Historical Massachusetts pension information

in  Massachusetts

* Fiscal
* Budgets
* Massachusetts state budget and finances
* Tax policy in Massachusetts
* Finance
* Financial regulation in Massachusetts
* Pensions
* Public pensions in Massachusetts
* Pension health in Massachusetts
* Civil liberties
* Affirmative action in Massachusetts
* Campaign finance requirements in Massachusetts
* Campaign finance requirements for Massachusetts ballot measures
* Nonprofit regulation in Massachusetts
* Education
* Charter schools in Massachusetts
* Higher education in Massachusetts
* Public education in Massachusetts
* School choice in Massachusetts
* Elections
* Ballot access
* Ballot access requirements for political candidates in Massachusetts
* Ballot access requirements for political parties in Massachusetts
* Political parties in Massachusetts
* Ballot access requirements for presidential candidates in Massachusetts
* Redistricting in Massachusetts
* Voting in Massachusetts
* Energy and Environment
* Energy policy in Massachusetts
* Fracking in Massachusetts
* Oil and gas extraction on federal land in Massachusetts
* Endangered species in Massachusetts
* Environmental policy in Massachusetts
* Healthcare
* Healthcare policy in Massachusetts
* Medicaid spending in Massachusetts
* Effect of the Affordable Care Act in Massachusetts
* Immigration
* Immigration in Massachusetts

* * *

This article does not contain the most recently published data on this subject. If you would like to help our coverage grow, consider donating to Ballotpedia.

* * *

The historical Massachusetts pension information below applies to prior calendar years. The tabs below may contain information from several different fiscal years; for example, the tab labeled "As published 2015" contains information from fiscal years 2013 and 2012 (the most recent data available at the time of initial publication). For more current information regarding Massachusetts' pension system, click here.

## Contents

* 1 As published 2016
* 1.1 General information
* 1.2 Contributions
* 1.3 Payments
* 1.3.1 Other post-employment benefits
* 1.4 Cash and investment holdings
* 1.5 Pension fund management fees
* 2 As published 2015
* 2.1 Background
* 2.2 General information
* 2.3 Contributions
* 2.4 Payments
* 2.5 Cash and investment holdings
* 2.6 Pension health
* 2.6.1 Pew research
* 2.6.2 Morningstar report
* 2.6.3 State Budget Solutions report
* 2.7 Other factors
* 2.7.1 Rate of return
* 2.8 Financial crisis
* 2.9 Studies and reports
* 2.9.1 Pension fund management fees
* 2.9.2 Other post-employment benefits
* 3 Public pensions in 2012
* 3.1 Annual Required Contribution
* 4 Public pensions in 2011
* 5 Historical pension plan data
* 6 Reforms
* 6.1 Enacted reforms
* 6.1.1 2011
* 6.2 Proposed reforms
* 6.2.1 2013
* 6.3 See also
* 6.4 External links
* 6.5 Footnotes

# As published 2016[edit]

* * *

Massachusetts information (2015)
Total contributions:
$5,129,721,000
Employee contributions:
$1,968,873,000
Government contributions:
$3,160,848,000
Total payments:
$7,217,066,000
Total cash and investment holdings:
$74,458,401,000
Number of state and local pension systems:

Active membership:
314,756
Inactive membership:
104,961

* * *

Key terms
Actuarial value of assets (AVA) • Unfunded actuarial accrued liability (UAAL) • Annual required contribution (ARC) • Discount rate • Funded ratio • Rate of return • Active member • Inactive member • OPEB
Hover over the above
terms for definitions.
Note: This page utilizes information from a variety of sources. The information presented on this page reflects the most recent data available as of August 2016.

Massachusetts public pensions are the state mechanism by which state and many local government employees in Massachusetts receive retirement benefits.

According to the United States Census Bureau, there were 14 public pension systems in Massachusetts as of 2015. Of these, 14 were state-level programs, while data for local systems were unavailable. As of fiscal year 2015, membership in Massachusetts' various pension systems totaled 419,717. Of these, 314,756 were active members.[1]

HIGHLIGHTS

* In fiscal year 2015, the most recent year for which information is available, total contributions of $5.1 billion were made to Massachusetts' state and local pension systems. Of this amount, approximately $2.0 billion came from employees.

* In fiscal year 2015, Massachusetts' state and local pension systems made payments totaling $7.2 billion.

* As of fiscal year 2015, Massachusetts' state and local pension systems held $74.5 billion in total cash and investment holdings.

According to a 2013 report by Morningstar, an independent financial research group, most states' pension plans continued to be funded below the 80 percent level considered necessary for a healthy fund. Decreased funding and increasing liabilities since the 2008 recession continued to put pressure on local and state budgets, in some cases leading to bankruptcy. Higher pension costs can have the following consequences:[2]

* higher taxes
* less intergovernmental aid for services
* lower credit ratings
* higher interest rates on state borrowing

State pension systems can vary in their organization, management, and accounting principles, making them difficult to compare. The basic information on this page comes from the U.S. Census Bureau, as reported by the states and pension funds themselves for fiscal year 2015.

## General information[edit]

See also: Pension data, U.S. Census

According to the U.S. Census Bureau, Massachusetts had 14 state pension plans as of 2015:[3]

1. Massachusetts Port Authority Employees Retirement System
2. Massachusetts Teachers Retirement Board
3. Massachusetts Water Resources Authority Employees Retirement System
4. Massachusetts Housing Finance Agency Employees Retirement System
5. Massachusetts State Employee Retirement System
6. Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority
7. Massachusetts Police Association Pension Plan
8. Franklin Regional Retirement System
9. Middlesex Regional Retirement System
10. Hampden Regional Retirement System
11. Hampshire Regional Retirement System
12. Essex Regional Retirement System
13. Worcester Regional Retirement System
14. Berkshire Regional Retirement System

Data were unavailable for locally administered systems.[1]

The table below provides general pension system information for Massachusetts and surrounding states.

General pension system information, 2015

State  | Systems  | Total members  | Active members  | Inactive members
State  | Local  | Members  | Percent of total  | Members  | Percent of total
Massachusetts | 14 | N/A | 419,717 | 314,756 | 74.99% | 104,961 | 25.01%
Connecticut | N/A | 206 | 196,761 | 175,650 | 89.27% | 21,111 | 10.73%
New Hampshire | 2 | 3 | 60,028 | 49,240 | 82.03% | 10,788 | 17.97%
Rhode Island | 5 | 34 | 42,225 | 32,757 | 77.58% | 9,468 | 22.42%
Source: United States Census Bureau, "State- and Locally-Administered Defined Benefit Pension Systems - All Data by State and Level of Government: 2015"

## Contributions[edit]

See also: Pension contribution and payment data, U.S. Census

Pension contributions are the funds paid into pension systems. These contributions come from the employer (in the case of public pensions, the government) and employees. Investment earnings are the main source of increases in the fund and are listed separately in the rightmost column in the below table.

In fiscal year 2015, the most recent year for which information is available, total contributions of $5.1 billion were made to Massachusetts' state and local pension systems. Of this amount, approximately $2.0 billion came from employees. The remainder came from state and local governments. The table below provides information about pension contributions in Massachusetts and surrounding states in fiscal year 2015.[1]

Pension contributions, fiscal year 2015 (dollars in thousands)

State  | Total contributions from employees and employers  | Employee contributions  | Government contributions  | Earnings on investments
Contributions  | Percentage of total  | Contributions  | Percentage of total
Massachusetts | $5,129,721 | $1,968,873 | 38.38% | $3,160,848 | 61.62% | $5,606,935
Connecticut | $3,292,112 | $742,085 | 22.54% | $2,550,027 | 77.46% | $2,750,689
New Hampshire | $558,282 | $208,701 | 37.38% | $349,581 | 62.62% | $288,260
Rhode Island | $694,479 | $104,433 | 15.04% | $590,047 | 84.96% | $317,178
Source: United States Census Bureau, "State- and Locally-Administered Defined Benefit Pension Systems - All Data by State and Level of Government: 2015"

## Payments[edit]

See also: Pension contribution and payment data, U.S. Census

Payments are the amounts paid to pension recipients by their pension plans. Pension payments include benefits and withdrawals. Benefits are the regular payments made by a pension plan to the plan's recipients. Pension beneficiaries may also withdraw funds before they are due to receive regular benefits.

In fiscal year 2015, Massachusetts' state and local pension systems made payments totaling $7.2 billion. The table below provides pension payment information for Massachusetts and surrounding states in fiscal year 2015. The columns labeled "Benefits," "Withdrawals," and "Other" are subsets of total payments. All dollar amounts displayed should be multiplied by 1,000 ($240,000 is equal to $240,000,000).[1]

Pension payments, fiscal year 2015 (dollars in thousands)

State  | Total payments  | Benefits  | Withdrawals  | Other
Massachusetts | $7,217,066 | $6,555,354 | $210,913 | $450,795
Connecticut | $4,416,643 | $4,334,387 | $27,010 | $55,245
New Hampshire | $717,311 | $657,762 | $26,501 | $33,048
Rhode Island | $1,040,474 | $1,000,407 | $12,155 | $27,915
Source: United States Census Bureau, "State- and Locally-Administered Defined Benefit Pension Systems - All Data by State and Level of Government: 2015"

### Other post-employment benefits[edit]

See also: Other post-employment benefits, data

In addition to standard pension payments, some plans may offer pensioners additional benefits. These benefits, sometimes referred to as "other post-employment benefits," or "OPEBs," consist of health insurance, life insurance or other benefits that the pensioner may have received while employed. The cost of these benefits can prove complicated for actuaries to calculate because of the changes in fields like medicine. This, coupled with the normal challenges in calculating and meeting pension requirements, can result in funding shortages for pension plans.

Unfunded liabilities totaled nearly $500 billion throughout the country for OPEBs. Massachusetts was reported to have about $15.4 billion in unfunded liabilities for OPEBs. This was equal to about 3.09 percent of the country's total unfunded liabilities for these other services.

The chart below displays the unfunded liabilities for Massachusetts and its surrounding states. All dollar amounts displayed should be multiplied by 1,000,000. For instance, $300 translates to $300,000,000.

Unfunded actuarial accrued liabilities for other post-employment benefits, fiscal year 2013 (dollars in millions)

State | Unfunded liabilities | Percent of total
Massachusetts | $15,377 | 3.09%
Connecticut | $22,581 | 4.54%
New Hampshire | $1,857 | 0.37%
Rhode Island | $858 | 0.17%
U.S. total | $497,693 | 100%
Source: National Association of State Retirement Administrators, "Retiree Health Care Benefits for State and Local Employees in 2014," accessed April 30, 2015. Note: Although this article was dated for 2014, all figures were reported to have come from fiscal year 2013 reports.

## Cash and investment holdings[edit]

See also: Pension data, U.S. Census

Investments are a crucial part of the pension process. The goal is that, by investing pension contributions, the pensioner will receive more money when he or she retires than he or she and the employer were able to contribute. These investments can come in the form of cash investments, short-term investments, securities, or other investments. Cash investments are usually low-risk, short-term investments that have a lower rate of return than other types of investments. Other short-term investments are riskier than cash investments, but have the potential for greater returns. Securities can refer to stocks, bonds, or other types of financial certificates that hold some sort of financial value. As the values of these securities change, they can be traded to make a profit. While there are other applications of securities investments, this represents one of the most common practices.[4][5][6]

As of fiscal year 2015, Massachusetts' state and local pension systems held $74.5 billion in total cash and investment holdings. The table below summarizes pension system cash and investment holdings for Massachusetts and surrounding states. The columns labeled "Total cash and short-term investments," "Total securities," and "Total other investments" are subsets of the grand total. All dollar amounts displayed should be multiplied by 1,000 ($240,000 is equal to $240,000,000).[1]

Total cash and investment holdings, fiscal year 2015 (dollars in thousands)

State  | Grand total  | Total cash and short-term investments  | Total securities  | Total other investments
Massachusetts | $74,458,401 | $1,603,736 | $57,806,783 | $15,047,882
Connecticut | $38,425,038 | $2,003,751 | $31,608,540 | $4,812,747
New Hampshire | $7,758,843 | $110,898 | $6,903,966 | $743,979
Rhode Island | $9,212,875 | $284,440 | $8,204,392 | $724,043
Source: United States Census Bureau, "State- and Locally-Administered Defined Benefit Pension Systems - All Data by State and Level of Government: 2015"

## Pension fund management fees[edit]

See also: Public pension fund management fees

In July 2013, the Maryland Public Policy Institute (MPPI) and the Maryland Tax Education Foundation released a report detailing the fees paid for the management of state pension systems. According to MPPI, the 10 state pension funds that paid the most in management fees relative to net assets experienced lower returns over a five-year period than the 10 state pension funds that paid the least in management fees. For example, in fiscal year 2012, South Carolina's pension system paid approximately $296.1 million in total management fees (1.31 percent of total net assets at the beginning of the fiscal year) and its five-year rate of return was 1.46 percent. By contrast, Alabama's pension system paid roughly $13.3 million in management fees (0.05 percent of total net assets) and its five-year rate of return was 7.53 percent.[7]

The table below presents the information collected by MPPI for Massachusetts and surrounding states. For each state's pension system, total net assets are listed (both for the beginning and end of the fiscal year in question), as well as the total amount paid in management fees. In addition, the rates of return for the pension systems are presented. Compared to surrounding states, Massachusetts had much higher total net assets and total management fees.

Public pension fund management fees, 2011-2012

State  | Fiscal year  | Total net assets at the beginning of the year  | Total net assets at the end of the year  | Total management fees  | Management fees as % of total net assets  | Five-year rate of return
Massachusetts | 2012 | $50,245,766,000 | $48,867,807,000 | $252,070,837 | 0.50% | 0.11%
Connecticut | 2012 | $25,086,280,000 | $23,873,812,000 | $87,099,000 | 0.35% | 1.27%
New Hampshire | 2012 | $5,891,179,000 | $5,774,343,000 | $22,908,000 | 0.39% | 1.80%
Rhode Island1 | N/A
1"Three states— Hawaii, Nevada and Rhode Island—were excluded because they hadn’t published CAFRs for fiscal years ending December 31, 2011 or later. West Virginia was excluded because its June 30, 2012 CAFR lacked sufficient disclosure."[7]
Source: Maryland Public Policy Institute, "Wall Street Fees, Investment Returns, Maryland 49 Other State Pension Funds," accessed April 23, 2015. Note: To access this data, navigate to the list of links below the article and click "Exhibit A."

# As published 2015[edit]

Public pensions in
Massachusetts

General information (2013)
Total contributions:
$4,798,875,000
Employee contributions:
$1,898,451,000
Government contributions:
$2,900,424,000
Total payments:
$6,500,305,000
Total cash and investment holdings:
$64,984,732,000
Number of state and local pension systems:
100 (14 state systems, 86 local systems)
Active membership:
308,704
Inactive membership:
61,873
Pension health (2012)
Assets:
$42,649,119,000
Actuarial accrued liability (AAL):
$64,267,758,000
Unfunded actuarial accrued liability (UAAL):
$21,618,639,000
Funded ratio:
66.4%
UAAL per capita:
$3,338
Public pensions
in the states
Alabama • Alaska • Arizona • Arkansas • California • Colorado • Connecticut • Delaware • Florida • Georgia • Hawaii • Idaho • Illinois • Indiana • Iowa • Kansas • Kentucky • Louisiana • Maine • Maryland • Massachusetts • Michigan • Minnesota • Mississippi • Missouri • Montana • Nebraska • Nevada • New Hampshire • New Jersey • New Mexico • New York • North Carolina • North Dakota • Ohio • Oklahoma • Oregon • Pennsylvania • Rhode Island • South Carolina • South Dakota • Tennessee • Texas • Utah • Vermont • Virginia • Washington • West Virginia • Wisconsin • Wyoming

* * *

* * *

Public pensions • State public pension plans • Massachusetts state budget and finances
Note: This page utilizes information from a variety of sources. As such, the currency of the information varies somewhat. The information presented on this page reflects the most recent data available as of March 2015.

Massachusetts public pensions are the state mechanism by which state and many local government employees in Massachusetts receive retirement benefits.

According to the United States Census Bureau, there were 100 public pension systems in Massachusetts as of 2013. Of these, 14 were state-level programs, while the remaining 86 were administered at the local level. As of 2013, membership in Massachusetts' various pension systems totaled 370,577. Of these, 308,704 were active members.[1]

According to a 2013 report by Morningstar, an independent financial research group, most states' pension plans continued to be funded below the 80 percent level considered necessary for a healthy fund. Decreased funding and increasing liabilities since the 2008 recession continued to put pressure on local and state budgets, in some cases leading to bankruptcy. Higher pension costs can have the following consequences:[2]

* higher taxes
* less intergovernmental aid for services
* lower credit ratings
* higher interest rates on state borrowing

HIGHLIGHTS

* Between fiscal years 2008 and 2012, the funded ratio of Massachusetts' state-administered pension plans decreased from 80.49 percent to 66.4 percent. The state paid 87 percent of its annual required contribution, and for fiscal year 2012 the pension system's unfunded accrued liability totaled $21.6 billion. This amounted to $3,338 in unfunded liabilities per capita.[2][8]

### Background[edit]

The basic information on this page comes from the U.S. Census Bureau, as reported by the states and pension funds themselves for fiscal year 2013. Also included are comparative data from three different reports, which looked at the states' Comprehensive Annual Financial Reports (CAFRs).

### General information[edit]

See also: Pension data, U.S. Census

According to the U.S. Census, Massachusetts had 14 state pension plans as of 2013:

1. Massachusetts Port Authority Employees Retirement System
2. Massachusetts Teachers Retirement Board
3. Massachusetts Water Resources Authority Employees Retirement System
4. Massachusetts Housing Finance Agency Employees Retirement System
5. Massachusetts State Employee Retirement System
6. Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (Offers two different plans)[9]

Although the following may be considered local pension systems, the Census Bureau counted them as state-level systems:

1. Franklin Regional Retirement System
2. Middlesex Regional Retirement System
3. Hampden Regional Retirement System
4. Hampshire Regional Retirement System
5. Essex Regional Retirement System
6. Worcester Regional Retirement System
7. Berkshire Regional Retirement System[9]

In addition to the aforementioned state-level pension systems, there were 86 locally administered pension systems in Massachusetts.[1]

The table below provides general pension system information for Massachusetts and surrounding states.

General pension system information, 2013

State  | Systems  | Total members  | Active members  | Inactive members
State  | Local  | Members  | Percent of total  | Members  | Percent of total
Massachusetts | 14 | 86 | 370,577 | 308,704 | 83.3% | 61,873 | 16.7%
Connecticut | 6 | 55 | 155,014 | 138,093 | 89.08% | 16,921 | 10.92%
Maine | 1 | 0 | 62,142 | 53,191 | 85.6% | 8,951 | 14.4%
New Hampshire | 2 | 2 | 58,761 | 50,135 | 85.32% | 8,626 | 14.68%
Rhode Island | 1 | 12 | 45,694 | 37,122 | 81.24% | 8,572 | 18.76%
Source: United States Census Bureau, "State- and Locally-Administered Defined Benefit Pension Systems - All Data by State and Level of Government: 2013"

### Contributions[edit]

See also: Pension contribution and payment data, U.S. Census

Pension contributions are the funds paid into pension systems. These contributions come from the employer (in the case of public pensions, the government) and employees. Investment earnings are the main source of increases in the fund and are listed separately in the rightmost column in the below table.

In fiscal year 2013, total contributions of $4.8 billion were made to Massachusetts' state and local pension systems. Of this amount, $1.9 billion came from employees. The remainder came from state and local governments. The table below provides information about pension contributions in Massachusetts and surrounding states in fiscal year 2013.[1]

Pension contributions, fiscal year 2013 (dollars in thousands)

State  | Total contributions from employees and employers  | Employee contributions  | Government contributions  | Earnings on investments
Contributions  | Percentage of total  | Contributions  | Percentage of total
Massachusetts | $4,798,875 | $1,898,451 | 39.56% | $2,900,424 | 60.44% | $7,078,906
Connecticut | $2,797,253 | $645,440 | 23.07% | $2,151,813 | 76.93% | $5,041,830
Maine | $448,231 | $153,537 | 34.25% | $294,694 | 65.75% | $1,192,097
New Hampshire | $467,624 | $203,611 | 43.54% | $264,013 | 56.46% | $853,492
Rhode Island | $687,450 | $192,072 | 27.94% | $495,378 | 72.06% | $894,165
Source: United States Census Bureau, "State- and Locally-Administered Defined Benefit Pension Systems - All Data by State and Level of Government: 2013"

### Payments[edit]

See also: Pension contribution and payment data, U.S. Census

Payments are the amounts paid to pension recipients by their pension plans. Pension payments include benefits and withdrawals. Benefits are the regular payments made by a pension plan to the plan's recipients. Pension beneficiaries may also withdraw funds before they are due to receive regular benefits.

In fiscal year 2013, Massachusetts' state and local pension systems made payments totaling $6.5 billion. The table below provides pension payment information for Massachusetts and surrounding states in fiscal year 2013. The columns labeled "Benefits," "Withdrawals," and "Other" are subsets of total payments. All dollar amounts displayed should be multiplied by 1,000 ($240,000 is equal to $240,000,000).

Pension payments, fiscal year 2013 (dollars in thousands)

State  | Total payments  | Benefits  | Withdrawals  | Other
Massachusetts | $6,500,305 | $5,994,304 | $246,687 | $259,315
Connecticut | $3,971,602 | $3,821,090 | $36,789 | $113,723
Maine | $836,912 | $772,360 | $22,771 | $41,781
New Hampshire | $646,872 | $592,325 | $23,401 | $31,146
Rhode Island | $1,102,278 | $1,065,014 | $12,290 | $24,974
Source: United States Census Bureau, "State- and Locally-Administered Defined Benefit Pension Systems - All Data by State and Level of Government: 2013"

### Cash and investment holdings[edit]

See also: Pension data, U.S. Census

As of fiscal year 2013, Massachusetts' state and local pension systems held $65 billion in total cash and investment holdings. The table below summarizes pension system cash and investment holdings for Massachusetts and surrounding states. The columns labeled "Total cash and short-term investments," "Total securities," and "Total other investments" are subsets of the grand total. All dollar amounts displayed should be multiplied by 1,000 ($240,000 is equal to $240,000,000).[1]

Total cash and investment holdings, fiscal year 2013 (dollars in thousands)

State  | Grand total  | Total cash and short-term investments  | Total securities  | Total other investments
Massachusetts | $64,984,732 | $894,635 | $58,868,672 | $5,221,426
Connecticut | $32,522,521 | $1,052,104 | $31,056,635 | $413,782
Maine | $11,432,765 | $121,043 | $10,523,069 | $788,653
New Hampshire | $6,450,662 | $14,695 | $5,617,328 | $818,639
Rhode Island | $8,511,634 | $416,599 | $7,822,470 | $272,565
Source: United States Census Bureau, "State- and Locally-Administered Defined Benefit Pension Systems - All Data by State and Level of Government: 2013"

### Pension health[edit]

Pension health is a term used to describe the overall state of pension systems. It can be difficult to gauge pension health in each state, but many studies use calculations to determine the average liabilities, unfunded liabilities, funded ratio and other data. Most experts believe that pension systems need to be funded at least 80 percent to be considered healthy. This information is then used to provide a snapshot of the state's overall pension health. This section provides information from three studies regarding the health of pensions in Massachusetts and neighboring states. They found the following:

* According to the Pew Charitable Trusts, Massachusetts paid 87 percent of its required contribution and its funded ratio was only 61 percent in fiscal year 2012.
* According to Morningstar, the state had a per capita pension debt of $3,338 and a funded ratio of 66.4 percent in fiscal year 2012.
* According to State Budget Solutions, which assumed a lower rate of return, Massachusetts had a per capita pension debt of $15,545 and a funded ratio of 29 percent in fiscal year 2013.

#### Pew research[edit]

See also: Pew Charitable Trusts pensions study, 2014

According to a 2014 report by the Pew Charitable Trusts, “Many states are seeing their pension debt continue to increase, despite reform efforts, because of missed contributions and the continued impact of investment losses.” The funding gap between what state pension systems have promised in benefits (liabilities) and current funding (assets) increased by $158 billion from 2010 to 2012 (14 percent), leaving state-run retirement systems with $915 billion in unfunded liabilities. Only 15 states made at least 95 percent of the annual required contributions (ARCs) for their pensions between 2010 and 2012; the aggregate shortfall in funding for all state plans was $21 billion. Data on these state pensions come from the Comprehensive Annual Financial Reports (CAFRs) that each state’s pension plan prepared for fiscal year 2012; these reports include actuarial valuations based on “the expected rate of return on investments and estimates of employee life spans, retirement ages, salary growth, retention rates, and other demographic characteristics.”[10]

All dollar amounts displayed should be multiplied by 1,000,000 (e.g., $240,000 is equal to $240,000,000,000).

Pension health metrics from the Pew Charitable Trusts report, 2010-2012 (dollars in millions)

State | 2012 | Funded ratio | Percent of ARC paid
Liability | Unfunded | ARC | 2010 | 2011 | 2012 | 2010 | 2011 | 2012
Massachusetts | $71,622 | $28,104 | $1,669 | 71% | 65% | 61% | 65% | 103% | 87%
Connecticut | $48,200 | $24,546 | $1,699 | 53% | 55% | 49% | 87% | 91% | 100%
Maine | $14,012 | $2,935 | $275 | 70% | 80% | 79% | 103% | 102% | 100%
New Hampshire | $10,433 | $4,573 | $257 | 59% | 58% | 56% | 100% | 100% | 100%
Rhode Island | $10,816 | $4,521 | $367 | 49% | 59% | 58% | 100% | 100% | 100%
Totals in the U.S. | $3,298,643 | $914,653 | $87,213 | 75% | 74% | 72% | 78% | 77% | 77%
Source: The Pew Charitable Trusts, "The Fiscal Health of State Pension Plans: Funding Gap Continues to Grow"

#### Morningstar report[edit]

See also: Pension data, 2013 Morningstar report

In 2013, independent investment research firm Morningstar released "The State of State Pension Plans 2013," a report detailing various metrics of pension system health in all 50 states. Morningstar found a $1.2 trillion gap in 2012 for the largest 100 U.S. public pension plans (according to the actuarial firm Milliman). Based on two key drivers in Morningstar’s analysis—the funded ratio and the unfunded actuarial accrued liability (UAAL) per capita—the fiscal solvency and management of these plans varied greatly. Overall, the firm found that "more than half of all states fall below Morningstar’s fiscally sound threshold of a 70 percent funded ratio" and all state plans combined were "72.6 percent funded with a UAAL per capita of roughly $2,600.”[2]

According to Morningstar's research, Massachusetts' state pension plans were funded at a rate of 66.4 percent in fiscal year 2012. The table below provides state pension system health metrics for Massachusetts and surrounding states in fiscal year 2012. Figures in the columns labeled "Assets," "AAL," and "UAAL" are rendered in thousands of dollars (for example, $2,400,000 translates to $2,400,000,000). Figures in the remaining columns have not been abbreviated. To view the full report, click here.

Pension health metrics from the Morningstar report, fiscal year 2012

State  | Assets  | Liabilities (AAL)  | Unfunded liabilities (UAAL)  | Funded ratio  | Unfunded liabilities
per capita
Massachusetts | $42,649,119 | $64,267,758 | $21,618,639 | 66.4% | $3,338
Connecticut | $23,654,500 | $48,200,500 | $24,546,000 | 49.1% | $6,922
Maine | $8,998,153 | $11,659,484 | $2,661,332 | 77.2% | $2,005
New Hampshire | $5,861,896 | $10,421,426 | $4,559,531 | 56.2% | $3,470
Rhode Island | $6,295,214 | $10,816,459 | $4,521,245 | 58.2% | $4,280
Totals in the U.S. | $2,157,578,916 | $2,979,267,860 | $821,688,945 | 72.40% | N/A
Source: Morningstar, "The State of State Pension Plans 2013: A Deep Dive Into Shortfalls and Surpluses," accessed September 16, 2013

#### State Budget Solutions report[edit]

See also: Pension data, State Budget Solutions report

State Budget Solutions is "a nonpartisan, nonprofit, national public policy organization with the mission to change the way state and local governments do business."[11] It should be noted that although the organization is technically nonpartisan, its ideology and mission have conservative leanings. In November 2014, the organization released a research report that used a fair market valuation based on a discount rate of 2.743 percent to determine the unfunded liabilities of public pension plans. The group concluded that "state public pension plans were underfunded by $4.7 trillion in 2014, up from $4.1 trillion in 2013. Overall, the combined plans' funded status ... dipped 3 percentage points to 36 percent. Split among all Americans, the unfunded liability [was] over $15,000 per person."[12]

According to the State Budget Solutions report, Massachusetts' pension plans were funded at a rate of 29 percent.

To read the full report, click here.

Note that all dollar amounts displayed (excluding those under the "Unfunded liability per capita" column) should be multiplied by 1,000 (e.g., $240,000 is equal to $240,000,000).

Pension health metrics from the State Budget Solutions report, fiscal year 2013 (dollars in thousands)

State | Assets | Market liability* | Funding ratio | Unfunded liability | Unfunded liability per capita | Unfunded liability as % of 2013 gross state product
Massachusetts | $42,974,758 | $147,019,968 | 29% | $104,045,210 | $15,545 | 23%
Connecticut | $25,765,325 | $112,357,458 | 23% | $86,592,133 | $24,080 | 35%
Maine | $11,452,000 | $27,443,348 | 42% | $15,991,348 | $12,042 | 29%
New Hampshire | $6,112,228 | $22,023,284 | 28% | $15,911,056 | $12,026 | 23%
Rhode Island | $7,524,961 | $24,409,768 | 31% | $16,884,807 | $16,050 | 32%
Totals in the U.S. | $2,679,831,466 | $7,416,319,293 | 36% | $4,736,487,827 | $15,052 | 29%
Source: State Budget Solutions, "Promises Made', Promises Broken 2014: Unfunded Liabilities Hit $4.7 Trillion"

### Other factors[edit]

#### Rate of return[edit]

According to a 2012 analysis by the Pew Center for the States, most state pension plans assumed an 8 percent rate of return on investments at that time. Proponents argued that an 8 percent rate of return would bear out over the long-term (15-30 years). Critics asserted that this assumption was unrealistic, citing changing market conditions and lower investment returns across the board in preceding years.[13][14]

Assuming a lower rate of return to predict investment earnings increases current plan liabilities, thereby lowering the percent funded ratio and requiring increased employer contributions (ARCs). This is because future plan liabilities are discounted based on the rate of return, so smaller expected investment returns result in larger actuarially accrued liabilities.[15] For example, on September 21, 2012, the Illinois Teachers Retirement System voted to lower its rate of return from 8.5 percent to 8.0 percent. This change increased the state's fiscal year 2014 ARC from $3.07 billion to $3.36 billion.[16] Similarly, when California's CalPERS reduced its projected annual rate of return from 7.75 percent to 7.5 percent in March 2012, it cost the state an additional $303 million for fiscal year 2013.[17]

### Financial crisis[edit]

In the wake of the 2008 recession, proponents of a lower assumed rate of return argued that the standard 8 percent assumptions could cause pension fund managers to engage in more risky investments and imprudent stewardship of public funds. Jeffrey Friedman, a senior market strategist at MF Global, said, "To target 8 percent means some aggressive trading. Ten-year Treasury [bonds] are yielding around 2 percent, economists say we are headed for a double-dip, and house prices aren't getting back to 2007 levels for the next decade, maybe.".[18][19][20][21][22]

Advocates of the 8 percent return rate argued that the dip following the 2008 financial crisis did not prove that there was a long-term downward trend in investment returns. According to Chris Hoene, executive director of the California Budget Project, "The problem with [the market rate] argument is there isn’t significant evidence other than the short term blip during the economic crisis that there’s been that shift. It’s a speculative argument coming out of a very deep recession."[23]

The National Association of State Retirement Administrators researched the median annualized rate of return for public pensions for the 1-, 3-, 5-, 10-, 20- and 25-year periods ending in 2013 and found it was 7.9 percent over the 20-year period, and exceeded 8 percent for the 1-, 3- and 25-year periods. It is important to note that the NASRA data reported the median returns, which means that median annualized returns of investment portfolios for half of the examined public pension funds failed to meet an 8 percent assumed rate of return.[24]

### Studies and reports[edit]

#### Pension fund management fees[edit]

See also: Public pension fund management fees

In July 2013, the Maryland Public Policy Institute (MPPI) and the Maryland Tax Education Foundation released a report detailing the fees paid for the management of state pension systems. According to MPPI, the 10 state pension funds that paid the most in management fees relative to net assets experienced lower returns over a five-year period than the 10 state pension funds that paid the least in management fees. For example, in fiscal year 2012, South Carolina's pension system paid approximately $296.1 million in total management fees (1.31 percent of total net assets at the beginning of the fiscal year) and its five-year rate of return was 1.46 percent. By contrast, Alabama's pension system paid roughly $13.3 million in management fees (0.05 percent of total net assets) and its five-year rate of return was 7.53 percent.[7]

The table below presents the information collected by MPPI for Massachusetts and surrounding states. For each state's pension system, total net assets are listed (both for the beginning and end of the fiscal year in question), as well as the total amount paid in management fees. In addition, the rates of return for the pension systems are presented.

Public pension fund management fees, 2011-2012

State  | Fiscal year  | Total net assets at the beginning of the year  | Total net assets at the end of the year  | Total management fees  | Management fees as % of total net assets  | Five-year rate of return
Massachusetts | 2012 | $50,245,766,000 | $48,867,807,000 | $252,070,837 | 0.50% | 0.11%
Connecticut | 2012 | $25,086,280,000 | $23,873,812,000 | $87,099,000 | 0.35% | 1.27%
Maine | 2012 | $11,051,692,821 | $10,766,866,860 | $24,300,000 | 0.22% | 1.50%
New Hampshire | 2012 | $5,891,179,000 | $5,774,343,000 | $22,908,000 | 0.39% | 1.80%
Rhode Island1 | N/A
1"Three states— Hawaii, Nevada and Rhode Island—were excluded because they hadn’t published CAFRs for fiscal years ending December 31, 2011 or later. West Virginia was excluded because its June 30, 2012 CAFR lacked sufficient disclosure."[7]
Source: Maryland Public Policy Institute, "Wall Street Fees, Investment Returns, Maryland 49 Other State Pension Funds," accessed April 23, 2015. Note: To access this data, navigate to the list of links below the article and click "Exhibit A."

#### Other post-employment benefits[edit]

See also: Other post-employment benefits, data

In addition to standard pension payments, some plans may offer pensioners additional benefits. These benefits, sometimes referred to as "other post-employment benefits," or "OPEBs," consist of health insurance, life insurance or other benefits that the pensioner may have received while employed. The cost of these benefits can prove complicated for actuaries to calculate because of the changes in fields like medicine. This, coupled with the normal challenges in calculating and meeting pension requirements, can result in funding shortages for pension plans.

Unfunded liabilities totaled nearly $500 billion throughout the country for OPEBs. Massachusetts was reported to have about $15.4 billion in unfunded liabilities for OPEBs. This was equal to about 3.09 percent of the country's total unfunded liabilities for these other services.

The chart below displays the unfunded liabilities for Massachusetts and its surrounding states. All dollar amounts displayed should be multiplied by 1,000,000. For instance, $300 translates to $300,000,000.

Unfunded actuarial accrued liabilities for other post-employment benefits, fiscal year 2013 (dollars in millions)

State | Unfunded liabilities | Percent of total
Massachusetts | $15,377 | 3.09%
Connecticut | $22,581 | 4.54%
Maine | $1,724 | 0.35%
New Hampshire | $1,857 | 0.37%
Rhode Island | $858 | 0.17%
U.S. total | $497,693 | 100%
Source: National Association of State Retirement Administrators, "Retiree Health Care Benefits for State and Local Employees in 2014," accessed April 30, 2015. Note: Although this article was dated for 2014, all figures were reported to have come from fiscal year 2013 reports.

# Public pensions in 2012[edit]

In fiscal year 2012, according to the systems' Comprehensive Annual Financial Reports, Massachusetts had a total of 172,795 active members in its retirement plans. Membership figures divide plan participants into two broad categories: active and other. Active members are current employees contributing to the pension system. Other members include retirees, beneficiaries, and other inactive plan participants (usually terminated employees entitled to benefits but not yet receiving them).[25]

The following information was collected from the systems' Comprehensive Annual Financial Reports and Actuarial Valuation Reports. The "percentage funded" was calculated by taking the current value of the fund and dividing by the estimated amount of total liabilities. The assumed rate of return used to calculate fund value was 8.25 percent in fiscal year 2012. The Government Accountability Office (GAO) and Pew Research Centers cited a percent funded ratio of 80 percent as the minimum threshold for a healthy fund, though the American Academy of Actuaries suggested that all pension systems "have a strategy in place to attain or maintain a funded status of 100 percent or greater."[26][27] The column labeled "SBS figure" refers to a market liability calculation of the fund by the nonprofit organization State Budget Solutions. This analysis used a rate of return of 3.225 percent, which was based upon the 15-year Treasury bond yield. The organization called this a "risk-free" rate of return that would make it easier for states to achieve their pension funding requirements in the future. Beginning in 2006, all private sector corporate pension plans incorporated market costs into their funding schemes.[28]

Basic pension plan information -- Massachusetts

Plans | Current value  | Percentage funded  | Unfunded liabilities
State figure | SBS figure[29] | State figure | SBS figure[29]
State Employees' Retirement System (SERS)[30] | $20,507,644,000 | 73.8% | N/A[31] | $7,277,087,000 | N/A[31]
Teachers' Retirement System (TRS)[30] | $22,141,475,000 | 60.7% | $14,341,552,000
Massachusetts Port Authority Employees' Retirement System** (MPAERS)[32] | $422,999,000 | 96.9% | $13,469,000
Massachusetts Water Resources Authority Retirement System** (MWRARS)[33] | $341,515,023 | 88.64% | $43,781,050
Massachusetts Housing Finance Agency Employees Retirement System** (MHFAERS)[34] | $79,406,000 | 77% | $23,212,000
TOTALS | $43,493,039,023 | 66.72% | 33% | $21,699,101,050 | $88,817,554,000
**Because State Budget Solutions accounted for these plans in its analysis, they are included here to facilitate comparison of the data.

### Annual Required Contribution[edit]

Annual Required Contributions (ARC) are calculated annually and are a sum of two different costs. The first component is the "normal cost," or what the employer owes to the system in order to support the liabilities gained in the previous year of service. The second component is an additional payment in order to make up for previous liabilities that have not yet been paid for. According to a report by the Pew Center on the States, in 2010 Massachusetts paid 65 percent of its annual required contribution.[35]

On June 25, 2012, the Government Accounting Standards Board (GASB) approved a plan to reform the accounting rules for state and local pension funds. These revised standards were set to take effect in fiscal years 2013 and 2014.[36] As a result, ARCs were removed as a reporting requirement. Instead, plan administrators and accountants were instructed to use an actuarially determined contribution or a statutory contribution for reporting purposes.[37]

ARC historical data[30]

Fiscal year | SERS | MTRS
Annual Required Contribution (ARC) | Percentage contributed | Annual Required Contribution (ARC) | Percentage contributed
2012 | $620,274,000 | 83.7% | $941,918,000 | 90.2%
2011 | $471,096,000 | 91.5% | $767,960,000 | 111.4%
2010 | $646,932,000 | 63.5% | $1,106,052,000 | 62.4%
2009 | $697,340,000 | 57.0% | $781,026,000 | 67.9%
2008 | $369,866,000 | 124.6% | $749,853,000 | 107.9%

# Public pensions in 2011[edit]

On June 27, 2013, Moody's Investor Service released its report on adjusted pension liabilities in the states. The Moody's report ranked states "based on ratios measuring the size of their adjusted net pension liabilities (ANPL) relative to several measures of economic capacity." In its calculations of net pension liabilities, Moody's employed market-determined discount rates (5.54 percent for Massachusetts) instead of the state-reported assumed rates of return (8.25 percent for Massachusetts as of July 1, 2011).[38]

The report's authors found that adjusted net pension liabilities varied dramatically from state to state, from 6.8 percent (Nebraska) to 241 percent (Illinois) of governmental revenues in fiscal year 2011.[38]

The adjusted net pension liability for the Massachusetts state-sponsored retirement systems in fiscal year 2011 was ranked the sixth highest in the nation.[38] The following table presents key state-specific findings from the Moody's report, as well as the state's national rank with respect to each indicator.

Adjusted net pension liabilities (ANPL) relative to key economic indicators - Massachusetts

| Governmental revenue* | Personal income | State GDP | Per capita
State findings | 100.4% | 12.7% | 11.4% | $6,770
National ranking | 9th | 9th | 9th | 7th
*Moody's uses governmental revenues as reported in each state's consolidated annual financial reports; this includes not only state-generated revenue, but federal funds, as well.[38]

# Historical pension plan data[edit]

Historical pension plan data - state-sponsored systems[30]

Year | Value of assets | Accrued liability | Unfunded liability | Funded ratio
2007 | $39,265,617,000 | $50,991,524,000 | $11,725,907,000 | 77.00%
2008 | $43,284,209,000 | $53,776,006,000 | $10,491,797,000 | 80.49%
2009 | $35,919,945,000 | $56,267,022,000 | $20,347,077,000 | 63.84%
2010 | $40,281,524,000 | $58,601,387,000 | $18,319,863,000 | 68.74%
2011 | $44,362,852,000 | $61,115,767,000 | $16,752,915,000 | 72.59%
Change from 2007-2011 | $5,097,235,000 | $10,124,243,000 | $5,027,008,000 | -4.42%
Historical pension plan data - SERS[30]

Year | Value of assets | Accrued liability | Unfunded liability | Funded ratio
2007 | $18,445,225,000 | $21,670,810,000 | $3,225,585,000 | 85.1%
2008 | $20,400,656,000 | $22,820,502,000 | $2,419,846,000 | 89.4%
2009 | $16,992,214,000 | $23,723,240,000 | $6,731,026,000 | 71.6%
2010 | $19,019,062,000 | $24,862,421,000 | $5,843,359,000 | 76.5%
2011 | $21,244,900,000 | $26,224,776,000 | $4,979,876,000 | 81.0%
Change from 2007-2011 | $2,799,675,000 | $4,553,966,000 | $1,754,291,000 | -4.10%
Historical pension plan data - MTRS[30]

Year | Value of assets | Accrued liability | Unfunded liability | Funded ratio
2007 | $20,820,392,000 | $29,320,714,000 | $8,500,322,000 | 71.0%
2008 | $22,883,553,000 | $30,955,504,000 | $8,071,951,000 | 73.9%
2009 | $18,927,731,000 | $32,543,782,000 | $13,616,051,000 | 58.2%
2010 | $21,262,462,000 | $33,738,966,000 | $12,476,504,000 | 63.0%
2011 | $23,117,952,000 | $34,890,991,000 | $11,773,039,000 | 66.3%
Change from 2007-2011 | $2,297,560,000 | $5,570,277,000 | $3,272,717,000 | -4.70%

# Reforms[edit]

### Enacted reforms[edit]

#### 2011[edit]

On November 18, 2011, Governor Deval Patrick signed into law significant public pension reforms.[39] These included raising the retirement age and reducing the actuarial accrual rate (and thereby reducing benefits).[40][41] According to the governor's office, these reforms were expected to save more than $5 billion dollars over 30 years.[39]

### Proposed reforms[edit]

#### 2013[edit]

A number of bills pertaining to public pension administration or reform were proposed in 2013, but each appeared to have stalled in committee.[42]

## See also[edit]

* Public pensions in the United States
* Massachusetts state budget and finances
* Tax policy in Massachusetts
* Pension statistics
* Public pension health by state
* Public pensions

## External links[edit]

* Pension Tsunami
* Pension Calculator from Public Sector Inc.
* Massachusetts Pension publications

## Footnotes[edit]

1. ↑ 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.8 United States Census Bureau, "State- and Locally-Administered Defined Benefit Pension Systems - All Data by State and Level of Government: 2015," accessed August 26, 2016 Cite error: Invalid `<ref>` tag; name "census" defined multiple times with different content
2. ↑ 2.0 2.1 2.2 2.3 Morningstar, "The State of State Pension Plans 2013: A Deep Dive Into Shortfalls and Surpluses," accessed September 16, 2013
3. ↑ United States Census Bureau, "2015 Annual Survey of Public Pensions," accessed September 1, 2016
4. ↑ Investopedia, "Cash investment definition," accessed April 6, 2015
5. ↑ Investopedia, "Short-term investments definition," accessed April 6, 2015
6. ↑ Investopedia, "Securities," accessed April 6, 2015
7. ↑ 7.0 7.1 7.2 7.3 Maryland Public Policy Institute, "Wall Street Fees, Investment Returns, Maryland 49 Other State Pension Funds," accessed April 23, 2015 Note: To access this data, navigate to the list of links below the article and click "Exhibit A."
8. ↑ The Pew Charitable Trusts, “The Fiscal Health of State Pension Plans: Funding Gap Continues to Grow,” accessed April 16, 2015
9. ↑ 9.0 9.1 U.S. Census, "2013 Survey of Public Pensions: State Data," accessed April 16, 2015. Note: To access this data, navigate to the bottom of the page and click "Unit ID file."
10. ↑ The Pew Charitable Trusts, “The Fiscal Health of State Pension Plans: Funding Gap Continues to Grow,” accessed April 16, 2015
11. ↑ State Budget Solutions, "About SBS," accessed October 31, 2013
12. ↑ American Legislative Exchange Council, "Promises Made, Promises Broken 2014: Unfunded Liabilities Hit $4.7 Trillion," accessed November 12, 2014
13. ↑ The Widening Gap Update, "Pew Center on the States," accessed October 17, 2013
14. ↑ The New York Times, "Public Pensions Faulted for Bets on Rosy Returns," accessed May 27, 2012
15. ↑ Benefits Magazine, "Public Pension Funding 101: Key Terms and Concepts," accessed October 23, 2013
16. ↑ Crain's Chicago Business, "State teachers pension board lowers expected rate of return," accessed September 21, 2013
17. ↑ Huffington Post, "California Pension Funds Expect Lower Investment Return," accessed March 14, 2012
18. ↑ The Washington Post, "Kansas’s pension funding gap just grew by $1 billion," accessed September 6, 2013
19. ↑ Topeka Capital-Journal, "KPERS' unfunded liability rises to $10.2B," accessed September 4, 2013
20. ↑ Wall Street Journal, "Pensions Wrestle With Return Rates," accessed October 10, 2011
21. ↑ The Courant, "Promising Too Much On Public Pensions," accessed August 10, 2012
22. ↑ Business Wire, "NCPERS 2013 Survey: Public Pension Plans Report Increasing Confidence, Lower Costs, Growing Returns," accessed October 22, 2013
23. ↑ Governing, "Expert: Governments Are Masking Their Pension Liabilities," accessed October 25, 2013
24. ↑ National Association of State Retirement Administrators, "Issue Brief: Public Pension Plan Investment Return Assumptions," accessed October 23, 2013
25. ↑ Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, "Pensions Glossary," accessed November 27, 2013
26. ↑ United States Government Accountability Office Report to the Committee on Finance, U.S. Senate, "State and Local Government Retiree Benefits: Current Status of Benefit Structures, Protections, and Fiscal Outlook for Funding Future Costs," September 2007, accessed October 23, 2013
27. ↑ American Academy of Actuaries, "Issue Brief: The 80% Pension Funding Standard Myth," July 2012, accessed October 23, 2013
28. ↑ Governing Magazine, " Is There a Plot Against Pensions?" accessed October 14, 2013
29. ↑ 29.0 29.1 State Budget Solutions, "Promises Made, Promises Broken - The Betrayal of Pensioners and Taxpayers," accessed September 20, 2013
30. ↑ 30.0 30.1 30.2 30.3 30.4 30.5 Commonwealth of Massachusetts, "Comprehensive Annual Financial Report for the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2012," accessed November 13, 2013
31. ↑ 31.0 31.1 Analysis only available for system totals and not individual funds.
32. ↑ Massachusetts Port Authority Employees' Retirement System, "2012 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report for the Fiscal Year Ended December 31, 2012," accessed November 13, 2013
33. ↑ Massachusetts Water Resources Authority Contributory Retirement System, "Actuarial Valuation and Review as of January 1, 2013," accessed November 13, 2013
34. ↑ Massachusetts Housing Finance Agency, "2012 Annual Financial Report," accessed November 13, 2013
35. ↑ Government Accounting Standards Board, "Annual Required Contribution (ARC)," accessed October 17, 2013
36. ↑ Reuters, "Little-known U.S. board stokes hot pension debate," accessed July 10, 2012
37. ↑ State Budget Solutions, "GASB's ineffective public pension reporting standards set to take effect," accessed June 5, 2013
38. ↑ 38.0 38.1 38.2 38.3 Moody's Investor Service, "Adjusted Pension Liability Medians for US States," accessed June 27, 2013
39. ↑ 39.0 39.1 Mass.gov, "Governor Patrick Signs Pension Reform Legislation," accessed November 18, 2011
40. ↑ McCormack Graduate School of Policy and Global Studies, Gerontology Institute, "Summary of Mass State Pension Reform Law, Chapter 176 of the Acts of 2011," accessed December 13, 2011
41. ↑ General Court of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, "Chapter 176: An Act Providing for Pension Reform and Benefit Modernization," accessed November 13, 2013
42. ↑ National Conference of State Legislatures, "Pensions and Retirement State Legislation Database - Massachusetts 2013," accessed November 13, 2013

Ballotpedia

About

Overview • What people are saying • Support Ballotpedia • Contact • Contribute • Job opportunities

* * *

Executive: Leslie Graves, Founder and CEO • Gwen Beattie, Chief Operating Officer

Communications: Alison Graves, Director of Communications • Carley Allensworth • Abigail Campbell • Sarah Groat • Nathaniel Harwood • Dillon Redmond
External Relations:  Geoff Pallay, Director of External Relations • Ken Carbullido, Vice President of Election Product and Technology Strategy • Ashley Fleming • Thomas Mardik • Hannah Nelson
Operations: Meghann Olshefski, Director of Operations • Amanda Herbert • Mandy Morris • Caroline Presnell • Kelly Rindfleisch
Tech: Matt Latourelle, Director of Technology Operations • Ryan Burch • Kirsten Corrao • Beth Dellea • Travis Eden • Tate Kamish • Margaret Kearney • Eric Lotto • Joseph Sanchez • Mary Susmitha

Contributors: Scott Rasmussen

* * *

Editorial Content

Josh Altic, Director of Content • Daniel Anderson, Associate Director of Elections & Data • Cory Eucalitto, Associate Director of Features • Ryan Byrne, Managing Editor of Ballot Measures • Mandy McConnell, Managing Editor of News • Doug Kronaizl, Managing Editor of Local Expansion • Abbey Smith, Managing Editor of Elections • Janie Valentine, Managing Editor of Law • Joel Williams, Managing Editor of Events • Joseph Greaney, Managing Editor of Policy • Andrew Bahl • Jaclyn Beran • Marielle Bricker • Joseph Brusgard • Emma Burlingame • Kelly Coyle • Jon Dunn • Victoria Edwards • Thomas Ellis • Nicole Fisher • Thomas Grobben • Brianna Hosea • Molly Kehoe • Tyler King • Glorie Martinez • Norm Leahy, Senior Editor • Nathan Maxwell • Brandon McCauley • Andrew McNair • Ellie Mikus • Mackenzie Murphy • Kaley Platek • Samantha Post • Adam Powell • Annelise Reinwald • Spencer Richardson • Victoria Rose • Briana Ryan • Myj Saintyl • Maddy Salucka • Emma Soukup • Alexis Thacker • Mina Vogel • Samuel Wonacott • Trenton Woodcox • Heather Yates

v • e

State of Massachusetts
Boston (capital)

|

Elections |

What's on my ballot? | Elections in 2026 | How to vote | How to run for office | Ballot measures

Government |

Who represents me? | U.S. President | U.S. Congress | Federal courts | State executives | State legislature | State and local courts | Counties | Cities | School districts | Public policy