Click here for a short summary of the issue. Click here for a detailed timeline.
See also the Pension Rights Center website.
Click here for ex-St. Peter's CEO John Matuska's 2011 letter to the IRS.
Click here for ex-St. Peter's VP of HR Bruce Pardo's 2011 letter to the IRS.
Haga clic aqui para verun resumen del problema en español.
Tuesday, October 15, 2013
The plaintiff's opposition is on multiple fronts which we will not attempt to summarize here (perhaps in a future post). Most interesting, however, is the argument that Saint Peter's claim that the Bishop of Metuchen exercises complete control over SPHS, made under penalty of perjury in accompanying affidavits by SPHS personnel, appears to contradict statements made by Saint Peter's to the IRS (also under penalty of perjury) and Saint Peter's own bylaws. We will convey any new developments about the lawsuit as we get them.
In other news, last week Saint Peter's VP of HR Susan Ballestero sent a letter to plan members regarding the Pension Rights Center's recent memorandum on the IRS ruling, withholding comment citing the active litigation. She also states that Saint Peter's will comply with whatever ruling results from the lawsuit.
Saturday, October 5, 2013
Saint Peter's has been claiming all along that the hospital is controlled by the Diocese of Metuchen, and the IRS cites that claim in their recent ruling supporting Saint Peter's church plan status. We surmise that the same has been true at St. Mary's, and note with irony the following passage in the AP story:
St. Mary's would not answer questions about the hospital's management of its pensions or details of the pending acquisition. The Sisters of Charity of Saint Elizabeth, the Convent Station, N.J., order that sponsors the hospital, referred all questions to St. Mary's.The article indirectly quotes Saint Peter's attorney:
A lawyer for the hospital, Jeffrey Greenbaum, said St. Peter's had the right to make the change because of its association with the Catholic Church, and it is not breaking its promises to workers and retirees.If this story shows anything, it is that such claims are so much hot air. That the hospital says it is not breaking its promises today, and intends to keep them in the future, does not mean it won't welsh on them later if things go south. A church plan ruling means the hospital is free to fund – or not fund – the plan as they see fit, can save the money it would have spent on insuring the plan, and can keep the details of its operation a secret. The freedom to abandon pension commitments, along with the immediate cost savings, is the reason for pursuing a church plan ruling.
In other news, the plaintiffs in the recent class action suit have responded to Saint Peter's motion to dismiss the suit. We'll post in more detail about this soon.
Friday, September 27, 2013
Karen Ferguson of the Pension Rights Center has published this memo which analyzes the IRS's decision and clarifies where we go from here. We urge all interested parties to read and distribute the memo.
Pending the result of the ongoing class action suit ‒ and the probable subsequent appeal ‒ the IRS ruling leaves the pension plan without the protections previously provided under federal law. It allows SPUH to fund (or continue to under-fund) the plan as they see fit and to stop insuring the plan against default. The decision allows the hospital to save a large sum of money on a continuing basis, at the expense of the financial security of its employees and retirees.
The (Middlesex County) Home News Tribune carried a story about the IRS ruling on August 29th. In it, SPUH attorney Jeffrey Greenbaum repeats an often-used SPUH claim that the ruling doesn't allow the hospital system to take money out of the pension plan. This of course misrepresents plan members' concerns: we aren't worried about the hospital taking money out; we're worried that they won't put enough money in to keep the plan solvent. Retiree Monica Mosley echoes the concerns of many members: "They would like to say they’re a church plan since 1974, but when I was working for them, they said they were ERISA. Why should I believe what they tell me now?” Another story on the ruling by Hazel Bradford has been published in Pensions & Investments.
In other news, SPUH recently updated its Social Media Policy. It contains a (likely new) requirement that if an employee "is contacted by a blogger, online journalist or media representative about the business of the organization ... he/she must notify their reporting manager and the Marketing/Communications leadership before responding." This is significant, given recent instances of SPUH firing employees for the smallest policy infractions.
Friday, August 23, 2013
Wednesday, June 26, 2013
Saturday, June 22, 2013
In February 2002, Saint Peter's filed IRS Form 5300, "Application for Determination for Employee Benefit Plan." Saint Peter's had evidently made a change to the Plan document and submitted this form to the IRS along with the revised document. The form is a request for the IRS to issue a letter confirming that the revised plan still qualifies for favorable tax treatment; that is, that it complies with the requirements imposed by federal tax law, including ERISA.
Note that in answering Line 7, "type of plan," Saint Peter's bypasses all the special cases – including "nonelecting church plan (i.e. an election under section 410(d) has not been made)" – and selects "other." In other words, Saint Peter's, in 2002, states to the IRS that the plan is not what they now claim it has been since 1974. The form jibes with former Saint Peter's CEO John Matuska's statement that throughout his 24 years on the Retirement Plan Committee (1977 to 2001) the Plan was always considered – in fact was – an ERISA plan, never a church plan. It contradicts most recent statements by Saint Peter's management about the status of the Plan since 1974.
The hospital claims that all such evidence, and indeed their entire thirty-two-year history of managing the Plan as an ERISA plan, is not relevant now. Since they now claim to have always been effectively a church (for pension plan purposes only), and since they never submitted a document stating that the plan was a church plan which elected to comply with ERISA, they claim that the Plan has always been a non-electing church plan. In their view, it doesn't matter that the actual reason such a document was never filed is because the hospital never considered itself a church – until 2006, once the benefits consultants got their hooks in.
We continue to be disappointed by Saint Peter's management, who must hide behind lawyerly word-parsing to support their claims, rather than acknowledging objective reality and talking straight as people do. The pending class-action suit should help decide whether the Plan's long history as an ERISA plan can be erased by a slick argument. In the meantime, your IRS comment can help draw attention to this evasion.
A gentle reminder: your comment letter to the IRS must be submitted by June 28!
Tuesday, June 4, 2013
Saint Peter's will be holding town hall meetings this coming Thursday and Friday, June 6 and 7, to discuss its new SPIRE strategic plan; the meetings will be chaired by Saint Peter's COO Kenneth Sable. Administration states that "employees are urged to ask questions" and that questions can be submitted in advance via a "question submission box." It's unclear if any questions not submitted via the box will be addressed. It's also unclear whether any of Saint Peter's administration responsible for the pension plan (CEO Rak, CFO Stoldt, or VP of HR Ballesteros) will attend. Still, if you attend one of these meetings and any of the above individuals are present, it may provide an opportunity to ask questions about the pension plan in a public forum. Clearly, the administration would rather address pension questions in private. If you or someone in your meeting asks a pension-related question, kindly let us know in the comments how it went. Thanks!