(1)(a) The state auditor,
with the concurrence of the association, shall retain a nationally recognized and
enrolled actuarial firm with experience in public sector pension plans to conduct
the study described in subsection (2) of this section. The state auditor shall
administer a competitive source selection process pursuant to the Procurement
Code, articles 101 to 112 of this title 24, to solicit independent third-party firms with
the necessary credentials to bid for performance of the study. The state auditor
shall select a firm that has a history of unbiased, peer-reviewed results and shall
not select a firm that has a known conflict of interest that may interfere with its
ability to produce an objective report. A firm that responds to the solicitation shall
disclose any ass
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
(1) (a) The state auditor,
with the concurrence of the association, shall retain a nationally recognized and
enrolled actuarial firm with experience in public sector pension plans to conduct
the study described in subsection (2) of this section. The state auditor shall
administer a competitive source selection process pursuant to the Procurement
Code, articles 101 to 112 of this title 24, to solicit independent third-party firms with
the necessary credentials to bid for performance of the study. The state auditor
shall select a firm that has a history of unbiased, peer-reviewed results and shall
not select a firm that has a known conflict of interest that may interfere with its
ability to produce an objective report. A firm that responds to the solicitation shall
disclose any association that it had or currently has with a biased group. If,
following good faith efforts, the state auditor and the association do not concur
regarding the selection of the firm by October 1, 2024, the state auditor shall retain
the firm preferred by the state auditor. The state auditor shall enter into a contract
with the selected firm by October 31, 2024.
(b) The state auditor and the association shall confer with the office of state
planning and budgeting to determine the scope of the study required by subsection
(2) of this section.
(2) (a) The firm selected pursuant to subsection (1) of this section to perform
the study required by this subsection (2) shall perform a comprehensive study
comparing the cost and effectiveness of the current hybrid defined benefit plan
design established in this article 51 to alternative plan designs in the public and
private sector. The study must include the following:
(I) A comparison of the benefits, cost, and portability of benefits provided by
the association in its current plan design with the benefits, cost, and portability of
benefits provided by alternative plan designs;
(II) A comparison of the current plan design to other statewide plans, private
sector retirement plans, and any other appropriate plans as determined by the
association and the office of the state auditor;
(III) An analysis of the cost to employees and employers that would be
incurred by transitioning from the current plan design administered by the
association to alternative plan designs;
(IV) The impact that a change from the current plan design to alternative
plan designs would have on expected retirement benefits for current and future
retirees of the association;
(V) The incremental impacts that a change from the current plan design to
alternative plan designs would have on the association's ability to fully amortize the
unfunded actuarial accrued liability of each division of the association; and
(VI) The impact that a change from the current plan design to alternative
plan designs would have on employers, members, and taxpayers relative to the plan
design currently specified in law.
(b) The firm selected pursuant to subsection (1) of this section shall include
in the study conducted pursuant to subsection (2)(a) of this section an analysis of
the following aspects of the defined benefit plan and the defined contribution plan
established by this article 51 and administered by the association:
(I) A determination of the ways in which members with different job
classifications and varying salaries benefit differently from the defined benefit plan
versus the defined contribution plan;
(II) A determination of whether the defined benefit plan or the defined
contribution plan is more advantageous for state employees and retirees; and
(III) A determination of the extent to which the defined benefit plan, as
opposed to the defined contribution plan, entices individuals to work for state
government instead of working in the private sector or for another governmental
entity.
(c) On or before August 15, 2025, the association and the office of the state
auditor shall deliver a report detailing the findings of the study conducted pursuant
to this subsection (2) to the office of the governor, the joint budget committee, the
legislative audit committee, and the finance committees of the senate and the
house of representatives, or any successor committees.
(3) For purposes of the study required by subsection (2) of this section, the
association shall provide access to anonymized member information and data under
a confidentiality agreement with the retained actuarial firm.
(4) The state auditor shall notify the joint budget committee of the general
assembly if the state auditor determines that the amount appropriated by the
general assembly for the purpose of the study required by subsection (2) of this
section is insufficient to procure a vendor to complete the scope of the work
required.