Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Pension Plan Revisions topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board member Bill Thorn outlines revisions to Ledyard defined‑benefit plan; police and firefighters’ status left for HR
Summary
At its June 16 meeting the Ledyard Retirement Board reviewed a cleaned-up draft of the defined-benefit plan prepared with Robinson & Cole, including title and appendix updates, a new plan-administrator definition, and eligibility dates; questions about police and firefighter early-retirement language and a disputed final-average-earnings wording will be resolved with HR and contract negotiators before a vote.
Board member Bill Thorn presented a revised draft of the town’s defined‑benefit plan at the Ledyard Retirement Board’s June 16 meeting and said the firm Robinson & Cole had "spruced up" the document for clarity and administrative consistency. Thorn said he would circulate the marked-up draft and recommended the board vote on the revisions at a future meeting after a short review period.
Thorn described several edits: changing the document title to reflect a retirement plan (rather than pension language), moving labor‑specific earnings calculations (including police and fire) into appendices so the core plan remains general, adding effective contract dates in each appendix to keep them current, and explicitly defining the plan administrator (identified in the draft as the town’s human resources office). Thorn said the changes are mostly administrative and that some items already reflect town-council decisions, such as allowing rehired employees to receive benefits.
Why it matters: the revisions aim to reduce internal conflicts between the plan text and labor contracts, clarify who administers benefits and how to find current contract provisions, and make the plan easier to maintain between contract cycles.
A central unresolved issue discussed at length was how the plan treats police and firefighters. Thorn noted an IRS exception referenced in the draft and that police contracts include separate wording; he asked HR whether firefighters should be treated like police for early‑retirement exceptions. The board agreed HR input is needed to finalize wording in multiple sections where police/fire distinctions appear.
Board members also flagged a difference in the draft’s description of “final average earnings.” The police contract language in the circulated contract reads as a 36‑consecutive‑month sliding window within a 10‑year lookback, while the town’s typical practice and earlier plan language use a 3‑year average. Thorn said the contract wording appears to be an anomaly and remarked, "I think that's crap," while the group acknowledged that actual calculations had been performed consistent with the board’s usual 3‑year approach. The board agreed to reconcile contract language and plan text and noted the police contract may be under negotiation.
A board member asked for a concise revision history that highlights substantive changes rather than editorial edits; Thorn said he would expand the revision summary to emphasize significant changes. A staff member requested that the ordinance number establishing the retirement board be added to the draft for reference; the staff member cited "200‑010" as the relevant ordinance number and Thorn agreed to include it.
What's next: Thorn will circulate the edited document and the planned revision history to board members, follow up with HR on police/fire eligibility language, and return the finalized draft for formal consideration and vote at a subsequent meeting.
