Barrett Threatens Veto of Retroactive Benefit
 |
| Mayor John Barrett III |
"If the council does pass this, I cannot in good conscience not veto it and I will send it back to you," he said.
The council backed off from a vote on the $57,740 total benefit after Councilor Gailanne Cariddi noted three members of the board were absent. Councilors Clark Billings, Robert Moulton Jr. and President Alan Marden did not attend.
"Because of the extraordinary circumstances tonight with the storm and lack of three members maybe we could postpone it to our next meeting to allow those councilors, if they so choose, to weigh in on the issue," said Councilor Michael Bloom.
Vice President Richard J. Alcombright agreed, describing the vote as "very important."
State Law
The issue has been bouncing around since 2006, when the city adopted a section of a state law passed the year before that allowed municipalities to provide veterans injured in their employ with the same yearly benefit (not to exceed $300) that retired veterans receive in their pensions; it also had a section for retroactive relief to the time they were disabled.
Since then 68 of 104 municipal pensions, including Pittsfield, have adopted both sections of the law. The city, however, has declined to adopt the second section because of the cost.
The 15 veterans affected by the law had lobbied for the retroactive pay last year; one has since died. Christopher Tremblay, in one of his last acts as a city councilor, submitted a request in December for the city to take up the issue again.
The council appeared set to vote in favor of the retroactive benefit when its Finance Committee came back with a recommendation that the city reimburse the Retirement Board over a 20-year period, at $2,887 annually with no interest, to soften the fiscal blow.
No Justification
But Barrett said that was not an expense he could justify while in the midst of negotiations with the city's bargaining units over 10 and 20 cents an hour.
"I have city yard workers who make $2 or $3 less [an hour] than their counterparts in other communities, why don't we bring them up?" he asked, rather than giving more to the retirees.
The retroactive benefit would mean "bonuses" for some veterans in excess of $10,000, said the mayor, who was upset that the Finance Committee's report failed to include numbers on current pensions and costs.
"You say 'bonus,' I say 'benefit,'" responded Alcombright. "I look at this as parity. I don't look at it as a bonus. I don't really like it from a budgetary perspective but I think it's fair and equitable."
Veterans disabled on the job only get 72 percent of their pension while regular retirees get 80 percent, he said, plus they lose their earning potential.
Barrett, however, claimed the average disability pension is more than $26,000 a year while the average retiree makes $16,000. Plus, he said, they might only get 72 percent of their pension but they pay no taxes.
As for parity, he noted that some workers have to work longer to retire with less than others because of the way the laws are written. "Don't try to talk parity when you don't have it and can't even come close to it."
The mayor said the city is looking at a $117,000 increase in pension costs next year while struggling with nearly $300,000 less in state aid; pensions have grown $500,000 over the last four years.
"That's all borne by the taxpayers in the community," he said. "When is it going to end? When is it going to stop?"
Installment Plan
Alcombright said spreading the cost over 20 years would alleviate pressure on the city.
"While $58,000 is a huge amount of money at this time for the city ... the committee had a great recommendation," he said, adding that the state has offered the same benefit to state police and the teachers' association.
Barrett, who's had a long-running battle with the pension board, said the recommended motion carried no guarantees the board would hold up its end of the bargain. It would be "irresponsible for this council to take this action," he said.
He did, however, indicate he would be open to discussing a home-rule petition that would set the benefit at a set amount or retroactive to a certain date.
Councilor Ronald Boucher said there were a number of questions raised that needed to be answered before a vote should be taken. With three councilors missing, the council voted to table any action until the its next meeting on Feb. 26.
Edited 2/13/2008 at 11:45 a.m.
