Congressman Stephen Lynch Introduces Legislation To Correct USPS CSRS Retirement Overpayments
Congressman Stephen Lynch introduced legislation yesterday to correct methodology which overcharges USPS for its CSRS retirement obligations. The legislation amends the provisions of title 5, United States Code, relating to the methodology for calculating the amount of any Postal surplus or supplemental liability under the Civil Service Retirement System.
This is a bill in the U.S. Congress originating in the House of Representatives . A bill must be passed by both the House and Senate and then be signed by the President before it becomes law.
SPEECH OF HON. STEPHEN F. LYNCH
OF MASSACHUSETTS
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
THURSDAY, JULY 15, 2010
Mr. LYNCH. Madam Speaker, the United States Postal Service’s CSRS Obligation Modification Act of 2010, is intended to remedy a unfair and inequitable methodology for allocating the Postal Service’s share of Civil Service Retirement System, CSRS, retirement benefit liabilities for employees that provided service to this country under both the Post Office Department and the independent United States Postal Service.
According to a January 2010 report by the United States Postal Service’s Office of Inspector General, USPS-OIG, the Postal Service paid more into the Civil Service Retirement and Disability Trust Fund that it would have paid if a more equitable methodology were used to allocate CSRS retirement benefit liabilities between the Federal government and the United States Postal Service.
As a result of the USPS-OIG report’s findings, the Postmaster General of the United States Postal Service submitted a request, in accordance with section 802(c) of the Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act, to the Postal Regulatory Commission, PRC, calling for an independent and objective review of the methods used to allocate benefit liabilities between the Postal Service and the Federal government under generally accepted actuarial practices and principles.
The independent actuarial firm hired by the PRC, The Segal Company, determined that the current methodology used by the Office of Personnel Management, OPM, for allocating such retirement benefits between the United States Postal Service and the Federal government follows an antiquated methodology that fails to incorporate current actuarial best practices and accounting standards as recognized and codified by the Financial Accounting Standard Board.
Accordingly, to remedy this unjust treatment, this legislation I am introducing today directs OPM to update and modernize the actuarial methodology to be used in allocating CSRS retirement benefit liabilities between the United States Postal Service and the Federal government in accordance with The Segal Company’s recommendation. Under this approach, the Federal government’s portion of an individual’s CSRS annuity will be based on the CSRS benefit accrual formula and the conventional individual’s “high-3” average salary. By utilizing this methodology, this legislation will ensure that OPM is using modern actuarial practices and accounting standards to apportion the benefit liabilities that are codified by the independent Financial Accounting Standard Board under FASB ASC 715.
PRC Report Finds $50 Billion Discrepancy In USPS Payment Of Retirement Benefits
Washington, DC – The Postal Regulatory Commission today submitted to Congress, the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) and the United States Postal Service, an independent actuarial report on the allocation of the Civil Service Retirement System (CSRS) benefits paid to former Post Office Department employees.
The Postal Service asked for an independent review of current allocations. The Commission report finds that an adjustment of $50-$55 billion in favor of the Postal Service would be equitable.
“The Commission is pleased to provide this expert and timely perspective to assist Congress and OPM as they work to resolve an issue that has far-reaching consequences for the financial health and viability of the Nation’s universal mail system,” said Chairman Ruth Y. Goldway.
By law, OPM, which is responsible for calculating the Postal Service’s CSRS pension liability, must now reconsider its calculation of the Postal Service’s pension assets in light of this report, and submit the results of its reconsideration to the Commission, the Postal Service, and Congress.
The Commission finds that the report, prepared by The Segal Company, provides a persuasive statement of how generally accepted accounting principles should be used to develop the current postal pension assets.
The Commission suggests that Congress may wish to alter the schedule established in the Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act (PAEA) for potential transfers from the Postal Service Retirement Fund to its Retiree Health Benefit Fund. Currently, such transfers may not take place before September 30, 2015.
The full report, Civil Service Retirement System Cost and Benefit Allocation Principles, is available on the Commission web site, http://prc.gov/.
USPS OIG: Fixing CSRS Overpayment and pre-funding requirements would fully fund pension and retiree health benefits
The economic downturn and the continued electronic diversion of mail, coupled with an aggressive retiree health pre-payment schedule have combined to put the Postal Service in financial crisis. A recent analysis of the future of the mail conducted on behalf of the Postal Service showed that mail volume may not recover along with the economy – further deteriorating the Postal Service’s financial condition in the years to come. Moreover, in its April 12 report entitled, “U.S. Postal Service: Strategies and Options to Facilitate Progress Toward Financial Viability,” the Government Accountability Office (GAO) found This report presents the results of our review of the Civil Service Retirement System (CSRS) Overpayment by the U.S. Postal Service (Project Number 10YO036CI000).This report discusses the $75 billion CSRS overpayment by the Postal Service in fiscal years (FY) 1972 through 2009. The objective of this review was to assess the facts concerning this overpayment and identify any possible solution(s) to correct the overpayment to the benefit of the Postal Service. This review addresses financial risk.See Appendix A for additional information about this review.
On May 5, 2010, the U.S. Postal Service Office of Inspector General (OIG) entered, for the record, the attached Congressional testimony with the U.S. Congress in addition to the oral testimony previously given by the Postal Service’s Inspector General (IG) before Congress on April 15 and 22, 2010. 1 The attached testimony (See Appendix B) explains, in detail, the Postal Service’s $75 billion overpayment to the CSRS and three possible solutions to correct the overpayment contained in the IG’s written testimony of May 5, 2010. (See Appendix B pages 13 – 16)
Conclusion
The Postal Service pension fund is not made up of tax dollars. The two funding streams are the employees’ own money and money collected from postage sales, with inflated prices as a result of the $75 billion overpayment. See Appendix C for OIG’s detailed monetary impact calculation. The return of the overpayment or a combination of actions to realize the benefit of the $75 billion overpayment to the Postal Service would fully fund the pension and health retiree plans. The Postal Service’s more than $7 billion annual payments for retiree health care prefunding and retiree health care premiums would no 1 The April 15, 2010, Hearing before the Committee on Oversight and Government reform and the Subcommittee on the Federal Workforce, Postal Service, and the District of Columbia House of Representatives and the April 22, 2010, Hearing before the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee’s Subcommittee on the Federal Financial Management, Government Information, Federal Services, and International Security.
How the $75 Billion overcharge started:
In July 1971, when the Post Office Department became the Postal Service, employees that belonged to the federal pension fund began contributing to the Postal Service’s portion of the pension fund. These retirement costs were divided according to the number of years employees had belonged to each fund. However, the federal pension fund paid for retirements was based on 1971 salaries, not final salaries as administered by the Office of Personnel Management (OPM).
OPM has explained that these mischarges were in response to what they believed to be the will of Congress expressed in 1974 legislation. However, the 1974 language was repealed by Congress in 2003. Congress directed OPM to use its authority to oversee the reforms using accepted “dynamic assumptions” that include pay increases and inflation. OPM switched to dynamic funding for the Postal Service portion, but did not for their share. The Postal Service paid the $75 billion difference.
In 2004, the Postal Service appealed the OPM’s methodology for pension fund allocation and the appeal was denied by the OPM. The denial relied on 1974 legislation that made the Postal Service responsible for the pension costs related to salary increases. However, the 1974 language was repealed by Congress.
In addition, the OPM directed the Postal Service to use 100 percent pre-funding for both pension and health care retirement funds. In contrast the OPM has pension funding levels of 41 percent for federal employees and 24 percent for the military. The OPM’s own retiree health care prefunding for federal employees is 0 percent. The Standard & Poor’s 500 companies’ pension funding is 80 percent.
Correcting either the $75 billion overcharge or reducing the 100 percent target prefunding level to 80 percent would result in the ability of the Postal Service to pay off the Treasury debt associated with paying the $75 billion overcharge.
Accordingly, the annual costs and premiums for the health care liability could be financed out of the interest earnings and surplus. Another option for the Postal Service could be to use the $75 billion overcharge to pledge to the retiree health fund instead of making annual payments. This could be done with the agreement of the OPM and the U.S. Treasury.
The details concerning each of the three possible solutions can be found in the appendix of the attached Congressional testimony.
See Full Report: Management Advisory Report – Civil Service Retirement System
Overpayment by the Postal Service (Report Number CI-MA-10-001).
Federal Disability Retirement under FERS or CSRS: Understanding the Different Perspectives and Differing Interests
by Attorney Robert R. McGill
As with most things in life, attempting to secure a Federal Disability Retirement annuity under FERS or CSRS requires an extraordinary amount of time, effort, planning, and the collection, formulation and coordination of a compendium of information. Multiple questions arise at the early stages of planning: Can I live on 60% of the average of one’s highest-3 consecutive years of salary for the first year, then upon the second and subsequent years at 40% (planning stage)? Will my doctor support me (collection of information stage)? How must it be stated, and what must be stated, on the Applicant’s Statement of Disability (Standard Form 3112A, both for FERS & CSRS) (formulation stage)? How do I get the doctor to cooperate, make sure my Supervisor does his or her portion, and who fills out the Agency Certification of Reassignment and Accommodation Efforts (SF 3112D) (coordination stage)? And these are just a small fraction of the questions one needs to ask in preparing to file for Federal Disability Retirement benefits.
Before engaging in the minutiae of preparing an application for Federal Disability Retirement, it is often a good idea to take a macro-perspective of the process as a whole.
What a potential applicant for Federal Disability Retirement needs to understand, at a minimum, are the varying perspectives of (potentially) differing interests involved in the totality of the process of this “thing” called Federal Disability Retirement under FERS or CSRS. The four (4) main interests involved are: (1) The individual applicant who will be filing for Federal Disability Retirement benefits; (2) The Agency for which the applicant works; (3) The Doctor who is treating the applicant who is contemplating filing for Federal Disability Retirement benefits; and (4) The Office of Personnel Management. The key to success in filing and winning an approval is to recognize the different perspectives of each of the four main interests, to coordinate the differing interests, and then to formulate a plan to garner the proper support from each.
Thus, let us take each interest in the order listed:
1. The individual applicant who is contemplating filing for Federal Disability Retirement benefits under FERS or CSRS. Whether because of medical conditions which have impacted the physical body – from Cervical, Lumbar or Thoracic degenerative diseases, or Shoulder Impingement Syndrome; Lupus; Multiple Sclerosis; Parkinson’s Disease; Carpal Tunnel Syndrome; Plantar Fasciitis; Multiple Chemical Sensitivity (including allergies); Fibromyalgia; Chronic Fatigue Syndrome; Migraine headaches; or a host of other medical conditions not listed (this is not intended to be an exhaustive list, by any stretch of the imagination) – to Psychiatric diagnoses of Major Depression, Generalized Anxiety Disorder; panic attacks, Agoraphobia; Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder; ADD or ADHD; Autism Spectrum Disorders (including Asperger’s); Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, etc. (again, this list is not meant to be exhaustive), the important point is to know that the individual has come to a stage in his or her life where a medical disability has become so intractable, despite surgery, physical therapy, medication regimens; psychotropic medications; psychotherapeutic intervention; and multiple other reasonable modalities of treatments – all of which have been merely temporary and palliative in nature; but work is and has been suffering; and the individual cannot perform one or more of the essential elements of the job, and the medical condition is expected to last for a minimum of 12 months. The time has come to file. Work and career have been a major part of one’s life, and it is difficult to come to acknowledge the reality that such work cannot be performed anymore, and the years invested with an Agency must come to an end. This is where “quality of life” issues become important: Am I coming home each day just to recuperate to make it to work for another day? Am I using up so much LWOP that my performance is suffering? Am I in danger of being placed on a PIP? Is my Agency thinking about terminating me? Before it reaches a critical point, it is important to begin planning; and the first step in planning is to acknowledge bluntly and forthrightly, that the time has come to file for Federal Disability Retirement under FERS or CSRS.
2. The Agency for which the applicant works. Agencies are strange organic entities. They reflect, on a microcosmic scale, the people at all levels who work for the Agency. Don’t ever expect that loyalty is a bilateral avenue – it is not. Your loyalty for twenty years to an Agency will not be remembered on the day you start to impede the mission of the Agency. An employee’s loyalty to an Agency is rewarded only to the extent that the level of performance reflects positively upon the immediate Supervisor. Once the performance level begins to falter, the true avenue of loyalty reveals itself: it is a unilateral avenue. Your years of loyalty are forgotten. Is there a solution to this problem? To some extent; by persuading those who are open to persuasion, that the applicant for Federal Disability Retirement benefits and the Agency have a common goal: the Agency wants the vacant position which the applicant presently fills; the applicant wants to secure his or her financial security by obtaining Federal Disability Retirement benefits. Thus, the emphasis upon the commonality of goals can result in a positive result which is beneficial to both parties.
3. The Doctor who is treating the applicant. He or she is the critical linchpin of the case, and to garner the support of the most valuable resource in a Federal Disability Retirement case is essential. By his or her very nature, the doctor hates such administrative details of the job. To be asked to write a medical narrative report is anathema to the very essence of who a doctor is. A doctor is trained to treat patients. The administrative headaches of writing a convincing, excellent narrative report is the last thing that a doctor wants to do. It is therefore critically important to explain to the doctor, in clear and concise terms, the nature of Federal Disability Retirement; how it differs from Social Security or Worker’s Comp; what elements and issues need to be addressed in the narrative report; and why helping to obtain Federal Disability Retirement benefits is in the best interests of the patient.
4. The Office of Personnel Management. This is the toughest out of the four. This is the Agency which receives and reviews all Federal Disability Retirement applications under FERS or CSRS. They apply the legal criteria in determining whether or not the applicant qualifies. Not everyone who makes a decision is fully informed of the governing laws, and so it is imperative that an Application for Federal Disability Retirement is well-formulated, concisely written, descriptively delineated, and supported by credible medical documentation. The Office of Personnel Management (OPM) will never meet you; you are a faceless entity with merely a paper trail. As such, the paper submission must be convincing, persuasive, and meet the burden of proof by a preponderance of the evidence.
A successful Federal Disability Retirement application under FERS or CSRS, submitted to the Office of Personnel Management, must take into account all of the four (4) interests described above, and coordinate them, taking into account the differing perspectives which will often involve seemingly opposing interests. It is the ability to garner the support of each, to coordinate and extrapolate the advantages from each, and to compile, formulate, and prepare an excellent presentation which will have a high chance of being approved by the Office of Personnel Management. This is where one might consider the “5th” entity – that of an Attorney who specializes in Federal Disability Retirement laws. It is a consideration worth pursuing, especially because it concerns the future financial security of a Federal or Postal employee which we are speaking about – you.
Attorney Robert R. McGill specializes in federal disability retirement cases helping Federal and Postal workers secure their disability retirement benefits under both FERS and CSRS.
PRC Seeking Third Party Consultant Services To Review USPS Current CSRS Obligations
PRC looking for Actuarial Consultant Services to review current CSRS obligations
Statement of Work for Actuarial Consultant Services – Federal Business Opportunities: Opportunities:
Recent Developments
On January 20, 2010, the U.S. Postal Service Office of Inspector General (OIG) published a document entitled “The Postal Service’s Share of CSRS Pension Responsibility.” This paper is identified as Report No. RARC-WP-10-001 and is posted under White Papers on the USPS OIG’s website.
The paper examines the Postal Service’s responsibility for CSRS-related pension obligations at the time of the Postal Service’s July 1, 1971 transition from a Department-level agency (Post Office Department) to an independent establishment of the federal government. It notes that the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) developed the current method of allocating these obligations between the Postal Service and the Federal Government and explains the methodology, including key assumptions. The report also describes an approach that the OIG believes would be more appropriate and equitable.
On February 23, 2010, as modified March 2, 2010, the Postal Service requested that the Commission initiate a review of decisions made by OPM regarding the Postal Service’s CSRS liabilities and issues highlighted in the USPS OIG report, including the report’s conclusion that OPM’s method, among other things, has resulted in substantial overfunding. The request was filed pursuant to section 802(c) of the Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act (PAEA) of 2006, Pub. L. 109-435, 120 Stat. 3250-51. The Postal Service requests the Commission’s opinion on the fairness and equity of the current OPM method used to apportion the CSRS obligation between the Postal Service and the POD.
Objectives
The PRC requires actuarial consultant services, using the OIG report as background, to review the method selected by OPM to allocate CSRS obligations associated with USPS employees’ POD-era service between the Postal Service and the federal government.
Tasks
The actuarial consultant shall provide reports, documentation and deliverables in verbal, written or electronic format (as appropriate) and shall provide weekly written progress reports.
Project Details
The actuarial consultant shall:
Review the method employed by OPM to allocate CSRS liabilities incurred during employment by the POD and during employment with the USPS between the Postal Service and the Federal Government for the purpose of assessing the advantages and disadvantages of this allocation method
Advise as to any alternative methods that should be considered, including (but not limited to) the method suggested in the OIG paper
Provide an assessment of how an allocation would be structured if all parties had negotiating power similar to that involved in acquisitions in the private sector
As applicable, provide recommendations typically made in similar situations for estimating the allocation of pension liability between a parent company and subsidiaries, particularly if those subsidiaries are divested
As applicable, compare OPM’s current method of allocation to standard or typical allocation methods used in a spin-off by other semi-government, government bodies or private sector entity undergoing a similar restructuring
Meet with OPM, USPS and USPS OIG actuaries, as needed, to discuss and to apply methods and results.
Support PRC staff members in identifying and assessing appropriate allocation methods
Provide related supporting data and, to the extent practicable, models or description thereof, to PRC staff
Address the appropriate level of funding for a Retiree Pension fund, including standard or typical practice, risks of overfunding vs. underfunding, volatility of funding assumptions, and any other important issues
Requirements
The actuarial consultant must be a member in good standing of the American Academy of Actuaries, have extensive experience in the pension field, and must have experience analyzing pension issues in a legal and legislative context.
The actuarial consultant must disclose all current and previous work performed for USPS or any other federal agency. The actuarial consultant also must disclose any pending negotiations for professional engagements with USPS or other federal agencies, apart from this SOW.
The actuarial consultant shall provide a description of qualifications, proposed work methods, an estimate of the length of time needed to complete the project, the total cost of the project, and the basis for the calculation.
The actuarial consultant shall acknowledge that if selected to provide professional services pursuant to this SOW, all work will be conducted with the understanding that time is of the essence in meeting the contractual deadline and that no extension of the deadline will be allowed.
Deliverables Date due: July 1, 2010
Provide a written evaluation of the determinative factors in assessing an appropriate allocation method and an evaluation of the current method used in OPM’s allocation. The evaluation will include:
1. A comparison, where appropriate, to allocation methods typically used for splitting pension liabilities;
2. An assessment of the alternative method set out in the OIG paper;
3. Specific discussion of the effects of the current allocation method on affected parties
Commission and Staff Review Session
New OIG Study Estimates USPS Has Been Overcharged for the CSRS Pension Fund by $75 Billion
A study just released by the U.S. Postal Service’s Office of Inspector General (OIG) shows that the current system of funding the Postal Service’s Civil Service Retirement System pension responsibility is inequitable and has resulted in the Postal Service overpaying $75 billion to the pension fund. The OIG estimates that if the overcharge was used to prepay the Postal Service’s health benefits fund, it would fully meet all of the Postal Service’s accrued retiree health care liabilities and eliminate the need for the required annual payments of more than $5 billion. Also, the health benefits fund could immediately start meeting its intended purpose — paying the annual payment for current retirees, which was $2 billion in 2009.
This marks the third time the Postal Service has been overcharged. In 2002 it was determined the Postal Service would overfund CSRS by $78 billion. Legislation in 2003 corrected this overfunding. Then it was determined the Postal Service was overcharged $27 billion for CSRS military service credits. In 2006 these funds were returned to the Postal Service by Congress, and the surplus was used to fund retiree health care liabilities.
This study, The Postal Service’s Share of CSRS Pension Responsibility , undertaken in conjunction with the Hay Group, is the third paper sponsored by the OIG that delves into the financial entanglements between the Postal Service and the federal government — generally at the expense of the Postal Service. The latest study describes the inequitable allocation of CSRS costs between the federal government and the Postal Service. The other two reports focus on the Postal Service’s congressionally-mandated retiree health care prefunding payments (Estimates of Postal Service Liability for Retiree Health Care Benefits), and the Postal Service’s interaction with the federal budget (Federal Budget Treatment of the Postal Service).
In this newly released paper, the OIG and Hay Group’s analysis demonstrates that the method used to determine how CSRS pension costs for postal employees with service before 1971 are split between the Postal Service and the federal government is inequitable. As a result, the Postal Service was overcharged by $75 billion for payments to CSRS retirees from 1972 to 2009. The OIG suggests that this amount be returned to the Postal Service’s CSRS pension fund. Any excess above what is needed to fund CSRS liabilities could then be transferred to the Postal Service’s retiree health care fund, which would fully fund its health care liability and eliminate the need for further congressionally-required payments to the fund. All of the Postal Service’s current pension and health care obligations to its employees would then be fully funded.
The report further illustrates the inequity in the methodology used to determine the Postal Service’s contribution to the CSRS fund. Key findings from the report:
Read more
source: U.S Postal Service Office Of Inspector General
CBO Report Pegs Cost Of Modifying Retirement Benefits Calculation For CSRS Part-Time Employees
According to Govexec.com: “A bill aimed at modifying the way retirement benefits are calculated for certain federal employees who work part-time at the end of their careers would cost the government $39 million from 2010 to 2019, the Congressional Budget Office reported this week.”
“The legislation (S. 469), sponsored by Sen. George Voinovich, R-Ohio, would modify the way retirement annuities are calculated for employees covered under the Civil Service Retirement System. Currently, CSRS employees who retire with part-time service late in their careers could see reduced annuities.”
“According to the CBO report, the bill would provide an average of $2,000 more in retirement benefits per year for about 650 of the expected retirees from the CSRS system in 2010. Additional retirements by 2019 would boost the overall cost of the measure to $39 million, according to CBO.”
“At the same time, the budget office reported, a bill that would let agencies rehire retirees without cutting their annuities would not cost taxpayers extra.”
The Basis for Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate :
Under current law, a CSRS employee with service prior to April 7, 1986, who works part-time at the end of his or her career may receive a lower annuity than an otherwise identical employee whose part-time service occurred earlier. In either case, the employee will receive a total retirement benefit that results from the sum of two annuity calculations—one for service before April 7, 1986, and one for service on or after that date. A major factor in the calculation of a federal retirement annuity is an employee’s “high-3,” the average of the three highest consecutive years of salary. Often, an employee’s highest three years of salary occur in the final three years of service. For employees with part-time service in their career, the basis on which the high-3 is calculated is different for service prior to April 7, 1986, than for service after that, which may result in a lower annuity for employees who work part-time at the end of their careers.
S. 469 would change the calculation of retirement benefits for employees with part-time service to treat all service the same. As a result, annual spending for civil service retirement would rise by amounts growing from $1 million in 2010 to $6 million in 2019; overall, enacting the legislation would increase direct spending by $39 million between 2010 and 2019. CBO assumes the bill will be enacted near the end of fiscal year 2009, which would affect benefits for about 650 new CSRS retirees in 2010 (the number of new retirees would decline annually thereafter, as CSRS is a closed retirement system with no new entrants). The Office of Personnel Management estimates that the average increase in value of retirement benefits for eligible employees as a result of this bill would be about $2,000 a year.
Related Link: A Risk in Going Part-Time