The Dallas Police and Fire Pension Review Board’s 6-5 vote recently to accept the city of Dallas’s “best and final” plan was nothing short of a farce.
For those who aren’t up to speed, this board is set up to ensure that retired police officers and firefighters have a secure and sound pension after their years of service to the city of Dallas.
But those of us on the board appointed by police officers and firefighters feel the city has stacked the deck against us and is now trying to force an unfair agreement on our first responders.
This began with my fellow trustee, Rob Walters, who put through a surprise motion last week to force a deal on us that we believe is intended to undermine ongoing litigation between the pension fund and the city.
Opinion
That case, now on appeal in federal court in El Paso, should determine whether a plan already submitted to the state should dictate how the pension is managed. Those of us on the pension board who represent police officers and firefighters believe that plan is both the lawful deal and the one more likely to secure their pensions.
A quick background: the Dallas Police and Fire Pension System has been badly underfunded for years. Under state law, it was required to submit a state-approved plan by late 2024 that would demonstrate the pension can achieve 100% funding in 30 years.
Under that deadline, the pension fund and the city negotiated for two years in good faith to design such a plan. Independent consultants were required to give unbiased options for both the pension fund and the city to choose from. We did not come up with these choices ourselves but selected from the menu provided by the independent consultant.
With a September 2024 deadline fast approaching, and no finalized plan, the board voted to submit a plan in August 2024 and did so by unanimous decision. All 10 trustees in attendance agreed to the plan. The city submitted their own plan, ignoring the board’s will.
The board sued in district court and was successful in getting a ruling requiring the city to adhere to our plan. The city immediately appealed, bringing us to the place we are in today.
On Nov. 12, oral arguments were heard in El Paso to decide if the lower courts were correct in designating the DPFP plan as “the plan” for resolving the pension crisis if the city and the board disagree. The justices appeared fully informed and aware that in the event of an impasse, a decision must be made as to whose plan should be submitted to the state, as required under law.
We believe we have a strong case on appeal, and the city is worried it will lose again.
Their response? To push a motion and a vote with new board members that would give the false appearance that the board has accepted the city’s “best and final” offer. That essentially tells the El Paso courts that there is no need for a judgement in the appellant case, we are working it out. That’s not true. We believe we have already worked out a plan and submitted it to the state.
It’s clear from the vote that the trustees elected to represent the interests of Dallas police officers and firefighters have not accepted the city’s “best and final” plan. This has been a very divisive process and vote. In my opinion, no prudent person would accept a far lesser plan than the plan that was submitted last November and that is currently law.
Key elements that our members want are not included in this best and final plan. And we are concerned that the plan the city supports actually represents a weaker actuarial plan that puts the pension at greater risk over time.
The board is divided, and the mayor’s appointed trustee forced through a motion essentially saying, Just say yes to everything now, and whatever you don’t like, we might change later. Let’s see if the board will actually get to negotiate again. The logic is confounding but the motion is alarming.
The city of Dallas has had seven years to contribute anything toward solving this problem. In 2017, the city was told by the board that there is a dire need for larger contributions by the city, that our funding would get dangerously low if they continued to ignore the unfunded liabilities by paying nothing to this problem. Now that the courts are finally compelling the city to act, it is trying everything to delay progress.
This is a dangerous game; I believe it will further lower the funding ratio for the Dallas Police and Fire Pension System, which is currently 32%. When our board warned the city in 2018, we were approximately 45% funded.
There has been no meeting of the minds. The Dallas Police and Fire active members and retirees are outraged. In my opinion, this “best and final” proposal is actually worse than anything the city has previously put on the table during negotiations.
Moreover, the pension fund’s active members have not even seen the city’s “best and final” proposal. Active members have been funding the lion’s share of the pension since 2017, yet they have no idea what the “best and final” will provide for them in the future because they have not seen it.
I believe the mayor has stacked the board with his recent appointments to force an outcome that prioritizes the city’s interests over the health of the pension. The previous mayoral appointees who voted for the lawful plan were removed for not voting in a way that conforms with the city’s agenda.
We believe the plan we submitted to the state’s Pension Review Board prior to the adoption of this best and final offer is the law.
Police and Fire Pension System representatives will not stand by and allow the city to gain complete control over both wages and their retirement security.
This will cause difficulty in hiring, and worse, push experienced officers to go to other cities. One thing we can all agree on: The justices in El Paso should continue to deliberate and render a judgment on appeal because no agreed, enforceable plan with the city is in place. We are still at an impasse.
Tina Hernandez Patterson is deputy vice chair of the Dallas Police and Fire Pension System.