Bill White Wants to Strip City Employees of their Pensions

Except for some of the other facts that have also come out.

Towers Perrin was not hired by the city, and one of the articles mentioned that although the city had the opportunity to hire their own 'independent' actuarial firm, they relied on this one. (Fact 2 and Fact 1 conflict -- it wasn't independent.) City Council voted on the plan based on faulty information. Even though Perrin offered revised results in 2001, they didn't differ that dramatically -- they went from 14% to 20%. While that is a big jump, it's hardly the 40% that they are forecasting now.

Ultimately, as Mayor, Brown was responsible for making sure that the city (and city council) had the information to make an informed decision. He was the one that had the responsiblitiy to review the plan, and the opportunity to hire an independent consulting firm. Keep in mind another article that came out -- which showed how the two chief people involved on behalf of the city benefit more than anyone else under the plan -- to the tune of $60K ish a year -- a fact revealed recently.

It's kind of amazing that White's actions in this matter are recieving partisan attacks from more liberal members -- denounced as GOP manuvering, and being defended by conservitives. White is a Democrat -- one of the chief democrats. Since his proposal is fiscally responsible, it gets attacks.

TJ, I don't think White is against better pension benefits for city employees than what they had -- in fact, he'll probably support very compeditive benefits. The problem is, the constitutional ammendment passed last fall ties his hands. He can't just tweak the plan to fix the problems. The ONLY choice, besides bankrupting the city, is to us the one second chance allowed by the ammendment to strip away the 2001 changes, and start over.

 

What happened to TJ?

 

Same as usual, flame impotently and with stunning ignorance and then disappear.

 

Jorgie go poof!

 

The increase in the pension amounts for those negotiating the agreement was only due in small part to the increase in the overall pension percentages. It was mostly due to the fact they increase the rate at which "executives" (department heads such as themselves) are vested in the program. After working 8-10 years, they will retire and recieve almost the full 90% that it would take any other city employee 25 years to recieve. (One of the two went from something like 38% to 88% of his salary, after working 8 years for the city.)

 

What is interesting about this whole thing is that none of this includes safety workers - police, fire department, etc. Their pensions are significantly lower than other city employees. How did that happen?

 

Collective bargaining agreement.

 

Actually, that isn't the case. The police have a Meet & Confer agreement with the city that was set up through the legislature.

 

The Legislature. Well that explains a lot of the problem.