tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1797875972831999598.post5776502996328566468..comments2023-11-22T04:27:07.521-06:00Comments on glen brown: Message from Cinda Klickna, president of the IEAgbrownhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13435049339082622611noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1797875972831999598.post-24018813919936476912012-04-12T12:52:19.756-05:002012-04-12T12:52:19.756-05:00This is a well written statement, so kudos to Cind...This is a well written statement, so kudos to Cinda for making it. <br /><br />However, I don't think that any distrust that exists can be attributed solely to the newspapers jumping on Ingram's email, although clearly they are making hay of that. I think there's a systemic trust problem caused by the SB 7 history.<br /><br />Nevertheless, it's a good statement. The only improvement I could suggest is perhaps a clearer explanation of actuarial science point.<br /><br />For example, in this statement, it appears that Cinda is reiterating the well-known point that the state typically doesn't contribute the amount that the TRS actuaries determine and the Board certifies. The state contributes a lesser amount.<br /><br />However, I get the feeling from the complete TRS statement that TRS is saying that they're going to change the actuarial method, which is unsettling, since people would assume the actuarial method employed by TRS has always been generally accepted as sound. That's what I've walked away with, anyway. It still isn't clear to me that TRS is using a different method, or if they're using the same method with different assumptions embedded.<br /><br />So, that could use some clarity. It's very difficult to point to put into every day language, but this appears to be something Cinda is good at. She should have another crack at it.Learhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05053574139373063271noreply@blogger.com