We are pleased with the response from the special mailing of the October Newsletter to all LEOFF I and LEOFF II fire service retirees and surviving spouses. As of this writing we have enrolled over 100 new members. There have been several phone calls from new members asking questions that we have answered or addressed in previous newsletters.

One retiree, (non-member) who called from Spokane was very irritated because he had missed the one time opportunity to sign up his current wife, to whom he had been married to for many years since his retirement, for a survivor benefit. If you remember when we had the legislation passed, those who were already married had a one year window period to exercise the new option for a survivor benefit. Unfortunately, if he had been a member of the RFFOW he would have been aware of the window period, as we reminded our members several times in the monthly newsletters. Some callers expressed their irritation regarding solicitations by another group threatening that the state is trying to take pension fund monies without giving any example in an attempt to solicit donations.

We did however receive two negative responses. One retiree called our Vice-President and demanded that he not have any further contact from us as he did not like our leadership. That's all well and good but couldn't he have called the office or sent a letter explaining his displeasure or even acknowledge what our organization has accomplished. I remember back in the mid 1960's when we negotiated a union shop clause in the contract establishing that all firefighters had to join the union or donate an amount equal to the amount of the union dues to a charity. There were the same complaints, those who didn't want to belong to the union for other than religious reasons stating that they didn't like this or that but they all accepted the past benefits and wanted any future benefits gained by the union.

The other negative response was from someone who returned a portion of the yellow application card with the following remarks: "Why would a LEOFF II retiree want to continue to support LEOFF I? This is a LEOFF I organization with absolutely no interest or intention to help LEOFF II. Quit trying to disguise it. Nice try. Are you serious about wanting LEOFF II people to fund your organization????"

Apparently he/she was not interested in the answers to the questions because they didn't include their name, address or phone number. They must have a closed mind and don't want to be bothered with the facts. I could give several examples to overrule their opinion and would be glad to document such information. Suffice to say; originally the RFFOW was a Seattle organization for Prior Act firefighters under RCW 41.16 and RCW 41.18. It later became a state organization for Prior Act and LEOFF I firefighters. Over the years it gradually was considered a LEOFF I organization; however we still have and represent Prior Act retirees. In fact we just recently passed legislation that amended RCW 41.18 the Prior Act Pension Law. We now have LEOFF II members and will someday be considered a LEOFF II retiree association.

If you are planning to attend the Christmas Luncheon please make a reservation and forward your check as soon as possible. You are welcome to bring a friend or family member. The Edmonds Yacht Club is a new building as well as a new venue for the Christmas Luncheon so we have a lot of details to work out. As much as we would prefer a sit-down luncheon we may have to have a buffet. We are considering entertainment but first we must know how many guests to expect and to determine the amount of room we will have. For a sit-down luncheon we will again have to know the number of guests to determine the number of servers we will need. So, please hear our cry and let us know as soon as possible if you will be able to attend.

Remember that October begins the open enrollment period for health insurance. If spouses or LEOFF II retired firefighters want to change their present coverage for Plan D Prescription Drugs or perhaps switch to a Medicare advantage PPO Plan they must do so during the open enrollment period. Annual Election period: Nov. 15 - Dec. 31, 2010 

• Can change Medicare Advantage plans with or without drug coverage
• Can enroll in stand-alone Prescription Drug Coverage or change existing drug coverage
• The last plan you sign up with during this period is what you will have for 2011

We previously had a medical insurance program through the Retired Firefighters of Washington and the Seattle Firefighters Local 27. Unfortunately, Local 27, after retaining an outside broker was advised to discontinue the program to new members under sixty-five years of age (non-Medicare). We, the RFFOW, tried to establish our own insurance program. After consulting with several insurance brokers we decided that if we did, it would be very costly and difficult to manage, staff, office space, etc.

Most disappointing was the realization that if we did, we would not be able to provide insurance to the one group under 65 non-Medicare, any cheaper than other companies are offering it today. We then canvassed several agents and brokers for the best coverage and lowest premiums we could find. As a result we are now working with an independent broker who represents several different companies and offers the coverage you want for the lowest premium. We found that the best buy, if it meets your needs, is a high deductible and a low premium. Put the difference of the dollar amount of the low deductible policy premium in a savings account to pay the high deductible. After a few years being healthy, you will have saved enough to pay the high deductible. This is of course an individual choice depending on your age, health and other considerations.

We suggest that you call or e-mail Mike Skagen 1-888-235-7508 or 425-235-7508; email: mskagen1@comcast.net with any questions or to inquire regarding your insurance needs. Be sure to mention that you are a member of the Retired Firefighters of Washington.

If you read the article written in the October newsletter by Darren Painter of the State Actuary's Office you learned that the LEOFF I Fund may be heading to an unfunded liability in 2023. This projection is of course due to the current economy, the loss of revenue, discontinued contributions and the removal of the sixty-percent lid on service pensions. The Actuary had previously cautioned that the fund could go into an unfunded liability as early as 2013. This is not meant to alarm you. The system is fully funded at this time and may never develop an unfunded liability depending on the economy and future investment returns. We have always believed that if contributions were needed in the future when there are only a few if any L-1 members still working, the state would have to make the required contributions.

There is now some discussion in various arenas suggesting a much different approach if contributions are needed. Apparently in the past, PERS II employers were required to make contributions to PERS I and PERS II even though they didn't have any PERS I employees. When the LEOFF II board heard this they became very concerned. They rightfully felt that if the LEOFF II employers had to make contributions to LEOFF I and LEOFF II it would raise their cost and reduce the opportunity for LEOFF II to acquire any additional benefits requiring additional contributions. It's hard for me to imagine that a LEOFF II employer, city, county or fire district that never employed a LEOFF I employee would be required to make a contribution to the LEOFF I Pension fund. There was some discussion in regards to merging the LEOFF I and LEOFF II Pension Funds. I suggested that if this was done it would make it much easier to require LEOFF II employers to indirectly make contributions to LEOFF I as there would only be one fund. It was suggested that if the funds were combined the larger fund would have the potential of higher earnings. True, but it would also have increased liability and the potential for increased losses.

I must question any possibility of increased earnings resulting from the merging of the two pension funds. Both the LEOFF I Fund and the LEOFF II Fund are invested in the commingled Pension Trust Fund along with the other pension funds. Each fund receives a percentage of the earnings based on the percentage of the ownership or investment.

If the LEOFF I fund and the LEOFF II Fund each owned ten percent each fund would receive ten percent of the earnings. If the funds were combined and the combined fund now invested twenty percent, it would receive twenty percent of the earnings. Perhaps I'm missing something. I want to assure you that all this is just talk. No cause for concern, however we must be diligent, informed, in the loop and ready to respond on these issues. Next month I will report what is going on around the country regarding pensions, pension legislation and pension lawsuits.