Re(1): 9/17/2009 Pension Election IP: 72.186.209.132 Posted on September 8, 2009 at 01:10:34 AM by Rich Griner
ANSWER #1: I don’t know all the ins and outs of the case, but from what I understand, it seems to me the whole lawsuit could have been avoided. The pension board could have easily walked into court and asked for the judge to answer the question. This would have been much easier (and cheaper) for everyone involved.
ANSWER #2: I believe that when possible, everyone should be included in benefit enhancements. The problem is that pension changes originate from negotiations between the unions and the City. This is partly why I support the pension board taking a more active roll in benefit improvements. For example, they took the lead on a “Remarriage after Retirement” proposal that would allow retirees to pass on a benefit to a spouse that they obtained after they retired from service. The pension board paid for the study and then provided the results to the City and both unions, encouraging its adoption.
ANSWER #3: While the original 13th check may have been more frequent, from what I’ve seen, the current 13th check method provides a much higher benefit to retirees. Remember, that the original formula called for contributions from members when rates were exceptionally low. The problem was when contribution rates climbed there would be no money paid into the 13th check. I haven’t taken the time to do the math, but I’m pretty sure if you add up every 13th check paid under the old method and then every 13th check paid under the new method, the new way means more money in every retiree’s pocket on average.
I too am concerned with the eroding of the “brotherhood”. I’m not sure where the blame needs to be placed, but I am all for working together to help restore the brotherhood among ALL members of our pension.
Hope this answers your questions. Feel free to contact me with any other questions or concerns.