| TOP STORIES AROUND THE COUNTY |
Barrett Wins Veterans Pension BattleBy Tammy Daniels
iBerkshires Staff
10:51PM / Tuesday, September 09, 2008
NORTH ADAMS — The war is over.
At least until another councilor or two tries to overrun the mayor's position on retroactive benefits for the military veterans who were declared disabled while working for the city.
Those benefits, championed to the last by City Councilor Richard Alcombright, went down to defeat on Tuesday night with a 5-3 vote that upheld Mayor John Barrett III's veto.
The campaign began at the end of last year, the final volley of Christopher Tremblay, who lost his seat in the November election. Tremblay had brought the issue to the forefront after veteran and former city firefighter Howard D'Amico had run for City Council on a platform representing the veterans.
At issue was a state law 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. The City Council adopted that section two years but not the section of the law that would pay the benefit back to the time they were disabled.
The mayor immediately threatened to veto its adoption, saying the city couldn't afford to pay the estimated $57,000 in extra benefits.
Over the following months, councilors tries a range of compromises to provide the veterans with some relief while also reducing its financial impact on the city.
A home-rule petition by Councilor Gailanne Cariddi that would have reduced the amount paid out was vetoed by the mayor in June. The council then adopted the law with the caveat that North Adams Retirement Board would pay the benefits and be reimbursed by the city over a period of years.
Barrett vetoed that plan on Aug. 7, saying the council couldn't enforce conditions on a state law.
In a last ditch effort to override the veto, Alcombright said on Tuesday night that a reading of the section shows the city would not have to pay for the benefit immediately, that the Retirement Board would.
This was confirmed, he said, after speaking with with the state's Public Employee Retirement Administration Commission and checking with two other towns that had adopted the law.
"If the city agreed to Section 2 to pay this pension benefit to the 16 or 17 people, the city would not have to appropriate the $58,000 in this case to pay this off. ... this would have been difficult for the city to do. We all agree on that," Alcombright said
Rather, once those eligible retirees apply within 120 days, the board would make the determination to pay out in a lump sum or over time.
"It becomes a natural piece of our funding schedule beyond that," said Alcombright. "Our fund now is worth about $37 million from what I understand. This represents about 15/100ths of a percent; it's an infinitesimal amount."
Barrett, however, said his reasoning hasn't changed — the city can't afford to hand out extra benefits when current employees are making do with barely cost-of-living raises.
"You've got employees here tonight screaming about their insurance costs," he said, noting the dozen or so teachers in the audience who have been urging the city to join a different health insurance plan.
"Our pension costs have gone up over a half-a-million dollars in the past five years," said the mayor. "They're up $117,000 in this year's budget and these types of actions continue to add to it. I have to be the bad guy and say that's not the way to go."
Alcombright and Barrett skirmished over whether the council had supported the mayor in his long running battle to force the Retirement Board to cut costs, with Alcombright noting the council had passed a resolution backing him.
The mayor said the council should try another year when the city's fiscal condition was better. Alcombright responded that "if we can't afford it this year then we can't afford it next year."
It was time, he said, to decide "are we going to pay them or aren't we?"
But his plea failed to sway enough of the councilors to override Barrett's veto. Only Councilors Cariddi and Michael Bloom joined him; Councilors Lisa Blackmer, Ronald Boucher, Clark Billings, Robert R. Moulton Jr. and Chairman Alan Marden voted to uphold the veto. Councilor Marie Harpin was absent.
Insurance Opinion
In other business, council was read the opinion of city solicitor John B. DeRosa on adopting yet another state law, this one to allow the city's unions to bargain for health insurance benefits as a group.
The seven unions' leaders have been lobbying the council to adopt the law in a move that the mayor says is an attempt to improperly negotiate.
However, DeRosa's opinion states that the city can begin negotiations with the unions, through a "public employee committee," without the council's approval. That, he said, would only be necessary once an agreement has been reached with the mayor.
"We conclude that failure of the City Council to consider acceptance of the Statute now does not preclude the Public Employee Committee to coalition bargain with City over health insurance."
Christopher Caproni, president of the teachers' union, said he did not agree with DeRosa's finding and that the unions would seek their own opinions.
The state law would allow the unions to join the Group Insurance Commission, which covers the state's nearly 300,000 employees. The unions say the savings for the city would be $1.5 million and that their members desperately need to lower their insurance costs.
Caproni said the unions have been negoiating since March; they had hoped to have an agreement in place by Oct. 1, which would allow members to join GIC for fiscal 2010.
Debra Alves, a teaching assistant at Brayton Elementary School, offered the council a look at her $8 paycheck and the IOUs she owes the city because her health insurance is taking so much of her wages.
"I am a working mother of three children and my husband is unemployed right now, so I am the sole provider for my family," said Alves, president of North Adams Teaching Assistants Association, United Steelworkers 1235. The state requires individuals to carry insurance but she's not eligible for Mass Health."I have to keep the insurance I have right now. It's breaking me, literally."
Several other school employees spoke during open forum. Five of the councilors had met with the union representatives at a Finance Committee meeting on Monday.
Barrett said the city has been reviewing all the options and "number-crunching" to determine which way to go. GIC, he said, had elements that may not good for retirees or for employees.
"We have to examine this very, very carefully," he said.
Related Interest: A story published Sept. 20 in The Berkshire Eagle describes how Pittsfield officials and the city's unions were working toward an agreement to allow the city to join the GIC.
Officials said the city could have saved $5.6 million had it joined in fiscal 2008, according to a study released in May. However, Scott Eldridge, president of the United Educators of Pittsfield, the city's largest union, said the city's proposal would be "injurious" to UEP's 800 or so retirees.
The two sides were to meet again on Sept. 23.
|
Your Comments
iBerkshires.com welcomes critical, respectful dialogue. Name-calling, personal attacks, libel, slander or foul language is not allowed. All comments are reviewed before posting and will be deleted or edited as necessary. Comments are closed for this article. If you would like to contribute information on this article, e-mail us at info@iBerkshires.com |
Isn't it funny how DeRosa's opinions never contradict the mayors state policy goals.
Has our "city's" solicitor becomes the mayor's personal legal deflector shield. | | from: Anon | on: 09-10-2008 12:00AM
I Agree (0) - I Disagree (0) |
|
| Let's face it, Barrett and Derosa have lost credibility a long time ago with citizens and councilors. Funny, now Barret defends and advocates the teachers' and other unions, but not when it is unions issues. Ha, again he uses his "taxpayers" argument to gain symphaty. Glad to see some city councilors looking at other angles of this issues and standing in their position. | | from: ha | on: 09-10-2008 12:00AM
I Agree (0) - I Disagree (0) |
|
| With a 1.5 million savings on the table, and the mayor not jumping on it, something smells a little fishy | | from: crook | on: 09-12-2008 12:00AM
I Agree (0) - I Disagree (0) |
|
Perhaps I am missing something here. Unless and until someone knowledgable provides me with proof that our mayor would "pass" on saving this city money I would say that the devil is in the details
and I will accept his judgement of them.
If there was a savings of anything like 1.5M available he would be on it like white on rice. | | from: btwo | on: 09-24-2008 12:00AM
I Agree (0) - I Disagree (0) |
|
|
Advertise on iBerkshires.com
|
