ORP task force approves package of recommendations to expand ORP eligibility, strengthen ORP voice and raise employer contributions

The ORP Task Force of the Board of Regents met Dec. 18 to finalize a set of recommendations for a report to the legislature due Jan. 10. Chair (meeting facilitator) opened the meeting, asked staff to call the roll and guided members through each recommendation; the task force voted to include all of the recommendations discussed and authorized staff to make technical edits before the report is submitted.

The package includes several interlocking items aimed at ORP participants and institutional employers. The task force recommended explicitly adding postsecondary institutions to statutory ORP eligibility language so that certain employees within the Louisiana Community and Technical College System would be eligible for ORP. The Chair said the report is due Jan. 10 and recommended allowing staff to make technical updates after today’s meeting to ensure numbers and wording are current.

Members discussed how ORP elections currently work: employees default into the defined benefit (DB) plan and may elect to move to ORP, with an election window tied to service credit and an early 60‑day rule that affects whether employer contributions follow the election. The group agreed to add explanatory footnotes in the report clarifying that employees have up to five years of service credit to choose ORP and that elections made after the initial 60‑day window generally transfer only employee contributions to ORP.

On governance, the task force approved language calling for the creation of an ORP advisory committee to discuss ORP terms, vendor selection and investments with TRSL staff and board representatives and to provide updates to ORP members. Members debated the phrasing (removing the word “inform” in favor of “discuss”) and the committee’s composition; the recommendation as drafted would include two members from each system (one faculty and one staff) and one ORP representative selected by the commissioner of higher education to represent ORP members not aligned to a system.

The task force also voted to seek, via legislative instrument, an additional TRSL board member elected by active ORP members who would hold the same fiduciary duties as current board members. Members noted the seriousness of fiduciary responsibility and discussed how an elected ORP member would be expected to act in a board fiduciary capacity.

On contributions, the task force recommended that any savings recognized from forthcoming constitutional or legislative changes remain in higher education and that institutions use a portion of such savings to increase employer contributions to ORP accounts. The group separately approved a recommendation to establish a legislative minimum employer contribution of 8 percent. During discussion members cited NASHRA data and asked that historical contribution rates and explanatory graphics be added to the report; the Chair and staff agreed to append a historical table of rates for context.

The task force also agreed to recommend a legislative study on phased retirement programs to evaluate feasibility for ORP and DB members. The proposed study would include HR and academic representatives from each system, TRSL staff and an actuary and would examine eligibility, time periods for phased retirement and how salary and retirement benefits would be handled; members suggested adding a CFO representative so financial implications are explicit.

Finally, the task force approved a recommendation to allow optional TRSL membership for certain new hires — specifically employees aged 60 or older at hire or those aged 55 with 40 Social Security quarters — so those employees could instead contribute to Social Security. Members discussed parallels to LASERS and asked that the report include a clarifying footnote and examples from other systems.

A brief discussion addressed the ORP administrative fee (member cap noted at 0.05 in the transcript) and confirmed that, under current law, the fee will be split between employer and employee starting in fiscal year ’27 unless legislation changes that structure; the task force asked staff to explain the fee’s purpose in the report (consultant and staffing costs) and to include it as a topic for the advisory committee.

All recommendations discussed were approved for inclusion in the final report; several votes were conducted by voice and the meeting record shows at least one abstention (a participant identified in the transcript as Trey) on particular motions. The Chair moved and members seconded a motion to allow staff to make the technical edits agreed in the meeting; that motion passed and the meeting adjourned.

The task force’s report will be formatted by Regents staff and submitted to the legislature prior to final Board approval because of timing constraints; members will receive the formatted version and an appendix with historical contribution rates before the report submission.