Governmental DB ended up with spousal consent

[Bri 43]

I know governmental plans don't have the typical spousal consent requirement.

But if there's a plan that had it, is it considered a cutback to eliminate it? 

Someone's prior TPA used an ERISA document when they shouldn't have.  Anyway it's a closed-to-newbies defined benefit plan with a handful of actives left.  The plan offers various term certain annuities as well as SLA, which in ERISA-land would require spousal consent.  The sponsor is now getting a governmental-entity-specific adoption agreement and I'm wondering if leaving "spousal consent still applies" blank nevertheless requires me to grandfather it as any sort of protected benefit to the spouse.

Thanks.

-bri

[david rigby 432]

The definition of "cutback" in a govt. plan will probably be included in the plan itself.  If it's vague (not surprising), maybe look to other language related to plan interpretation.

[Bri 43]

Ah, indeed - the BPD spells out specifically that 411d6's anti-cutback rules don't apply.  Thanks for the tip!