Christopher Baxter of The Morning Call reports that the City of Easton, against union wishes, has created an incentive package to keep Chief Palmer as Chief of the Easton Police Department for one more year. I like Chief Palmer, so I'm glad he'll be around for another year, but what I don't understand is why the union was claiming that the incentive was unfair--according to the article:
"Carl Faulkner, head of the union, said the group believes there are more fair ways to retain the chief without a special, individual incentive. But Mayor Sal Panto Jr. and City Council feared the loss of Palmer could result in the department reverting to the trouble seen during the past decade."
Please post a comment if you understand what the conflict was...
Posts
11 comments:
Unions think they should get everything that management gets but yet they don't want the responsibilities, stress and working long hours with no overtime. It appears that the police union feels that everyone should get the same opportunity as the Chief. I don't agree.
I agree with the mayor, there needs to be a formal succession plan in the department to keep it from going back to the days of old.
Of course it isn't just the Chief. The men and women 0f the department helped with the turn around but leadership starts at the top. In my book both the police leader (Chief) and the government leader (mayor) shows excellent leadership in this plan.
I know that the city has two very capable Captains and both will do well with Chief Palmer there another year or two to mentor them.
We were not really given any costs on this proposal. Will it cost more or less? Of course, what are the alternatives? If Palmer retired and you had to hire an outside chief, what would be that cost? It is apparent that one of the captains wants to succeed but is not ready yet. I am not sure that the union really wants this benefit. The union complained that other alternatives could be used. It may be a case of the chief's compensation being inadequate which, in turn, affects everyone's salary.
Ah, so the position of Chief is not a union position...
Of course the Chief is not in the union. There were other options but they would have cost more as I understand it. One was to let the Chief retire and hire him back as the Director of Public Safety or some similar title. That would have paid his pension plus a full-time salary. I think this is an excellent solution recommended by the Administration. He retirement is set at his salary as of December 2010 but he has the option to work a minimum of a year or two without increasing his pension.
I don't understand the union's position at all.
Anon 3:03--you said "Of course the Chief is not in the union" but remember, not everyone is an expert on knowing the inner-workings of unions, or how they interact with administrations. I am very new to it myself, as are a lot of other people who read this blog. This is a place where we can educate each other. Thanks for the post.
don't really follow all of this. The chief retires and gets a pension and also collects a full salary. It seems double the expense? Please explain the obvious. I am not getting it.
The Chief does not start collecting his pension until he leaves the position but even if he stays the full two years his pension is still based on this years salary and but he doesn't start collecting the pension until he officially leaves the position. I congratulate the administration - this is a great plan, doesn't cost the residents a dime more and provides for a smkooth transition. Tell the FOP to get over it.
I read that the chief collects the pension immediately, that is, it is deposited in a savings account and immediately distributed to him when he stops receiving his salary. In that case there is additional cost.
These DROP arrangements are pointed to as being cause for Philadelphia's financial problems. They are an additional expense. I sense there may have been a need in this particular case but the program has its critics.
from a Phila publication, "In 1999, then-City Councilman Nutter helped adopt a pension plan called DROP (Deferred Retirement Option Plan), which was signed into law by then-Mayor Ed Rendell. DROP was created to keep city employees from taking early retirement, accomplished through a financial windfall incentive plan.
The DROP plan was originally intended for just police and firefighters but later expanded to include all city employees and elected officials. After setting a retirement date four years in the future, DROP enrollees, upon officially retiring, receive a whopping lump sum of four years’ worth of pension benefits plus guaranteed interest.
Mind you, this is in addition to their regular pension --- and Philadelphia’s pension plan is one of the most lavish in the nation --- and at least five years of health benefits."
The program was sold as being revenue neutral, but hardly the case. Philadelphia is trying to get out of the program.
and from the 8/5/2010 Philadelphia Inquirer:
"But the main reason to end the program is because it's very costly and provides zero benefit to the city. That was the conclusion of the study Nutter ordered.
The analysis found that DROP increased the city's pension costs by $258 million in 10 years. A separate study done by an actuary for an article that appeared in the City Paper in April estimated the cost at $1 billion. A couple hundred million here or a billion there; either way, the cost is too much for a cash-strapped city. Especially since DROP provides no added value to the city.
When DROP was implemented in 1999, the rationale for the program was to retain high-quality workers and plan for the succession of retirees. Other reasons have been added along the way in an attempt to convince taxpayers they were getting something in return for DROP, but none rang true.
Instead, it's been a parade of city workers - almost 9,000 in all - who have received lump-sum payments averaging about $100,000 on top of their annual pension checks. And a handful of elected officials and high-level staffers who further abused the program by taking the retirement money and returning to work.
Backers say it's their money because they paid into the pension plan. But that is a tiny amount. The bulk of the funds comes from taxpayers. More and more, a bigger chunk of the city budget goes to fund the pensions, leaving less money for basic services.
Blame former Mayor Ed Rendell for this boondoggle. He gift-wrapped this sweetheart pension perk to the city unions on his way out the door, and sold it to taxpayers as a "revenue-neutral" plan"
Anons--thanks for the info--though it seems to fall on deaf ears, I will make the appeal again that Anonymous posters please take on a moniker when posting--you will still be anonymous, but readers will be able to follow the thoughts of individual people who comment. It's hard to tell in this thread how many people are in the conversation...please consider taking a moniker--thanks!
Post a Comment