As a retiree, I\u2019d like to clarify my position on several issues regarding the Retirement Fund. I\u2019ve been reading the local papers the past few days and am totally flabbergasted, frustrated, and irked by some of the statements attributed to be representing “the retirees.” Granted, the majority rules, and perhaps this is the case in several of these statements made publicly. However, as a retiree, I would like to voice my comments and clarify my position, which is NOT supportive of such moves.<\/p>\n
Recently I learned that Brown Rudnick LLP and Braddock Huesman, LLC filed a couple of documents in the District Court (Revised Proposal of Debtor for Entry of Order Pursuant to First Modified Benefits Motion Providing for the Continued Payment of Certain Benefits to Beneficiaries [Docket No. 154]; and Notice of Hearing Re: Debtor\u2019s Revised Proposal for Entry of Order Pursuant to First Modified Benefits Motion Providing for the Continued Payment of Certain Benefits to Beneficiaries [Docket No. 158]). Why are these outrageously highly paid attorneys still on payroll when the Fund has several in-house lawyers? Isn\u2019t there any way to terminate this blundering contract since the bankruptcy is pretty much dismissed? If it\u2019s within the authority of the Fund administrator, then he needs to take control and find a way to get rid of the highfalutin’ attorneys they hired, as they continue to siphon the dwindling retirement funds. If, as I\u2019m told, “we\u2019re stuck with them,” then he\u2019d better have the in-house attorneys earn their pay by figuring out a way to put a stop to this blunder.<\/p>\n
Another news I read states that a dedicated tax from pensions and benefits of retirees can make the idea of floating a bond attractive, that a special account under the Fund was also recommended to be established solely for these taxes. If this is an additional deduction to the already taxed pension, I do NOT support it nor do I support the plan to have my pensions deducted by 10 percent to guarantee the payment of the pension obligation bond. I spoke publicly against this at the meeting held at the Multi-Purpose Center. I have NOT changed my position on that. It\u2019s one of the most ridiculous move there is. Our pensions are already being taxed. If the government or anyone else who support the pension obligation bond wants to guarantee its payment, then let them use 10 percent of what\u2019s already deducted from our pension as income tax, or put up 10 percent of their budgets as guarantee. After all it is the government who owes the retirees, not the other way around. No, I do not agree to a 10-percent cut to guarantee the payment of the bond. I don\u2019t think it takes a rocket scientist to figure out why no retiree should support such a move! If the government wants to push for a bond to help pay its debt to the Fund, then the government should put up the 10 percent guarantee from its budgets, not from the retirees\u2019 already taxed pensions.<\/p>\n
Another thing I read is the Commonwealth Retirees Association suggesting that the retirees hire an attorney to fight the executive order to restructure the Fund. What for? Why is the CRA going to spend more money hiring more attorneys? There are already attorneys involved with a lawsuit in the district court to try and collect the money the government owes the Retirement Fund. If the CRA has the money to hire attorneys, then give it to those who are already involved in the Roe and Doe case in the district court. At this stage, we really don\u2019t have any other alternative but to unite in supporting this case-everything else has failed, including the Superior Court, which we initially hoped would solve the problem, but has not. Instead, it just made it worse by more siphoning of the funds. Right now, I\u2019d rather take my chances with the district court than a receiver appointed by the Superior Court.<\/p>\n
I know I\u2019m stepping on several toes with this letter but it had to be said and bluntly as can be so there\u2019s no misunderstanding of where I stand on this issues, especially the suggestions by CRA supposedly on my behalf as a retiree.<\/p>\n
Gloria Hunter<\/strong> As a retiree, I\u2019d like to clarify my position on several issues regarding the Retirement…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":18,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[7],"tags":[134,135,88],"class_list":["post-22376","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-letters-to-the-editor","tag-retirement-fund","tag-san-antonio","tag-superior-court"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.saipantribune.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/22376","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.saipantribune.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.saipantribune.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.saipantribune.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/18"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.saipantribune.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=22376"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.saipantribune.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/22376\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.saipantribune.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=22376"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.saipantribune.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=22376"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.saipantribune.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=22376"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
\nSan Antonio, Saipan<\/em><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"