Dallas Pension Board Divided Over City’s Controversial Proposal

The Dallas Police and Fire Pension Review Board recently voted 6-5 to accept the city of Dallas’s “best and final” pension proposal, a decision that has sparked significant controversy among board members. This board is responsible for safeguarding the pension of retired police officers and firefighters, ensuring that those who have served the city are provided for after their years of dedication. Critics, including board members representing police and fire services, argue that this decision undermines their interests and reflects a broader attempt by the city to impose an inadequate agreement.

The contentious vote followed a surprise motion introduced by trustee Rob Walters, which many believe was designed to expedite an agreement that could jeopardize ongoing legal disputes between the pension fund and the city. The legal battle centers on whether a plan submitted to the state should dictate the management of the pension fund. Currently, this appeal is underway in federal court in El Paso, and the outcome may determine the future of the pension system.

Over the years, the Dallas Police and Fire Pension System has grappled with underfunding issues. State law mandates that a state-approved plan demonstrating a path to 100% funding within 30 years must be submitted by late 2024. In a two-year negotiation process, the board and the city aimed to create a funding plan, with independent consultants providing unbiased options for both parties.

With the September 2024 deadline approaching, the board unanimously approved a plan in August 2024, only for the city to submit its own proposal that disregarded the board’s consensus. In response, the board successfully sought a ruling in district court requiring the city to adhere to their agreed-upon plan. The city has since appealed this ruling, leading to the current situation.

On November 12, 2023, oral arguments were presented in El Paso regarding the validity of the lower court’s ruling. Observers noted that the justices appeared well-informed about the implications of the case, particularly concerning the need for a definitive plan to submit to the state if the board and the city cannot reach an agreement.

Despite the board’s ongoing litigation efforts, the recent vote has led many to believe that the city is attempting to portray a façade of cooperation. The board members representing police and fire services argue that they have not accepted the city’s proposal, which they deem inferior to the plan previously submitted to the state.

The Dallas Police and Fire Pension System representatives emphasize that crucial elements desired by their constituents are omitted from the city’s plan. Furthermore, the funding ratio for the pension currently stands at a concerning 32%, a significant decline from approximately 45% in 2018. The board members express that the city has not actively contributed to solving the pension crisis in recent years, further complicating matters.

Tensions have escalated as some board members accuse the current mayor of strategically appointing trustees to secure votes that align with the city’s agenda, sidelining those who previously supported the lawful plan. The board’s active members and retirees are increasingly frustrated, feeling that their voices are not being heard, especially since many have not had the opportunity to review the city’s “best and final” proposal.

Concerned about the future of the pension system, board members warn that the city’s actions could lead to a deterioration of trust, making it harder to recruit and retain experienced officers. The implications of the ongoing impasse could have lasting effects on the city’s ability to maintain a robust police and fire service.

As the situation unfolds, the board members reaffirm their commitment to advocating for a fair and legally sound pension plan. They urge the justices in El Paso to continue deliberating on the appeal, emphasizing the need for an enforceable agreement that truly reflects the interests of Dallas’s dedicated first responders.