Comments on several recent changes in the UPR retirement system

Comments on several recent changes in the UPR retirement system.

In recent years several changes have been made in the UPR retirement system, including:

A window for changing from the 5% (coordinated) plan to the 7% plan (approximately 1988) at extra cost cert054
A window for increasing the tope to $50,000 (maximum income creditable for retirement (approximately 1998) at extra cost cert094
A window for retiring with full benefits at earlier ages, for those with 30 years service (approximately 1998) at no cost certification with details
A window for increasing the tope to $50,000 (maximum income creditable for retirement (2002) at extra cost Certificacion_139
A window for retiring with full benefits at earlier ages or with 27 or more years service, for those with 30 years service (2002) at large extra cost Boletin_Cert_060

In all these cases except the 1998 early retirement window, the option was constructed to favor non-teaching employees, and to force faculty, and especially engineering faculty, to pay a disproportionate share of the cost of the option. In addition, the retirement system provides quite small benefits for those retiring with even a few years less than the magic 30, regardless of age.

With this summary I have included a number of explanatory documents

It has become apparent that the University’s habit of placing a large financial burden on faculty as individuals and on academic budgets to provide extremely generous benefits for other classes of employees is not an accident, and not simply a policy of the retirement board, but is a deliberate, tenaciously held, and well-concealed policy of the Board of Trustees and its predecessor, the Council on Higher Education. For this reason APPU is the proper body to protest this policy; if it does not do so, especially at present when its influence is strong, I believe its usefulness as an organization representing faculty interests is open to question.

Additional documents:

1. Reports

. Report to the Rio Piedras Academic Senate (approximately 1987)

. This report describes the role of the CES vis-à-vis the retirement board and presents the result of consultant’s reports on the problems with the system. Little has changed.

. Noack report - 1987 (updated 2002)

. This is an analysis of the inequalities in the retirement system at that time and of the problems that likely would develop. They did.
Additional comments have been added to the report based on later happenings, but the 1987 description is still valid in 2002.

. gest88

. A 1988 report of the retiro board, stressing their desire to provide full retirement at 30 years service regardless of age – fairness issues were notable by their absence. A possible indicator of the thinking that has led to the present inequities.

. A generalized report

. social security benefit chart

. retirement percentage chart

. This also covers social security and health insurance issues

. Comments on the 1998 tope change - javier echauz

. PDF copies of all certifications I have found

2. Spreadsheets

. Brief spreadsheet done by Luis Perez Moll (QEPD) in 1998

. This illustrates the 3:1 ratio between what engineers and others pay for the same or less benefit

. A much more complicated spreadsheet (updated with examples)

. This is not longer current; it does handle the several tope changes mentioned above. It may again take a Ph. D. or an ICOM undergraduate to run it.

3. Email