Reponds to Larry Vincent (Marriage After Retirement) IP: 96.254.121.102 Posted on May 24, 2010 at 10:53:12 PM by webmaster
Dear Sirs:
I recently read the above titled post from Larry Vincent on your retirees web site. For your edification, this is a copy:
TO ALL RETIREES,
I received word today that the Marriage After Retirement amendment to our pension contract has failed in Tallahassee. As you know, the Unions and the City backed the local bill that would have amended our contract. The Local Delegation passed the bill and sent it to Tallahassee to be voted on and passed. Once the bill got to Tallahassee, it was assigned to a committee. Unfortunately, the bill never made it out of committee to the floor of the Legislature. Therefore, there was no vote on the bill and it "Died In Committee." Apparently there was no serious push by our Union and City Lobbyists on the bill. So, what next. The bill can be introduced again this year, in December, to the Legislative Delegation and if passed sent to Tallahassee again. I do not know what happened. I thought this bill was a no-brainer but I was wrong. The only thing I can think of was that all pension issues have been frowned on due to a lot of bad press, here and other places. Although this bill was cost-neutral, I can only guess that it got labeled a pension bill change and that was the kiss of death. I do think that if the bill had the push that was exerted by the Mayor/City and the Unions for the multiplier, in 2004, the bill would have sailed through the Legislature. Hopefully when the bill comes up again, in 2011, perhaps a delegation from the RF&PA will go to Tallahassee and give it the push needed to get out of committee and onto the floor for a vote. I didn't expect the bill to be rejected or we would have kept a closer eye on it. When things like the multiplier comes up and gets passed and then this bill comes up and dies, makes me wonder why Retirees and their needs are so much less important. Just wondering.
Larry Vincent
I was unable to register my name to be able to respond on your site for whatever reason, but this is what I want you to know.
All changes in the pension have to be collectively bargained by either union, fire or police. That said, I was approached early in 2009 by Sam Sinardi, retired fire fighter. He described the re-marriage issue to me. I clearly saw the disparity and promised to do whatever the PBA could to correct it. For the record, the re-marriage was corrected in 2002 and has NO effect on current police or fire fighters.
I sought approval from our Board of Directors to contract with Buck & Associates for an actuarial study of the cost involved, which is a requirement prior to bargaining with The City. The cost of the study was paid in full by both the fire and police unions. The plan was cost neutral.
If you read the papers this past year, you know we had a VERY contentious bargaining session with The City and in fact were taken to impasse. We presented two issues to The City regarding the pension. One was the re-marriage proposal and the other was a buy up, where an officer or firefighter could pay both the future contribution rate of him/herself as well as the City’s portion and buy up to five years of retirement. This was also cost neutral as the officer/firefighter paid both sides of the contribution. The second bill affected every officer/firefighter who was not in Drop. Other than the ability to annually move Drop money to a fixed account, the re-marriage bill only affected officers retired before 2003.
The City turned down our proposal for the buy up. We could have stopped our negotiations then and there, but both M.G. Costello and I knew it was the right thing to do to proceed with the re-marriage proposal and we did. We spent even more funds on an updated actuarial study to further extend the proposal to retirees gone from the City for forty years, so we could include every known retiree who might be affected.
The City agreed and they insisted on choosing the legislative members to present the bill to the Florida Legislature. In other words we had no input on who was in charge of the bill and more importantly who would manage the bill.
We checked on the status of the bill weekly during the legislative session. It was our understanding that the bill was passing committees and was where it was supposed to be. Because the bill cost nothing, we believed that it would pass without any issues. The IAFF went to Tallahassee in mid session and checked on the bill in person. They were under the same impression.
The final week of the session, the Florida PBA notified us that the bill was stuck in a committee and asked for immediate representation from the Tampa PBA. I was out of town, but dispatched our Sr. Vice-President Rick Cochran that same day to pack a bag and get to Tallahassee to do what ever was necessary to move the bill out of committee.
Rick called me the next day to say that he had several meetings with the leadership of both the House and Senate and learned that a deal had been struck where no new bills would be presented by anyone for any reason, therefore the bill would not move out of committee.
We fully intend to bargain again for the bill in 2011. It is the right thing to do. When Mr. Vincent said, “Apparently there was no serious push by our Union,” he was dead wrong. I have done my best to speak to and listen to retirees while I have been in this office and I will continue to do so. It is unfortunate that statements are made without checking for the facts first.
If you have any questions or comments, please feel free to call.