I'm confused about the mayor's insistence that only unionized city employee pensions and benefits are out of control. City Council has a proposed increase to its budget of $125,000. Pension increases of $48,000 account for over a third of that budget increase.
City Council meets once a month except during budget sessions when they meet every third Thursday. They receive pay for this part-time work. Did you know that they also receive full medical benefits not only for themselves but their families? Do any of our unionized city employees work part-time and receive full medical benefits?
Mayor Campana was a Council member for 12 years. After serving as mayor for 8 years he qualifies for a full pension. His pension will be calculated using his salary for the last 12 months. So even though he worked part-time for 12 years his pension will be based on his current salary. The city employee that worked full time for 20 years will get considerably less. Does that seem fair?
If the mayor earned $4000 a year as a Council member and $70,000 as mayor his pension would be calculated at 50% of his salary for the last 12 months or $35,0000. If we averaged his salary for the past 20 years his pension would only be $15,200.
I agree that unionized employees should not "pad" their pension by working overtime the last year before they retire but the same is true for former City Council members who become full-time city employees to get a pension.
Submitted by Virtual Newsroom