Philadelphia public pensions

Minimum Benefit. Maximum Benefit Limitations. Retirement and Survivorship Benefit Options. Payment of Retirement Benefit. Suspension of Retirement Benefits. Application for Benefits. Partial Lump Sum Option. Disability Benefits. Service-Connected Disability Retirement Benefits. Ordinary Disability Retirement Benefits. Death Benefits. Ordinary Death Benefits. Beneficiaries and Survivors.

Designation of Beneficiaries. Designation of Survivors. Purchase of Credited Service. Leaves of Absence Without Pay. Purchase of Governmental Service. Purchase of Prior City Service. Pension Credit for Former C.

Installment Payments. Transfer Payments. Pension Credit for Former F. Contributions by the City of Philadelphia. Member Contributions. Refund of Contributions. Direct Rollover. Investments; Assumptions; and Guarantee. Actuarial Assumptions. Obligation of the City. Exclusive Benefit Rule. Administration and Management. General Powers and Duties of the Board.

Hearings and Appeals. Medical Panel. Adjustment of Payments. Waiver of Benefits. Exemption From Attachment. Prohibited Conduct; Penalties. Termination of Plan System. Defined Contribution Plan. Membership in DC Plan. Member Accounts and Allocation of Benefits. Investment of Accounts.

Distribution of Benefits. Added, Bill No. The Retirement System has also supported resolutions to give shareholders larger control over corporate boards. The Philadelphia Public Employees Retirement System has also pushed for increased disclosure of political spending through the proxy voting process.

In , the Retirement System introduced a proxy proposal at Fluor Corporation, a Texas-based engineering firm, which would mandate regular disclosure of political spending.

The Retirement System has participated in a large push with a number of other left-of-center shareholder advocacy groups to force energy companies to disclose both direct and indirect lobbying spending.

The Retirement System participates in shareholder advocacy regarding executive compensation. In , the Retirement System submitted a shareholder resolution at Netflix which, if approved, would enumerate a claw-back policy for top executives.

Shareholders ultimately rejected the proposal, with Netflix arguing that executives were already held to high enough standards, including those set on CEO and CFO claw-backs by federal law.

Until , the Retirement System drew significant criticism for apparent mismanagement. As a result, the Retirement System for years operated in a deep funding deficit.