A ‘shortcut’ scandal

I am not surprised by OPA’s announcement that the Retirement Fund has serious financial problems. The article in the papers indicated that, since 1997, the number of beneficiaries has grown by 51 percent, while the total contributing membership of the plan has only grown by 6 percent. In 1997, there were 3.42 workers for every beneficiary. By 2004, this ratio had decreased to 2.4. In effect, the Fund has fewer workers contributing in relationship to the number of beneficiaries, said OPA.

To the current contributing members (workers) looking to retire in the future and are working hard to make ends meet, this is cause to be alarmed because in a span of seven years from 1997 to 2004, the ratio of workers to beneficiaries closed the gap by 2.02. Beneficiaries now receiving benefits include retirees, survivors and the disabled. Precluding survivors and the disabled, there is something going on in the system that I call shortcut, which is happening in most cases and is very obvious in the political hiring arena. Be it from the municipal level to the corridors of both Executive and Legislative branches of our Commonwealth government, I can guarantee someone who has more than 18 years career civil service position at a moderate and reasonable salary is newly hired at an excepted service position, paying ungraded salary, higher by 50-100 percent.

For example, a Conservation Officer I, who put in 18 years in his job, earns $24,000 per year, resigns from his civil service job to accept a shortcut at any of the following shortcut agencies: Office of the Municipal Council, Office of the Mayor, Office of the Senator, Office of a Congressman, Office of the Governor, etc., and he now earns $40,000 per year. Wow! How much WGI is that worth and we have not seen any within-grade-increase across the board for half a decade now! And this Conservation fellow just hit the jackpot in no time. Now let’s see…the fellow used to literally pay 6.5 percent of $24,000 into the Fund, or the amount of $1,560 per year, assuming WGI continue to be on moratorium. If this fellow is deemed eligible for early retirement in two years, he would have paid $3,120 at the same salary level. Of course, because he now earns $40,000 per year his contribution would be higher in that shortcut period, holding the salary to the day he files to retire.

But, look deeper into the scandal. Don’t hurt your eye! I am no expert in calculating retirement benefits, but let’s just assume that if the fellow is determined to be entitled to receive a monthly pension of $800, that’s $400 on the 15th and 30th of the month. But, because of the shortcut scandal, he will be receiving $1,120 per month or $560 on the 15th and 30th of the month. The Fund and the workers looking to retire in the future are ripped off $320 monthly or $160 on the 15th and 30th of the month. This fellow probably deserves it because he might be a very hardworking, contributing member to the community. Who knows how many people benefited from these reprehensible deeds that have gone on discreetly for a very long time?

And I am only talking about the ratio of workers versus beneficiaries. What of the financial impact brought upon the Fund as a result of the shortcut scandal political offices engage in with their loyalists and elite few who benefited? The people are not blind neither deaf. This occurs with every new administration that comes into power. I’ve observed also that some retirees who are not satisfied with their pension level would end up rehired at a higher pay level to serve only enough time to increase their pension benefits. The Retirement Fund should look into this observation and analyze how many workers under my list of shortcut agencies successfully filed for retirement at the end of each administration’s term, especially at the transition period of the outgoing administration. Then, compare the data. I would not be surprised if it is verified that the cause of the closing gap between beneficiaries and workers is attributed in part to the impact of the shortcut scandal.

I have pondered this observation for many years and contemplated that, with the shortcut scandal comes a reduced ratio between beneficiaries and workers, so a devastating financial impact to the Fund is inevitable. The year now is 2006; can you imagine how close the gap is from 2004 to 2006? This two-year period was not covered by OPA’s report. Even with these scandals, it is probably safe to assume that its negative impact is not even considered yet as the General Fund is having difficulty remitting the full amount owed to the Retirement Fund.

You ask, “What the heck is Barrie talking about?” Well, Tan Canda, what I am saying is that the workers and the Fund are being ripped off under their nose by scheming politicians and their loyalists who think that nobody is watching and nobody cares. Let me tell you something, Tan Canda! The OPA stated that in 2004 there were 2.4 workers to every beneficiary. That means that 2.4 workers contribute into the fund to pay one fellow’s pension and that is probably insufficient, considering the fellow benefited from the scandal. If in a span of seven years—from 1997 to 2004—the gap of the ratio closed in by 2.02, then by the year 2011—five more years into the next door future—there would be 2.4-2.02 = 0.38 workers for every beneficiary. Your mama’s pension would probably depend on 10 workers paying into the fund for her to receive it on the 15th and 30th of the month. Can you imagine what 2018—another seven years into the future—would look like? By that time, there would be 0.38-2.02 = -1.64 workers for every beneficiary. That means that less than zero workers would be contributing to the Fund for my pension when I retire. BANKRUPT!

Something has to be done. I challenge my Legislative delegation to look into this shortcut scandal and put a stop to it. Senators and House Representatives, the people put your buttocks in your seat. Do something about the Retirement Fund’s financial problems. And while you are in first gear, the workers demand you look into the shortcut scandal and outlaw it. How do you feel when you are in a line at the fiesta table and instead of the line getting shorter, you realize you have to take a few steps back once at a time and wonder why the people in front of you have multiplied? Oh, that’s right! You fellows don’t have to be in line, for VIPs are served like kings. That’s an acceptable form of shortcut. And, I thought we elect public servants. To my senators and House representative, let me and my other fellow workers—the ones who climbed the ladder and continue to climb one step at a time—know if none of you has the will to put a stop to the shortcut scandal through legislation so we the workers can start formulating platforms for the future candidates who have the will and commitment to do so. I’m sure the four of you can put your heads together and come up with a 3-Day bill that would become law on the third day, similar to P.L. 13-1.

Barrie Cuthbert Toves
Sinapalo I., Rota