The state should disclose all financial and other data necessary for policymakers, school districts and the general public to have a clear and accurate depiction of the current standing and future health of the system. State teacher retirement systems als
Teachers, policymakers and taxpayers deserve accurate and reliable information about the costs and benefits of the public pension systems they support.
Just as teachers can easily obtain their salary schedules, they should have access to information about pensions so that they can make informed decisions about their career and retirement futures. While Kansas provides teachers with an annual benefits statement, the report includes very limited information about the value of pension benefits. Kansas does not provide teachers with information on how their benefits accrue for each year of service, the amount contributed each year by teachers and employers on behalf of teachers, or the projected value of a teacher's contributions based on different assumptions about the rate of return expected (e.g. 4%, 6%, and 8%). Kansas also does not provide teachers with transparent information about the opportunity cost of leaving contributions in the system by reporting how much might be earned if teachers were to put contributions into a personal retirement savings account.
Teachers in Kansas enroll in a cash balance or a final-salary DB plan, which means that employee and employer contributions should be sufficient to pre-fund the employee's pension. As Kansas has a multi-tier pension system, contributions that exceed the normal cost may be used to fund other teachers' benefits (so-called legacy costs). Kansas, however, does not provide teachers with clear information about how their contributions are being used, including the extent to which current employer contributions are being used to subsidize the retirement benefits of teachers under other tiers as well as how benefits are distributed across teachers of different cohorts and teachers with different career lengths.
Public disclosures on teacher pensions in Kansas also lack transparency. Kansas does not report projections for future contributions required to fully amortize the system's total unfunded liabilities, information that would allow policymakers and employers to better plan their budgets in the short and longer terms. These projections should be reported under a range of assumptions about the rate of return on investments, not just under the system's own assumption, which would allow stakeholders in Kansas to appropriately assign risk to the system's obligations and provide clarity about potential unfunded liabilities facing taxpayers.
The Government Accountability Standards Board (GASB) requires public retirement systems to disclose who makes employer contributions, and the proportion of total contributions for which each contributor is responsible. All states' pension systems collect this information, and Kansas makes these data readily available.
Kansas, like most states, reports the portion of total pension contributions that is normal cost and the proportion that is amortization cost. The state also reports information about issuing pension obligation bonds, which is an important indicator of the state's overall health and stability.
Provide teachers with the information necessary to understand their retirement benefits.
Kansas should provide much more detailed information to teachers about how their benefits accrue at different points during their careers, as well as information about the opportunity costs related to any contributions made into the system. The plan should also disclose to teachers how their contributions are being used (i.e. whether they all are directed at prefunding their own retirement, or whether a portion of their contributions are used to help pay for retirement benefits of other members).
Report to policymakers and the public data that give a complete representation of the system's financial health.
Kansas should also report projections for future contributions necessary to pay off its unfunded liabilities under a range of assumptions about its discount rate.
Kansas did not respond to repeated requests to review this analysis.