The General Assembly may impose an unfunded mandate weakening municipal autonomy and stripping local control over collective bargaining — all to benefit big labor.
On Thursday (Feb. 20) the Labor and Public Employees Committee heard testimony on a bill, H.B. 6953, that would require towns to enroll police officers and firefighters into a pension system. If passed, municipalities would be forced to enroll these employees in either the Connecticut Municipal Employees’ Retirement System (CMERS) or a so called “comparable or superior” pension system without providing the funding to support it.
What “comparable” means is still unsettled, which is troubling in and of itself. But more worrisome is that this bill would shackle municipalities to an expensive, state-controlled plan, undermining their ability to manage budgets and prioritize local needs.
CMERS is a state-run defined benefit public pension plan that provides retirement, disability, survivor and other benefits to all eligible members as well as their beneficiaries. Funding comes from towns and member contributions, and investments.
Once a town joins CMERS, there’s no easy exit. Municipalities can’t simply opt out. To leave, they must pay off all outstanding liabilities upfront, an enormous financial burden that makes withdrawal pretty much impossible.
It’s the municipal version of Hotel California — towns can check in, but they can never leave.
This bill doesn’t just mandate pensions, it mandates a permanent financial burden on local governments limiting their ability to invest in infrastructure, public safety, and other essential services.
Like the State Employees Retirement System (SERS), the CMERS has been a chronic financial disaster — though not quite as catastrophic as its state counterpart. According to the fiscal year 2024 valuation report, CMERS carries $1.27 billion in unfunded liabilities, with a funding ratio of just 73.5%. While better than SERS which is only 55.2% funded, the system remains another example of Connecticut’s serial mismanagement of public pensions.
While there have been tweaks to CMERS, including changes to how cost-of-living increases are calculated and extending the debt repayment period from 17 to 25 years, the fund remains deep in the red. Yet, ignoring this glaring financial red flag, lawmakers are once again trying to ram through this legislation for the second year in a row.
Last year, the bill was assigned to the Planning and Development Committee, where it received a public hearing but failed to advance. This time, lawmakers have strategically placed it in the Labor Committee, where union influence is far stronger.
With several committee members maintaining close ties to organized labor — some having even worked for unions — it’s hardly surprising that the bill is being pushed forward once again. Rather than prioritizing the financial stability of municipalities or the concerns of taxpayers, legislators on the Labor Committee seem more interested in advancing the interests of their union allies.
Union Bosses to Lawmakers: Do Our Jobs for Us and Send Taxpayers the Bill
Union bosses in their written testimonies insisted that this state-imposed pension mandate is necessary to keep police officers and firefighters on the job. According to Executive Director of AFSCME Council 4 Jody Barr, “Offering pensions allow for municipalities to improve recruitment and retention because officers they train won’t leave for towns with a better retirement plan.”
Either Barr didn’t read the bill, or he’s deliberately using emotional manipulation to pressure lawmakers. Towns already have the option to negotiate benefits through collective bargaining — no state mandate needed.
It’s his union’s responsibility to negotiate benefits at the local level. Instead, Barr is running to Hartford to have the General Assembly do his job by having them handle negotiations his union is paid to handle.
Meanwhile, Legislative Director of AFSCME Council 4 Brian Anderson openly admitted that this is, in fact, a mandate — but, in his words, a “mandate that saves lives.”
He also claimed that it is necessary for “morale” because, as he put it, “A wedge is driven between the generations of officers in the same department when older officers will receive pension and younger officers will not.” By that reasoning, he is saying taxpayers should have to pay more to spare younger officers from workplace jealousy.
Furthermore, Ed Hawthorne, President of the Connecticut AFL-CIO, took fearmongering to another level, writing in testimony, “The provision of pensions is not just an investment in the individuals who serve our communities but in the safety and well-being of our communities themselves.” Apparently, forcing towns into an unaffordable, unfunded pension system that raises property taxes isn’t just about compensation — it’s now about public safety itself. If a municipality offers a competitive 401(k) plan instead of a pension, Hawthorne would have you believe that its residents are somehow less safe.
Why Does This Matter to Taxpayers?
Ultimately, taxpayers will be stuck with the bill.
Local unions aren’t pushing for state intervention in municipal pensions because it’s good policy — it guarantees the unions better benefits without having go through the negotiation process. Instead of sitting down with local officials and bargaining based on financial realities, unions would rather force a statewide mandate that locks municipalities into expensive commitments, whether taxpayers can afford them or not.
As Yankee Institute’s Labor Fellow Frank Ricci pointed out in his testimony to the committee, unions in Connecticut “have sold out their members time and time again,” despite their duty to protect them. They negotiate away pension benefits at the bargaining table, only to turn around and demand a state-imposed, unfunded mandate to get them back.
It’s no coincidence that freshman Rep. Nick Gauthier (D-Waterford), fresh off the AFL-CIO payroll as an organizer, took issue with Ricci’s statement on unions selling out their own members. Instead of addressing the financial burden this mandate would place on municipalities, Rep. Gauthier sidestepped the policy debate entirely to defend his former union allies.
“I take exemption with something you just said about that union sold out their younger members,” Rep. Gauthier objected. “What would be the purpose of a union? As you said, selling out their members. I don’t think that that is the decision that any union would make.”
Rather than asking how struggling towns are supposed to pay for these pension mandates, Rep. Gauthier’s priority was making sure nobody dared to question union leadership.
This bill isn’t about public safety. It isn’t about fairness. And it certainly isn’t about fiscal responsibility. It’s about using state power to override local control and hand the unions exactly what they want. Towns that can’t afford it? Too bad. Taxpayers already drowning in Connecticut’s sky-high property taxes? Doesn’t matter. The only thing that does matter is that big labor gets its way — at everyone else’s expense.
Hartford has a choice: either respect local governments and the taxpayers who fund them or continue turning the General Assembly into an extension of union headquarters. If lawmakers genuinely cared about their communities, they’d reject this reckless mandate and let towns manage their own budgets. But if history is any indication, Connecticut taxpayers already know which side the legislature is on — and it’s not theirs.
