Jonesing for Pension Changes
What up with Ward 4 Council Member Jones?
At Monday's meeting, it was recommended that they table both pension bills so that they could be further discussed and reviewed in a workshop meeting. Ward 4 Council Member Tim Jones was the only member to vote against moving this matter to a workshop.
Even if one was 100% behind these bills, why wouldn't they want further review and study of a financial matter--one that might have long term consequences?
Why does Jones want to rush these bills through the city council?
Perhaps he is tired of all the posts about Keller showing her lack of experience and thought he could top her with this move?
At Monday's meeting, it was recommended that they table both pension bills so that they could be further discussed and reviewed in a workshop meeting. Ward 4 Council Member Tim Jones was the only member to vote against moving this matter to a workshop.
Even if one was 100% behind these bills, why wouldn't they want further review and study of a financial matter--one that might have long term consequences?
Why does Jones want to rush these bills through the city council?
Perhaps he is tired of all the posts about Keller showing her lack of experience and thought he could top her with this move?
posted by suzyjax at 6:12 AM
24 Comments:
Five years is too short of a period for vesting. Five years provides incentive for applicants with short time frames or at the end of a career but looking to simply bolster their retirement plan.
The current 15 year vesting requirement provides incentive for employees looking to make a long term commitment to the City.
Most of the companies I've worked for were 10yrs
I was sure that in the past 10-15 years all companies went to a 5 year vesting. I know Mac did back in the late 80's/early 90's
the government even went to 10 years in the late 90's for pensions. It continues to go up, not down, in years of service. IF you all haven't realized that Tim Jones is Schneiders lap dog by now, heaven help you all. Whatever spews out of Jone's mouth is Schneiders views and thoughts. Jone's is the biggest brown noser ever to walk this planet.
Private Sector Pensions are different animals than public sector plans. How Boeing, AB or Cogsly Cogs defines their pension plans is not germane to the question at hand.
This whole issue would be moot if the City changed their pension plan from a defined benefit plan to a defined contribution plan.
It is not economically possible to increase the costs to the plan in benefits without also increasing the contributions.
Police and Fire Departments in the area vest their uniformed employees at 15 years. This is almost universal in this area of the country.
Employees of most cities vest their employees at 5 years, usually because the pension systems they have are of the Loggers type which can be carried over from job to job.
This is based on current data as of 6-07. The employees inquired about were City employees and uniformed employees in the Metro Area. My source was the head of a Pension System and the actuary the pension uses.
No names can revealed, it was done as a personal favor to me.
Business and Governments are 2 differents breeds. A business sells a product and makes revenue. A government is a Service organization. It's job is to provide a service for the citizens.
Tim Jones ran against Purzner's use of high school student council parliamentary tricks, I must admit it seems a bit odd that he would propose such a sweeping change to the City's finance without any analysis or discussion. Who manages Overland's pension plan? Why have they not been solicited to offer opinion on the impact of the proposed change to the City finances.
I know of only one businessman that makes organizational decisions without any reference to the financial impact or marginal fiscal effect on the organization of the change: Mike Schneider.
Well put Gravy, the Pension Board consists of 2 police officers, the treasurer of the city, the cheif of police and 2 citizens appointed by the mayor.
I got the distinct impression the majority of the pension board was just as surprised by this move as Herman was.
Imnew, thanks for your insoght I saw it and agree with you 100 percent. But what your post did for me was give me a name for a new pup we purchased. It's a big baby and lap dog, its does what we tell him to do, is housebroke and runs around looking for things to do for us. his names is now Jonesy. Thanks for giving us the idea.
It also seems ironic that in the days of pension benefits decrease for almost everyone else Overland finds itself in such good shape they can fund such an increase. Lets see some Financial reports.
Also heard the treasurer was PO'd that the last pension work up was tabled, so she tried to introduce a new actuary.
Nice try LR, but the guy you picked is a friend of mine.
Maybe I don't quite understand Overland's plan but my expectation is that there would be a private firm hired by the City to manage the pension plan. Not simply administer the accounting but more importantly the asset allocation.
Knowing the Old Boys, I am probably completely wrong and they actually manage the plan through the oversight board and fund current obligations from current revenues.
Gravy
You hit the nail on the head, no private firm they foot their own bill for everything.
The entire pension is in the city ordinances. No Bylaws no nothing
How quaint.
The taxpayers foot the bill and they contribute a smidgeon of money. The Gravy Train keeps on getting better for the old boys. No offense Gravy
OK, lets start over (sorry for the earlier deletes but I really shouldn't post when on the verge of heat exhaustion).
The non-uniformed pension members consist of the Mayor, the City Financial Director, a Citizen member and 2 "covered "employee members. The employees and the Citizen members are appointed by the Mayor with the approval of the City Council.
The Police Pension Board is a bit different.
On that Board are the Chief of Police, the Mayor, and the City Financial Director. Those three nominate 2 citizen members who must be approved by the Council. The other two members are "covered" police officers who are elected by a majority vote of all "covered" officers.
"Covered" basically means they are eligible to participate in the pension plan.
The does not appear to be an alternate way to nominate members on either board. So, if the Mayor, or the big three on the Police Pension are not in agreement with the Council we could end up with another situation where no one will nominate someone the majority of the Council can support and as a result a post remains vacant.
I heard the city treasurer who is apponted by the mayor Frances Coleman is also on the regular non pension board. Convienient hey?
The treasurer may sit in on the meetings I imagine, but it is actually the Financial Director who is on the boards. I assume it's possible that she could be named as the Citizen member as well if they choose to appoint her, though I imagine that would (or at least should) be a tough sell to the current Council.
From what I understand both the Fiance Dir and the current treasurer of the city both sit on that pension board together.
SP
Check the minutes of 6-12-06 the mayor nominated a citizen to serve on the civilian pension system and it was approved by the council.
The Ordinances states that the Mayor and Director of Finance serve on both Pensions Systems. Who is selected for each System is well defined in the City Ordinances.
I don't know what Fran does or what position she holds.
Sweaty,
Please stop with the "what if-therefore-corruption" posts.
You are so far out of your tree.
There is no management firm. There are no investments. There is no asset allocation. There are no periodic re-balances. Therefore, no interest earnings to not report.
Does the city use the term "Director of Finance" and "City Tresurer" interchangeably? Or, in other words, is that the same position?
They are not interchangeable or the same person.
We have a finance director. She is the lady that worked so hard to get things together in short order once we had a new Council that could actually take care of business. She is also the lady that told the Council that they would be responsible for any overages on Cell phones and she would have anyones turned off if they didn't pay for such overages promptly (though this became a moot point once the Council voted not to provide cell phones to themselves).
The Treasurer is an appointed position. This person is the second signatures on all checks written by the city. Most recently this person was in the limelight because the Mayor would not sign her paychecks when she refused to sign paychecks for Ben Branch, the person brought in to replace chief Herron, who was never legitimately or legally hired.
Based on the ordinances governing the pensions it is the finance director who is on these boards. I don't know if the treasurer is attending their meetings or not, but unless she is also an appointed citizen member of one or both of the boards she has no official role with them.
Save our city.
Save our city.
Ah, right now.
Well, I woke up this morning
And I got myself a beer.
Well, I woke up this morning
And I got myself a beer.
The futures uncertain
And the end is always near.
Let it roll, baby, roll.
Let it roll, baby, roll.
Let it roll, baby, roll.
Let it roll, all night long.
Good Old Boys Are Back Get Use To It. Would of Could of Should of.
Hah.
Promises,
Hopefully still can.
Remember these people have been around for years & years. It's going to take some time to break their hold. MaryB has started now it needs to continue.
So Lisa's official title is Finance Director (or Dir of Finance)?
She has always been referred to as the Finance Director to me. I have to go to City Hall on Monday so I will double check.
Post a Comment
<< Home