PROVIDENCE –– In response to worries that Governor Carcieri’s pension-cutting plan could spark a rush of midyear teacher retirements, state budget officer Rosemary Gallogly yesterday told the state Retirement Board there is room for compromise on the proposed April 1 effective date.

Republican Carcieri has proposed the elimination of guaranteed annual cost-of-living increases –– and the establishment of 59 as the minimum retirement age –– as part of his plan to avert a $357-million current-year deficit. An estimated 1,631 state employees and 991 public school teachers would be eligible to retire by the March 31 cutoff date before these so-called “pension reforms” take effect.

The governor is also proposing to slash state and local contributions to the state pension fund by close to $95 million in the final months of this year –– which amounts to 75 percent –– to reflect the anticipated savings.

But after hearing mayors, school administrators and union leaders warn of potential chaos 10 weeks before the end of the school year, Gallogly said she consulted with the state’s actuarial consultant yesterday and was told the state could move the deadline for employees to retire to any point prior to the June 30 end of the fiscal year, and still book this year’s $95-million state and local share of the savings from this long-term reduction in the state’s unfunded liability.

She said the governor has not yet proposed an amendment to the budget proposal he made last week to reflect this, because he and his budget team are still waiting for the actuaries at Gabriel Roeder Smith & Co. to evaluate the potential costs and savings likely to result from his proposal.

Gallogly said she made the announcement to assure local leaders that the administration is willing to do what it can to minimize the feared disruption in the school year.

No action was required by the retirement board.

The governor’s pension proposals are pending before state lawmakers, who have scheduled a 1 p.m. public hearing today by the House Finance Committee on the proposed pension cuts.

Gallogly did not respond directly when asked if she personally was weighing whether to leave to preserve her pension package, but noted that she has worked for the state long enough to be eligible.

In her comments to the retirement board, Gallogly drew attention to a previously unmentioned feature of the governor’s proposal: Increases of 1 percentage point in the contributions paid by municipal employees enrolled in the state retirement plan. The majority are currently required to contribute 7 percent of their pay to their pensions. That rate would rise to 8 percent.

kgregg@projo.com