theres people down there in the Justice Department that are concernedand Im not on the newspaper and all this stuff down in Phil ly for nothing and I wasnt out herelobbying for nothing, for 17 years. And people arent all of a sudden listening for nothing.

PO: Right.

AM: And the Justice Department isnt all of a sudden paying attention for nothing. Payingattention to my w ebsite and yall arent all of a suddenly here for nothing. So, Im not.

PO: Right, you use a good word, when you said concerned.AM: Theyre concerned. And all I m saying is when the First Lady of the Uni ted States of Americahas some of your w ork i n her hand and she talked your w ords our of her mouth. People are gonnali t N if th t t it h d it th i h d li ttl bit f th th t fi I d t

State of Connecticut fi xes my jaw, and give me my money, and they sit there and I could go li ve in ahouse, like you tw o do. Because, you took the oath just like I did. Tell Mastropietro that.

PO: Thi s is not a case about he or I

AM: No, Im not saying it i s a case about you all, but just like the tw o of you are sitti ng there, yougot up out of your houseand I dont know w hich one of you I telephoned Whi ch onewas it that


91/389

got up out of your house and I don t know w hich one of you I telephoned. Whi ch one was it thatsaid they were with their children at church?

ML: Me

AM: Okay. I thi nk that I should have had an opportunity after providing a service to the State ofConnecticut to spend time with my kids, like you do. They prevented that. You dont understand

the havoc thats caused w hen you re laying on your back and cant walk. And you cant explain toyour w ife why you cant get up and go as a man and go out there for months at a time and do whatyou got to do and you sit here and you go to your w arden and you tell him that you did your joband they cut off your check and they fire you and then you go to the Doctor and the Doctor sit hereand say I cant help you no more, because the Stats not gonna pay your bil ls no more. It doesntmake you any any what more what crazy or insane or anything

PO: No, I know.

AM: .or anything. It just hurts a li ttle bit.

PO: but

AM: thats all

PO: Mr. McKni ght, what Im saying is theres sti ll no guarantee thats gonna happen.

AM: It doesnt matter. Ive been leaning on GOD for 17 years. Not the State of Connecticut. Imean thats what you l ean on, I lean on God. I dont care about the State of Connecticut right now .State of Connecticut hasnt helped me in 17 years. I ll pay attention to the State of Connecticutwhen the State of Connecticut sends me a check and a Blue Cross Blue Shield card. And you couldtell Mastropietro that. And my reti rement papers from the Department of Corrections, please,

when you get time. Thats what I need. You could talk to Helen Kemp. I mean thi s has nothing todo with anything else. You could tell M astropietro, you know. Ihe was in there when Frankl w asin there and i f he sent you here he knows what I 'm talk ing about. I have his report r ight here heknows exactly w hat Im talk ing about.

ML: Thats the thing.

PO: We been here talki ngWe been here talking for a whi le, I feel l ike Im more confused nowthan I w as before we met.


92/389

AM: Well , did you look at the fi le?

PO: I looked at the fi le. It says you fail ed to show up for work and they kept trying to say to you,you gotta come back to work, you need documentation or you re gonna be fi red and then youre

fi red. Like Ithat part I dont get.AM: The Doctor. I just showed you the paper.

ML: Yeah.

AM: Thats the Doctor. Im out on Workers Compensation. Do you understand what Im saying?

ML: Now, what was the date you got hurt?

AM: April , I got hurt April 26 93, right before the Laws changed and all that.

PO: But, okay, so youre out on Workmans Comp, but

ML: It took you a year to get that though, right?

AM: No, no, no. I went.I was going and what happened in the jail w as short and we wererunning like 15-20 people down a shif t and what they w ould allow me to do w as like do visiti ng,you know you, do visit ing stuff li ke that.

PO: Aright, so.

AM: You know and then

PO: You get hur t on the job and youre li ke off and youre home hur t.

AM: Yeah

AM The Doctor saidThe State Doctor said, Given your i njury, you can no longer perform theduties of a Corrections Officer.

ML: Okay, now at the time did they have a light duty station?

AM: No,


93/389

ML: okay

AM: then they sent me a letter

ML: Yup.

AM: .saying we do not have any light duty for your di sabili ty.ML: Okay.

AM: I got that letter.

ML: So, what did you do?

AM: What do you mean what did I do?

ML: Well, can IIm just saying, when we get hur t we dont have any l ight duty status, either. Solets say i f w e get hurt, but were ok to w ork, but w e cant work our job

AM: Yeah.

ML: Theoretically, your Workmans Comp, we have to go out and look for a job.

AM: Yeah, I went back to school.

ML: Okay, so you did that though?....

AM: Yeah, I do all that.

ML: you went

ML: Alr ight. Im just trying to figure out why they denied this though.

PO: But the letters in the file say you need to come back, you need to call us you need to come backto work.

AM: They fi red me. There was no come back to work.

PO: Because you d idnt come back to work, they fired you.


94/389

ML: Now let me ask you a dumb question though.

AM: Sir , they said that we have no work. You have to apply for for light duty w ork. I appl iedfor the duty w ork. If you read my fi le, youll have the letter that says, We have no light duty to fi tyour d isabili ty.

PO: Right, well AM: Its in there.

PO: What youre sayingyou w erent forced to do light duty thats what Im saying...

AM: No, they wouldnt let me back in the facil ity to do any light duty or anything. Do youunderstand what Im saying?

PO: No, actually I m confused because

AM: I mean if Imif you have a facil ity, like say i f that was a jail and this was Personnel out hereand H uman Resources not attached to the jail, I applied for all those jobs.

PO: Right, but, the thing is.

AM: Every Corrections Officer job.

PO: The Doctor was saying to you, you were not well enough to do that basically.Right? Or no?What did the Doctor say?

AM: The Doctors were saying I need further medical helpto, tofor my injur ies. Thats what theDoctors were saying. Thats what the State Doctors were said, the Worker s Compensation Doctorsaid and thats what my Doctor said .

PO: So, that means, you w ould have been able to just stay home and not have to do anything andcollect and o l l be oka


95/389

AM: Doesnt that sound crazy. To you

PO: I, I

AM: Youre an officer. Youre an investigator, right?

PO: But, where


96/389

AM: Doesnt i t sound crazy? I mean it should sound crazy.

PO: But w hy d idnt you submit the documentation?

AM: I did. I just let you read it.

ML: That was the one you submitted?

AM: Yeah. The Doctor said I need further medi cal help. They dont .whateverthey weregiving me unauthorized.I dont know, dont ask me why.

PO: In that letter and you and you w ere like.Oh my G-d they didnt get it . Why didnt you gothere and say li sten, Imtalk to her.

AM: People were camping outside my sisters house People were fol lowing me in cars.

PO: Oh, okay.

AM: People were call ing me calling me Nigger. The Attorney General was call ing me at night at 9oclock just putti ng a bead on me with a car parked outside my sisters window. Youve got to bekidding me. You have no idea what Ive been going through.

PO: Im just reading the facts.

AM: Oh, you re just reading that, but even if youre reading that.

PO: Youre telli ng me something that

AM: If youre reading that and you dont understand that you cannot be on Unauthori zed Leaveof Absence after youve been determined to have a work compensable injury then somethings

PO/ ML: That one?

AM: Yeah. Let me help you, because I thought you had all the papers. Ill show you w hatsignif icant, as far as, what they didnt do. And you tell me what, what you think about it. Heres aletter on 12-6-93 when I was out on Workers Compensation, thats when they took all of my , uh,benefits. You cant do that when someones out on Workers Compensation. This is when they

stopped paying the Doctors bil l. When they stop paying the Doctors bill s you cant get anyt t t A d thi i th b bl l ki g f I d t k h th t f


97/389

treatment. And this is the one you re probably looking for; I dont know w here that came from.Thats a Separation of State Form. They gave me this last year from H elen Kemp and them, it wasin my f il e. We have, we have unti l this day they dont know how i t got there and A ttorney GeneralH ixon-Smith w il l tell you she doesnt know how i t got there.

PO: Signed following medical l eave of absence.

AM: Yeah. You need to do a fi ngerpr int analysisa...I mean a hand.

PO: This is a fraudulent document.

AM: look, look, see whoif you could get Donna Hixon-Smith and Dianne Pierpont to wri te thatdow n li ke they do on televi sion and see whose hand wri ting that is

DT: Get you paper back.

PO: This is your letter, right?

AM: Thats mine.

ML: But your e resigning. (?)

PO: You resigned.

AM : No, no. I said this li stenCome on

PO: Thats the letter thats

AM: Wheres the other one?

PO: The letter of resignation.

AM: Look

AM: Because, they asked me to put i t in wri ting. They said put something so that we have goodfaith that youre wil ling to leave State Serv ice. I said here, it s no problem. Its no problem. I don thave anything to hide.

ML: And they took i t as you resigned though.

AM: You cant take it as I resigned, because the requirement for l eaving State Serv ice, when youreinjured is retirement Dont you understand what Im saying? This iswhat Im saying


98/389

injured is retirement. Don t you understand what I m saying? This is what I m saying.

PO: Yeah, but, I, but I could walk into the Department today and give a letter and say Imresigning.

AM: But, you cant leave State Serv ice till you go to Hartford and retire.

ML: Til you fil l out that form?

AM: Right.

PO/ ML?: So you never fill ed out that form?

ML: That was just in you fi le?

AM: There you go. And ask thi s woman right here. Wait, wheres the Helen Kemp letter? Callher. Call her and shel l let you know everything you need to know. Every thing you need to know,shel l let you know. Shell even tell you Im right. She wrote me like 10 times already. Shel l tellyou Im ri ght and shel l tell you theres nothing she could do, because of what they did. Shes theonly one on my side for real, for real that that actually understands whats going on. And youcould even see thi s, if you want to. Li ke July, July 23, 1993 thats when the Law passed. I got inI

got injured A pril 26, 1993. So you should see the difference in what they did and w hat the Law saysis supposed to happen. Thats the Law concerning how they w ere supposed to treat me and nowyou see me sit ting here w ithout any of that. So, obviously they didnt t reat meI dont know.bequi et, be qui et. Heres the other heres the rest of i tthe Law concerning Blumenthal and themknow thi sthis also the Law and the administrative procedures that the State of Connecticut issupposed to use when deali ng with an injury w ith somebody from the from the State Departmentof Corrections or the State Police. They didnt do thi s either. When you get...when you get injured

on the job the Stat is supposed to proceed with you Life Insurance policy, your Health InsurancePolicy, and all these di fferent i ssues thats gonna come up i n your li fe, because when you get paidthey take, uh...oh, youre going to enjoy thi s onehold onyou w ant to see a good letter. Youwant to see somebody try ing to fraud somebodyhere you go. Oh, this is lovely . This is the one

is post the day I was terminated. Heres the check, too. Im gonna give you the check. Youl l w antto seeI dont know if you saw this in my f ile or not.

(PO blowing breath)

AM: But this is actuall y my termination check. This is my termination check. This is aThis is

beautiful . Now, they wanted me to cash this check. I w ant toI want to show you exactly whatIm talki ng about asfar as the termi nation check People dont believe I mean Ivebeen giving


99/389

I m talki ng about, as far as, the termi nation check. People don t believe, I mean, I ve been givingpeople these documents for years and they re li ke you gotta be kidding me, nobody did this to you.They w ouldnt do thi s, thi s is like ill egal. I was like, yeah, its il legal .

PO: Whos saying that?

AM: Lawyers.PO: What lawyers?

AM: Who was it? Kent, um.

PO: Did you retain them as attorneys?

AM: No, because the wanted me to signumtemporary total benefi ts packages. I didnt wanttemporary total benefi ts. I want 5-142 benefits. Just like Mr. Cozzolino and them got. Herestheheres the check. Last paycheck and heres the other check. This is a fraudulent check, too.

Thats the one the Roland A dministration sent me for 20,000 bucks, I didnt cash i t. Youl l notice thedate on that check right there that I m showing you is the same one that corresponds with the datesof my termination on the Helen Kemp letter. It says you w ere terminated on M ay such and such of

1994, that s the last check. Thats the check right there they sent me to sever State Service. Thatgoes along with that DiDianne Pierpont letter that I just showed you. That check r ight there theysent me that w hen they sent me the Dianne Pierpont letter. So, if I w as in fact to sign that letter i twould have been stating my injur ies didnt occur whil e I w as at the Department ofCorrections.(sil ence)I mean its amazing to me that they even do this kind of stuf f. Ive got anMPA in Government. This is crazy. Honest to goodness. Its crazy. (silence, police conferring)Yeah you could give me those.

PO: These are all yours, right?

AM: Yeah.

PO: like Im missing something from A to Bstill seems li ke theres something wrong w ith theini tial part of this thing.

AM: Okay.

PO: Where, where.and w hether it s on your end or not, I dont know. But, I dont understand

the letters saying, We dont knowwhere are you? Why havent you come to work?


100/389

AM: Who?

PO: D.O.C. Were gonna

AM: What do you mean come to work? It didnt say come to work and see me about

PO: It says unauthor ized.

AM: thi s di sciplinary action. Thats not work. Ive been going toListen to thisOn GrandAvenue they had the Personnel Department. Now Im gonna ask y ou this. If somebody screws youaround once, okay. If somebody screws you around twice, what are you gonna do? Im not gonna let youscrew me around 3 times.

PO: I just think that if I got a letter saying, If you dont come see us were gonna fire you

AM: They already terminated me. The letter was moot. Do you know what moot means, in a Court of Law? It means it doesnt

PO: I dontno

AM: really matter after the fact.

PO: I still would have, I still would have taken steps to be like, Listen have you not got my doc.I dontknow.

AM: I mean if I see somebody over here and hes shot 50 times over there, Im not gonna go run over thereand chop his head off.

PO: What does that have to do with anything? That means nothing to me.

AM: okay

PO: Aright, so.

AM: In Public Administration, if you have two of the same substances that go through the same process, youshould have two of the same outcome. Just like any science, 1+1=2. If Johnny goesif Johnny works for theState of Connecticut

PO: So

AM h hi ffi d i b k hi l d h d hi j b d J h hi


101/389

AM: .whos a white officer and a inmate breaks his leg and he cant do his job and Johnny gets hisbenefits. And then, Anthony, the B officer who happens to be Black, gets his leg busted by an inmate heshould

PO: Al right, right so.

AM: get his benefits to

PO: here we go though back to the issue. Is it an issue of documentation? Is it an issue of harassment? Isit an issue of race? What is the prime issue thats going on? Or is it all of the above?

AM: Id put all of the above. .

PO: I mean to me that

AM: Id put all of the above.

PO: to me, to me that

AM: Im gonna say

PO: to me.

AM: ...that in myPO: that sounds like youre on somewhat of a fishing expedition.

AM: Im not on a fishing expedition.

PO: Because, youre saying

AM: I dont, I dont

PO: everyone in the world there is out to get me, its not just

PO: But youre saying they did their .

AM: .No, they did not.

PO: job for the white officers.

AM: Yes they did do their job for the white officers. The, the white people in the Personnel Departmentprocessed Mr. Cozzolinos paperwork and they didnt process mine. Why would you not do your job? Youd t h th bilit P bli Offi i l


102/389

do not have the ability, as a Public Official...

PO: No, I dont know

AM: to elect which packages you put through.not.

PO: I dont know, because

AM: Now were gonna find.

PO: Are you able to proooove evidence of that based on your...

AM: Im gonna

PO: race?

AM: Im gonna prove my case. I like my case. Just like how you say you like your case, I like my case.

ML: Did you do what she asked you to do in this though?

AM: Whats this? Which one.

ML: Cause she says

AM: are you looking at?

ML: the 2009 one from Helen Kemp.

AM: Yeah.

ML: Did youDid you do that?

AM: Oh yeah, we did all that.

AM: Thats what shes asking me.

ML: You are informed that you do not submit your retirement paperwork directly to us

PO: Right.

ML: ok.you have not done this. So she says today that retirement

AM: Thats September 2009 now


103/389

AM: That s September 2009, now.

ML: I know. Thats what Im asking you.

AM: Its been done three times.

ML: okay. Thats what Im asking you.

AM: Its been done with them again. Its been done with D.A.S. directly and its been done with Departmentof Corrections directly, uh.

ML: Okay.

AM: Uh, what was her name? Nora Ryan, DOC, John Bishop, DOC. Who else? Who else do we have?DT: Karen in the Workers Compensation.

AM: Karen in the Workers Compensation. Well, they have all the paperwork.

ML: Yup

AM: The documents. But, see Im gonna say this before you go and ask them any questions.

ML: Yup.

AM: Theres a difference between

ML: Yup

AM:Hazardous Duty Retirement

ML: Yup

AM: I want the same Hazardous Duty Retirement.hold on. I didnt give you this one. This is what Iwantso you could simply know what I want here. So thereI mean you cantyou cant misinterpretthis. Lets see if we could find his papers. It might be in here. Here you go. Now this is the one that shouldclear up everything for youcause I cant believe they didnt give you this stuff before you came downhere.

ML: Some of the stuff we have...

PO: Theres files


104/389

PO: There s files.

ML: theres files the

AM: No, but read the Hazardous Duty partthe retirement. I dont car about the money he gotwhocaresGod Bless him. If he could get another millionget another million if he could. (chuckle) It dont

affectit doesnt matter how much he go. The fact of the matter is process. They processed his paperwork and thats a matter of process, right there. Not benefits. It says right there on the paperwork. And HelenKemp said so and shes an attorney for the Comptrollers Office. The actually processed his paperwork. Thesame oneI mean this is amazing. I mean youre a detective. Youre gonna love this one. You want to seesome fraud in government. Courts. Your court system and all this stuff. People you work for. This is great.This is the best part of it all right here (chuckle) This is part of it. Heres the Commissioner Delaney.Icircled it for you at the bottomdown there. Thats what he said May 5 th at the hearing that we had. This isgreat. This is actually a judge saying that, now. Im asking him for the benefits. My 5-142 Benefits. And

hes telling me Mr. Cozzolino got his benefits and he approved them. Hes the guy that approved them. Andall Im saying is in 1998 when he was a PreFormal Trial Judge on my case, why not approve mine? Sameissue. Its the same issue and mines is better than Cozzolinos because mine has a Judge and the AppellateCourt stamp on it, that I actually was injured while at work. (silence) Dont worry. I cant explain it either,but its thereits actually thereactually did ithere hold this for me. Let me show you. TheJudgesthats one.thats one of the Judges. But I want to show you what the Court Judge saidhere yougo..(silence) Now this is the.you see the rationale that...that, that judge gavenow listen to this.

ML: well

AM: go ahead, okgo ahead.

ML: Well what Im reading here is he knows Cozzolinos case, he said he dismissed part of it.

AM: Part of it

ML: and he says

AM: But he granted him the part that gave him his 5-142 Benefits. Go read Cozzolino's case.

PO: Correct.

ML: Right. But what Im saying is you both are C.O.s and you both got hurt.

AM: Right.

ML: Okay.

AM: The Law requires the same entitlement.


105/389

AM: The Law requires the same entitlement.

ML: Correct.

AM: He got his 560 weeks. I didnt. I got fired. Thats the issue.

ML: And all hes saying isis theyre different. Theyre different cases.

AM: The Law doesnt see it that way. The law sees it as; youre entitled to these benefits.

ML/PO?: Well the facts of the case are gonnamay have been different. They may have been filedthefiling has nothing to do with that.

AM: No. Listen, listen, listento this. The claimant suffered compensable bodily injuries on these to

datesready?

ML: Yup.

AM: Which claims remain open under chapter 568

ML/PO: ok

AM: and under which the claimant may seek recoveries for further benefits, such as, this, thisthisthis.Right.

ML: And thats for his case or yours?

AM: This is my case.

PO: okay

AM N h h 5 142? ( il ) Thi i h fil d d 5 142 Wh did h 568

ML/PO?: So

AM: I teach people not to do that.

PO: So you know that letter that you just showed from the Judge, about saying that right now you dont haveenough facts in the case?

AM: Mm-hmm.


106/389

PO: Had youhave you given him this stuff yet? Or no?

AM: No, no.

PO: Well dont you think that would be a good idea to like start giving him all this?

AM: Im gonna take care of that. Im waiting for.

PO: Yeah...

AM: my November 2 nd decision. Dont worry about it, all

PO: Im Im...

AM: Im doing that.

PO: Im not worried either way. Listen Im just saying to you.

AM: Im taking care of that.

PO: Im just asking you the question that

AM: Im trying not to do it.

PO: Im telling you

AM: Im trying not to do it. Im hoping that they give me my benefits. You know how much this costs to dowhen youre homeless?

PO: Oh okay. Right. Im sure it does.

AM: This is what Im saying. If they give me my decision.

ML: Okay.

AM: the cases or whatever. But the case from 1995 has basically the same

PO: Alright

AM: issues. Ill just, you know, but yeahtell emuh, hey Im waiting for a letter that says heres yourcheck and heres your Blue Cross


107/389

PO: Listen, again

AM: and heres your retirement papers. (heh-heh)

PO: Again were telling you

AM: I could do better than this. I dont need this in my life.

PO: Were telling you today that (chuckle) this is not this is not a criminalthis is not a criminal matter,like so were a little amassed as to why were even here. (chuckle)

AM: I dont know why whatthey No, I dont even know why youre here myself. But, I think theprocess of why youre here is Roland. When I filed those papers with Roland, they said, It wasnt a criminal

matter, Oh its just this that and the other thing. Then the next thing you know the dude sitting hereImrunning the hell out of Connecticut and theyre putting handcuffs on this dude. (ha ha) Yeah.

ML: So

PO: Alright.

AM: This is all Im sayingI,Iyou dont know where these things are going.

PO: No, itsIm, Im very

AM: I dont know if they got, I dont know if these guyswhat kind oftheyand listen to meif theycould sit here and stall this for 15 years, theyve got some hocus pocus up their sleeve.

PO: (sigh) Im very, very confused.

AM: You should be and you should go back and tell them, Hey, Im very confused about this crap.

PO: Im gonna, I

AM: You see these guys inin New York and them going to jail. Somebody has to do this kind of work

PO: No I, Iyeah I get that part, but that still necessarily wouldnt be our, our division. But,

AM: Right.

ML: Well, I appreciate you coming down.

AM: I dont know, I just hope


108/389

PO: I thinkI thinkWell nothings gonna happen til the decisions rendered now, right? Youre gonna waitfor that?

AM: ImImthey yeahsee what Im waiting for is the OPEB, the Executive Order 38. I dont know if

you, uh, Post Employment Benefits Commission. The thing everybodys going crazy about, pensions and allthis stuff

ML: Yeah.

AM: I initiated that. I got it in here, too. But its supposed to be for the benefits like me that people gotshoved through the cracks

ML: Yeah.

AM: over the last 16/17 years. Thats what OPEB is about. And what theyre trying to do is mitigatedtheir losses now. Because, not only do they have to pay back the benefits they have to pay back the interest

ML: Yup.

AM: so this is whats going on now and this is why the budget is getting so out of whack. Even though,they might technically owe 9.4 billion, when you throw the interest up there it goes up like 13/14 billion andthats billion.

DT: in liabilities

AM: So the liabilities go up. And this is what Governor Rell and them are waiting for. Theyre waiting forthe election. So they could just get this thing out of the way. People stamp these papers next Tuesday

ML: Oh yeah.

AM: There will be no more Anthony McKnight. Hope fully somebody comes down and send me myi th i thi thi I d t k

ML: Oh, so any other way I can get a hold of you? Or just that cell phone number?

AM: No, this is her telephone number when I come to New Haven, just contact her.

PO: Well just call and leave a message?

AM: Yeah, she knows how to get in contact with me in Philly.

PO (to ML): He has your number and everything too, right?


109/389

ML: Yup.

AM: Yeah I got your card. I got your card. I hope not. I hope next time it will be a check and my retirementpapers. And bring Ms. Nora Ryan and them down, we could sign them right here. Im not going up there. I

told them Im not going through (a gate?) I dont trust those peoplewont go up there. They asked me 2 or3 times. I wont go see them. They done did me dirty for the last God knows how long.

ML: Alrightappreciate you coming down.


110/389


111/389


112/389


113/389

APPENDIX H


114/389

APPENDIX H


115/389


116/389


117/389


118/389


119/389


120/389


121/389


122/389


123/389


124/389


125/389


126/389


127/389


128/389


129/389


130/389

APPENDIX I


131/389


132/389


133/389


134/389


135/389


136/389


137/389


138/389


139/389


140/389


141/389


142/389


143/389

APPENDIX 119


144/389


145/389

October 28, 2010 Connecticut State Post-Employment Benefits Commission Final Report


146/389

Connecticut State Post-Employment Benefits Commission

Final Report

October 28, 2010

Page 1


147/389


Table of Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................................................................ 4

LIABILITIES AND COSTS RELATED TO CONNECTICUT S RETIREMENT S YSTEMS ................................................................... 4 CAUSES OF UNFUNDED LIABILITY FOR SERS AND S TATE OPEB P LAN ......................................................................... 5 S TRATEGIES FOR FOR CONSIDERATION FOR ADDRESSING CONNECTICUT S P OST EMPLOYMENT BENEFIT LIABILITIES AND COSTS ............... 6

INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................... 9

COMMISSION MEMBERS ...................................................................................................................... 10


148/389

COMMISSIONS APPROACH ................................................................................................................ 11

BACKGROUND ................................................................................................................................ 12 LEGAL AND COLLECTIVE BARGAINING FRAMEWORK RE S TATE EMPLOYEE RETIREMENT S YSTEMS ............................................. 12 2009 S TATE AND SEBAC A GREEMENT ...................................................................................................... 12 DESCRIPTIONS AND DEFINITIONS OF ACTUARIAL LIABILITIES AND CALCULATIONS .............................................................. 13

STATE ADMINISTERED PENSION PLANS .................................................................................................. 15

OVERVIEW OF S TATE ADMINISTERED P ENSION P LANS........................................................................................ 15 State Employee Retirement System (SERS) ........................................................................................... 15 Teachers Retirement System (TRS) .................................................................................................... 17 Judicial Retirement System (JRS) ...................................................................................................... 17 Alternate Retirement Program ..................................................................................................... 17

FUNDING HISTORY AND FUTURE P ROJECTIONS FOR SERS ................................................................................... 18 June 30, 2008 SERS Actuarial Valuation; Projection for June 30, 2010 ..................................................... 18 Actuarial Accrued Liability among Tiers for SERS ..................................................................................... 18

CAUSES OF GROWTH IN SERS U NFUNDED LIABILITY ANDLACK OF FUNDING P ROGRESS ..................................................... 18

P ENSIONS : COMPARISONS TO OTHER S TATES , MUNICIPALITIES AND P RIVATE S ECTOR ........................................................ 25 Connecticuts Pension Funding Ratios ................................................................................................. 25 Connecticuts Pension Plan Provisions ................................................................................................. 25 Connecticut Municipal Pension Plans .................................................................................................. 26 Private Sector Pension Plans ........................................................................................................... 27

STATE OTHER POST EMPLOYMENT BENEFIT (OPEB) PLANS .......................................................................... 28

OVERVIEW OF S TATE ADMINISTERED OPEB P LANS .......................................................................................... 28 State Employee OPEB Plan ............................................................................................................ 28 Retired Teachers Health Plan (RTHP) ................................................................................................. 29

S TATE OPEB A CTUARIAL ACCRUED LIABILITY ANDARC AMOUNTS .......................................................................... 29


IMPACT OF PENSION AND OPEB LIABILITIES ON STATES BUDGETARY AND FINANCIAL OUTLOOK AND CREDIT RATINGS ....................................................................................................................................... 36

S TATE P ENSION AND OPEB C OSTS AS AN INCREASING P ORTION OF S TATE EXPENDITURES .................................................. 36 IMPACT ON FINANCIAL OUTLOOK AND CREDIT RATINGS ....................................................................................... 39

ACTIONS TAKEN IN OTHER STATES REGARDING PENSION AND OPEB LIABILITIES ................................................ 40

POTENTIAL STRATEGIES TO ADDRESS PENSION AND OPEB LIABILITIES AND COSTS ............................................. 41

PENSION PLANS............................................................................................................................... 41 Overall Strategy ........................................................................................................................ 41

FUNDING STRATEGIES ......................................................................................................................... 42


149/389

Paying the Annual Required Contribution (ARC) ................................................................................ 42

Calculating the ARC .................................................................................................................... 42 Employee Contributions to the Fund .............................................................................................. 44 Pension Obligation Bonds .............................................................................................................. 45

P LAN DESIGN AND BENEFIT MODIFICATION S TRATEGIES ...................................................................................... 47 STATE OPEB P LAN............................................................................................................................ 52

Overall Strategy ........................................................................................................................ 52 Prefunding in a Trust Fund ............................................................................................................. 52

CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................................. 56

APPENDICES .................................................................................................................................. 57


Executive Summary

Governor M. Jodi Rell established the State Post-Employment Benefits Commission (theCommission) through Executive Order #38. Although Governor Rell recognized that pensionand other post employment benefits (OPEB) consisting mainly of retiree health insurance, playan important role in attracting and maintaining a skilled and capable work force, she highlightedthe growing impacts of the unfunded liabilities and costs related to these plans on the Statesbudget and finances. The Governor charged the Commission with delivering a report that:

Identifies the amount and extent of unfunded liabilities for pensions and other post-employment benefits;


150/389

employment benefits; Compares and evaluates the advantages and disadvantages of various approaches for

addressing unfunded pension liabilities and post-employment benefits; and Proposes short and long-term plans for addressing unfunded pension liabilities and post-employment benefits.

The Commission reviewed actuarial valuations, collective bargaining agreements andother information regarding Connecticuts retirement systems as well as research reports andarticles addressing these issues. The Commission also obtained actuarial estimates of liabilitiesand various approaches to how they may be addressed.

Liabilities and Costs Related to Connecticuts Retirement Systems

The States pension plans include the Teachers Retirement System, the JudicialRetirement System, and the State Employees Retirement System (SERS) all of which aredefined benefit plans. SERS covers the majority state employees and retirees as well asmembers of the General Assembly, constitutional officers and the Governor. Additionally, TheState administers a defined contribution program for some higher education employees. TheState also sponsors the State OPEB Plan (primarily health benefits) and the Retired TeacherHealth Care Plan. The Commission focused on the SERS and State OPEB plans.

As of June 30, 2008, Connecticuts unfunded liability for SERS was $9.2 billion and $24.6 billionfor OPEB, a total unfunded liability of $33.8 billion. Consider that Connecticuts current year general fundbudget is $17.6 billion. Connecticuts 2008 funding ratio for its State-sponsored pension plans (planassets as a percentage of plan liabilities), according to the Pew Center on the States, was the f ifth lowestin the country. A November 2009 report by the Center for State and Local Government Excellence,indicated that Connecticuts unfunded OPEB liability was the third highest in the country


Causes of Unfunded Liability for SERS and State OPEB Plan

State Employee Retirement System (SERS) The SERS plan has historically been underfunded, in part because, until the 1980s, it was funded on a

pay-as-you-go basis. Indeed, the 2008 funding ratio of 51.9 percent is just slightly higher than the 1992 ratio of

51.4 percent, despite a decision to begin funding the Annual Required Contribution (ARC).

There are a number of reasons for a lack of progress with the SERS funding ratio. TheLevel Percent of Payroll method of calculating its ARC tends to have lower amortizationamounts in the earlier years of the schedule. More importantly, interpretations applied to the1995 and 1997 State and the State Employee Bargaining Agent Coalition agreements (SEBAC


151/389

1995 and 1997 State and the State Employee Bargaining Agent Coalition agreements (SEBACIV and V, respectively) have included annual reductions to the ARC. These reductions totaledover $105 million in fiscal year 2011. Moreover, reductions in the ARC payments of $314 millionwere included in the 2009 State and SEBAC agreement. The result is a heavy back-loading ofthe amortization schedule, resulting in a stagnant funding ratio and a growing annual ARC.

Some other reasons for a lack of funding progress include the 2009 and previousretirement incentive programs and the plans assumed actuarial investment return. SERS, likemost plans, was hurt by the severe market downturn in 2008, the main cause of the projectedfunding ratio decline to 46 percent as of June 30, 2010.

Historically, Connecticut has responded to concerns about unfunded liabilities bycreating new tiers, as opposed to modifying existing tiers. SERS consists of three tiers: Tier I forthose hired before July 1, 1984; Tier II for those hired from July 1, 1984 to June 30, 1997; andTier IIA for those hired on or after July 1, 1997. According to the June 30, 2008 actuarialvaluation, $14.3 billion of SERS total actuarial accrued liabilities of $19.2 billion are attributableto current retirees and Tier I active employees. This portion of the plans liabilities would likelynot be impacted by plan modifications given the legal issues involved.

Compared to other New England states, the annual payments as a percentage of finalaverage salaries are lower for Tier II and IIA plans than the other states. The required employeecontributions are lower in Connecticut as well. Connecticuts reductions in benefits related toearly retirement are generally less than found in other New England states.

State Other Post Employment Benefit Plan (OPEB)


As noted, Connecticuts OPEB liabilities are high compared to other states. The three mainreasons for differences in per capita OPEB liability amounts are: 1) benefits levels and plan costs; 2)population covered; and 3) funding policy. In Connecticut, a high cost state, employees who work at

least ten years are eligible to receive full comprehensive health care coverage for themselves andtheir dependants when they begin receiving retirement benefits, with 55 being the early retirementage for non-hazardous duty employees. The premium shares are minimal, ranging from zero to amaximum of three percent. Unlike pensions, once vested, the level of benefits received is not tied tothe number of years of service. The Rule of 75 (years of service plus age) in the 2009 SEBACagreement will delay when affected employees (those with less than ten years of service as of July


152/389

g y p y ( y y1, 2009) can begin receiving retiree health insurance.

In regard to funding, most states, like Connecticut have zero or few assets in their OPEBplans. The 2009 SEBAC agreement, however, included a provision that involved a 3 percent ofsalary employee contribution during the first ten years of service. These contributions areprojected at $23 million in the current year. These contributions, by staying in the OPEB trustand not being used for current costs, will decrease the plans actuarial liabilities and ARC.

Strategies for Consideration for Addressing Connecticuts Post EmploymentBenefit Liabilities and Costs

In light of the States serious budgetary challenges over the next several years, and thepressure the growing costs of the States retirement systems place on other budgetaryneeds, the Commission believes a number of approaches need to be considered to reducethe unfunded pension liabilities of the State. Consideration should be given to new fundingstrategies, financing alternatives, and plan design and benefit modifications. The issues and

factors outlined in this report, among others, will need to be weighed when considering thestrategies and approaches to be implemented in seeking to reduce these liabilities.

It is important to note that there are Commission members who did not agree with some of thestrategies presented below in regard to the State pension and OPEB plans. Also, the Commission did notseek to prioritize these strategies. The main goal of this report has been to provide information andpotential approaches to addressing these liabilities to policy-makers and stakeholders.

The State needs to develop a sound funding strategy for its retirement plans and havethe fiscal discipline to carry it out. Timely analysis and multi-year actuarial projections are critical


Summary of Strategies for Consideration for SERS and OPEB Short Term Plan Pre-

Fund OPEB

Pay the ARC, and Eliminate Any Adjustments to Such. Increased Member Contributions. The State and SEBAC should consider additionalemployee contributions for reinvestment in the plans (with a 1 percent increase totalingabout $32 million), while the State should consider enacting a provision that woulddedicate, for example, a portion of future surpluses for the plans. Increasing the Retirement Age or Incentives to Retire Later. The State and SEBAC


153/389

Increasing the Retirement Age or Incentives to Retire Later. The State and SEBACshould consider raising the retirement age for those in Tiers II and IIA and increasingreductions related to early retirements, with any savings to be reinvested into the plans.For SERS, the projected savings totaled $135 million related to these changes in the firstyear, savings would increase going forward. Other Plan Design Strategies. The State and SEBAC should consider plan modifications toSERS and OPEB, with any savings to be reinvested in the plans. In terms of OPEB, thechanges for consideration include increased premium sharing and additional eligibilitychanges for employees moving directly to retirement from state service. Service Delivery Changes. It is also critical to continue slowing health care inflation through planand service delivery changes, including through the implementation of medical homes and otherinitiatives. A one percent reduction in the annual health inflation below the actuarys assumedlevel would lower the calculated actuarial liability from $26.6 billion to $22.1 billion.

Long Term Plan ARC and Funding Strategies. The State should commit to a funding strategy targetingfunding ratio benchmarks (e.g. 55 percent by 2018 for SERS), and consider establishinga floor below which ARC will not go below. Actuarial Analysis and Projections. The biennial actuarial valuations should reflectprojections for liabilities and ARC amounts for all remaining years of the amortizationschedule (not just two years). Future Changes . No action, such as a retirement incentive program or plan changes,should be enacted without a full actuarial analysis.

Considerable discussion was dedicated to the pros and cons of closing the defined benefit plan


issues associated with the defined benefit plan could be perpetuated going forward at a growingcost to the State, especially if the recommendations in this report are ignored.

The challenge for the State will be to balance the need to increase the funding ratio of its

pension and OPEB plans with the need to manage its overall budgetary needs. Theseincreasing costs could lead to crowding out additional investments in education, infrastructure,health care, and in other critical areas.

It is the Commissions hope that this report will provide useful information to the Governor, otherelected officials, and the stakeholders in adding to the understanding of the States liabilities and costsrelated to its retirement system and in assessing the options available to address these issues.


154/389

related to its retirement system and in assessing the options available to address these issues.


Introduction

Through Executive Order Number 38, dated February 3, 2010, Governor M. Jodi Rellestablished the State Post-Employment Benefits Commission. In establishing the Commission,Governor Rell indicated that pension and other post-employment benefits (OPEB), including retireehealth insurance, play an important role in attracting and maintaining a work force capable ofprotecting the health and safety of the State and its residents. At the same time, Governor Rellrecognized the growing budgetary challenges and impact on the States finances, including its creditrating, associated with the unfunded liabilities and future costs related to these benefit plans.

The Governor created the Commission to assist her, other elected officials and stakeholders


155/389

in developing and assessing short and long-term strategies for addressing these post-employment

liabilities. Therefore, the Governor charged the Commission with delivering a report that:

Identifies the amount and extent of unfunded liabilities for pensions and other post-employment benefits; Compares and evaluates the advantages and disadvantages of various approachesfor addressing unfunded pension liabilities and post-employment benefits; and Proposes a short and long-term plan or plans for addressing unfunded pensionliabilities and post-employment benefits.

The Governor originally requested delivery of the report by July 1, 2010, but additionaltime was provided given the challenges encountered in receiving necessary actuarialinformation reflecting, among other matters, the impact of the 2009 SEBAC changes. Mostimportantly, additional time was needed to thoroughly explore and discuss all of the issues andoptions associated with the States pension and OPEB liabilities.


Commission Members

The members of the Commission, appointed in accordance with Executive Order Number 38, are:

Member Representing/Field

Michael J, Cicchetti , Chairman and Deputy Secretary of the Office State of Connecticut Office of of Policy and Management Policy & Management

Thomas C. Woodruff , Ph.D., Director State of Connecticut, Office of the Healthcare Policy & Benefit Services, Office of the Comptroller Comptroller

Christine Shaw J.D., M.B.A. , Director of Government Relations, State of Connecticut, Office of the Office of the Treasurer State Treasurer


156/389

Sal Luciano , Executive Director, Council 4, American Federation State Employees Bargaining Agent of State, County and Municipal Employees Coalition

Julie E. McNeal , CPA, Technical Activities Director, Connecticut Certified Public Accountants Society of Certified Public Accountants

Gregory M. Stump , FSA, EA, FCA, MAAA , Vice President, EFI- Public Pension Actuary Actuaries

J. Paul Mansour , Head of Municipal Research, Conning Business Community

Other Participants Attorney Jamie Young , Governors Legal Office Office of the Governor

State of Connecticut, Judicial Judge Harry Calmar Branch


Commissions Approach

The Commissions approach included reviewing numerous research reports and articleswritten about pension and OPEB issues. The Commission also reviewed significant amounts ofinformation related specifically to Connecticuts plans, including past and most recent actuarialvaluations, pension and retiree health plan provisions, investment reports related to plan assets, aswell as original and subsequent modifications to the collective bargaining agreement between Stateand the State Employee Bargaining Agent Coalition (SEBAC) that establish, in part, retiree benefitplans. The Commission also received information and presentations regarding how actuarialliabilities related to pensions and OPEB plans are measured and how the annual Actuarial RequiredContribution (ARC) is calculated. Many of the documents reviewed by the Commission are available


157/389

on its website. http://www.ct.gov/opm/cwp/view.asp?a=2998&q=457846&opmNav_GID=1791

The Commission developed a list of potential solutions or approaches in terms of fundingand plan design and benefits based on reports pertaining to actions taken by other governments ororganizations or through the members own professional experiences. The Commission focused onthe State Employee Retirement System (SERS) plan. The Commission did not spend as much timereviewing the Teachers Retirement System (TRS) because this plan recently received significantattention related to a 2008 issuance of Pension Obligation Bonds (POBs). As part of the POBissuance, some of the requirements related to funding the ARC and plan benefits were built into thebond indenture or State Statutes. Nonetheless, a number of the recommendations in this report mayapply to the TRS plan as well as the Judicial Retirement System (JRS) administered by the State.

The Commission sought to create a baseline for the current plans and funding approachesagainst which potential changes could be compared. The Commissions approach was to obtain actuarialestimates that would provide projections of these liabilities and the potential impact of various approachesto addressing these obligations. Additional actuarial work and analysis may be needed as part of pursuingany of the changes recommended. As required by the Governors executive order, this report contains adiscussion of the advantages and disadvantages of approaches considered.


Background

Legal and Collective Bargaining Framework re State Employee Retirement Systems

The Commission reviewed the legal framework in which OPEB and pension benefits are provided

to State employees and retirees. These retirement plans are provided largely in accordance with thecollective bargaining agreement negotiated between the State and the State Employee Bargaining AgentCoalition (SEBAC). SEBAC is comprised of thirteen unions, and was recognized in 1986 by Public Act86-411 to negotiate with the State on health benefits and retirement issues. The agreement alsoestablished the joint labor-management Health Care Cost Containment Committee. In 1997, the Stateand SEBAC negotiated a long-term health and retirement benefit agreement, which is effective through2017 Thi l difi d b h i i 2009


158/389

2017. This agreement was most recently modified by the parties in 2009.

The Commission recognized that the ability to modify the benefits received by currentretirees is limited, although there is current legal action in this regard in one or more states. Interms of active employees, most proposed benefit plan changes would have to be negotiatedbetween the State and the coalition of bargaining units. As will be described, there have beensome modifications to the 1997 agreement. The Commission also discussed the States abilityto make benefit changes related to a group of former employees, known as terminated vestedemployees. Terminated vested employees have left state services but are eligible to beginreceiving pension and/or retiree health insurance at some future date.

2009 State and SEBAC Agreement

In addition to a Retirement Incentive Program (RIP), the 2009 SEBAC agreementcontained a number of other modificat

Documents

Anti-Vote Appendix 3