The Waterbury Democrat., 1933-03-23
Connecticut Pension
 Commission To Seek No
 Further Legislation
Howell Cheney, Chairman of Board, Submits Report to General Assembly Asking for No Further Action
 Due to Present Economic Conditions in the State

1 the fact that no employe's contri- period removes one method of de- creasing the states liability. Hence, the postponing of proper legisla- tion is not as real a contribution towards reducing the expenses of the state as it might appear" Originally appointed, by Cover nor John T. Trumbull, the commits sion has Howell Cheney as chair man, and the following members: Charles M. Bakewell, Benedict D. Flynn, Albert B. Lavery, Lee Roy Robbins and Robert Smith.
 A bill proposing a contributory pension system was reported by the commission to the 1881 session of the legislature. This bill was re- jected on an adverse report by the judiciary committee. A substitute plan was then drawn up, embody- ing recommendations received from employees of the state. This plan. also was rejected by the ju- dietary committee.
 The Plan
 The plan submitted first called for employees to contribute per cent of annual earnings and the state to contribute 4 per cent of its annual payroll, the average burden on the employees oyer the next 35 years to be about one-third and on the state two-thirds of the total cost, because the state was to assume the total burden of past service.
 Acceptance was to be optional with employees in service before the act became effective, but com pulsory with those entering service after the act became effective when they had completed one year of service: with the exclusion of elect ed officials, judges, teachers eligi- ble under the state teachers re- tirement system and commission CTS and heads of departments spe- officially named.
 The annuity was to consist of 9 per cent of the average pay for each year of service Con not ex- ceeding $6,000) after the adoption of the plan, and 1 2-3 per cent of the average annual pay over the preceding five years of service, for each year of service before the act became effective, but not exceeding two-thirds of the average pay for the earlier years.
 The estimated average annual cost to the state was per cent of the annual payroll, plus an amount necessary for the amortization over a definite period of years of the liability for past service. (It was estimated that 2h per cent of the annual payroll would take care of this as a budget over 15 to 20 years) to start with an initial contribution from the state of ap- proximately $529.000.
 Qualifications
 The bill included qualifications for retirement, provision for return of contributions, with interest, to employees or their estate in case of withdrawal from service or death prior to pension age, provi- sion for disability pensions, and | administration by retirement l board. and then setting up and maintaining of adequate reserves .Thesubstitute plan, which in. The substitute plan, which in. | p1oyes of the state, and which al. so was rejected by the judiciary committee, differed from the origi. nal plan in that 1t proposed to sci up no reserves and to meet the lia.
 bility as it accrued entirely out o1 the states current income. The substitute plan lowered the em. ploye's contribution to per cent the state, to pay the balance what ever it might prove to be, out o1 current income. The substitute plan made retirement optional with the employe, at age 70, eliminated the disability pension, and made no provision for an administrative board.