Trustees can do "ENOUGH" or be fiduciaries IBEW LOCAL 332 PENSION TRUST

The trustees sure did enough for me. (NOT)

First: The people they hired to write a Domestic Relations Order for my ex-spouse did not remember they already had a Qualified Domestic Relations Order in my account. So they used the wrong formula for the new DRO. It is a plan rule that a second DRO must be coordinated with the first QDRO. The trustees had done their job and that was good enough for them. (A QDRO is just a DRO that has been “qualified” by the Plan itself therefore the Plan is required to keep track of orders they have agreed to.)

Second: The people they hired to check the DRO for qualification approved it. (Of course they did, they wrote it.) So, after court appearances and an appeal the court raised my benefit. So what? This means the DRO was wrong and should not have been approved. At the same time the court made statements that invalidated the plan sample QDRO. The trustees had done enough because the author’s are ERISA experts and it wasn’t the trustees themselves who erred. They have not yet (4 years) repaired the sample QDRO.

Third: The trustees turned down my request for reimbursement of expenses. The experts must have told them they had done enough. They stated that the costs were my problem and later in court their lawyer alluded to a conspiracy. I guess the trustees felt their approval of a bad QDRO was my fault. It just seems like the error maker should be the bill payer. And now the Plan is in danger of increased settlement costs because the Supreme Court has now raised settlements from restitution to compensation. Cigna Corp v. Amara on 5/16/2011. Restitution only covers legal expense but compensation covers all expenses. For instance: travel, meals, advise of outside lawyers, worry, constipation, copying, ink, etc., etc. loss of consortium.

Fourth: The trustees turned down my request for a hearing. I invite you to check the hearing clause in the Plan. They must grant a hearing for almost any reason. (See one of my earlier blogs). The trustees had done enough and no hearing was going to change their minds. I’m sure that is true, their minds were made up. They were ignoring their duty as fiduciaries and trying to cover their butts instead. They were also ignoring a long established right of Americans to have hearings. I’m absolutely sure the revolution had something to do with the right to hearings. And I know the bill of rights contains an amendment about hearings.

Fifth: The trustees stated that the matter was closed and they would have no more to do with it. I guess they thought they had done enough. I filed suit asking the federal court to check and see if I deserve reimbursement. The experts hired by the trustees argued that state court was the proper venue. The Plan document definitely says I must file in federal court. The judge agreed with me. Don’t you just hate it when your experts keep being wrong. But what could the trustees do, hiring experts is surely enough. (Note: if they had kept their word and remained silent I would have won by default and not writing this blog.)

Sixth: The trustees approved QDRO was giving the spouse $37 per year in past service benefits. The maximum is $10 per year. That’s $27 extra per month for each year of past service. The trustees had done enough by hiring experts so they didn’t check to see if one of the fundamental benefits was correct. (It’s the same for everyone, so are there other spouses getting more than the $10 per month in past service benefits?)

Seventh: The original QDRO and the present QDRO both award the spouse more than the California Community Property Law allows. The experts hired by the trustees have not addressed this issue. Its up to the experts, I guess, because the trustees have done enough. Did I tell you that federal law (ERISA) requires the plan only approve DROs that meet the state community property laws. And, in ERISA, is a clause that specifically disapproves of paying a spouse any benefit above that shown in the Plan Document. (See the sixth error above.) ERISA 206 or 29USC section 1056(d)(3)(D).

Biggest error: Not acting as fiduciaries. Fiduciaries are supposed to protect their participants without regard for their own interests. That’s why Fiduciary Duty is considered a higher responsibility than a company CEO or a union Business Manager. How many errors does it take for our trustees to stand up and be fiduciaries?

Did you know that trustee meetings or even the number of trustees at a meeting is none of your business? Thats not the law, it's only a Plan policy.

“Live in such away that you would not be ashamed to sell your parrot to the town gossip.” Will Rodgers

Happy Trails