I heard several things from the employees. They felt disrespected by the process and some called it shameful. Second, that they love the city and provide it with a great service.
They noted how much they care about the City of Davis. I am sure some of them do care a lot about this community, even those who do not live here either by choice or due to the fact that they cannot afford to live here.
At the same time, I was appalled by the behavior of at least a sizable minority of city employees. And I was not alone, as both in written emails and conversations MANY people made the same complaint.
The city employees that drew my attention were rude, disruptive, and completely uninterested in anything other than their item. This is not all of the city employees, it is probably not even the majority there on Tuesday night, but the vocal minority, the few bad apples, spoil it for everyone.
One person noted that they came for the discussion on the Cannery site but ended up leaving before that item was completed because of the the snickering, talking and movement in and out of their seats by the firefighters seated adjacent to them.
One of them spent the entire evening texting and being visibly irritated at the length of the meeting, but was at least not disruptive.
The movement in and out of the room was a huge problem. A large number eventually congregated in the cooler hallway, but were talking noisily. Every time the door opened, it was difficult to follow what was being said at the dais.
Finally, after the city manager failed to control his employees, the Mayor spoke up and a police officer yelled at the employees outside to quiet down. But that took an hour to occur and should have been handled much earlier. And more to the point, city employees should have checked themselves before disrupting the meeting.
Throughout the Cannery discussions, there were moans and groans as the discussion wore on. It was a long discussion. It was a hot room. But if you are employed by the city, you need to sit there respectfully and allow the council to carry out the city’s business.
To me, it shows not only a lack of respect but a lack of interest in this community. You are going to argue you care about this community and yet there is an item about which at least forty members of the public, perhaps more, came to talk, far more than on the budget (even counting the swimming community), and you show no interest at all in the item, yet you talk about how much you care about the community?
I understand it was a tough night and the employees were upset, but that is no excuse. I was appalled by the behavior of some of the city employees.
Worse yet, the department heads were all in the room and no one did anything about it. If I saw one of my employees acting as they had, they would have been in my office the next morning if I did not pull them out of the meeting on the spot.
And yet, what we saw was the city manager doing nothing to stop this. Supervisors and Department Heads sitting by doing nothing.
Do I think this is reflective of all city employees? Absolutely not. Like I said, I think it was a small number of employees, and the worst culprits appeared to be the firefighters and some of the public works people.
I will also note that some of the city employees should have given up their seats to members of the public, as particularly the elderly were forced to stand in the hot room.
There is a huge disconnect here between the rhetoric of how much they care about the city and the behavior that, to me, showed they did not care about the city at all, only their paychecks.
Is that unfair? Probably. But that is what the behavior said to me, as someone observing.
I want to emphasize that many, probably the majority, of city employees listened to the rest of the meeting politely. That the conditions of the meeting were far from ideal, due to the heat in the room and the length of the meeting. And that they had every right to be concerned about the budget and their livelihoods.
Really, I have to put this on the City Manager, the Department heads and the supervisors in the room. They should have nipped this in the bud and they did not.
Increasingly. I see the lack of leadership in the city staff at the upper levels and realize that is the next battle that the council is going to have to wage. There are great people who work for this city, they just need good leadership to bring out the best in them.
Look no further than the police department. I did not see a single problem with the police officers who were at the meeting. A few years ago, there were a number of complaints about the police, but since Landy Black has taken over as Chief, those problems have disappeared.
It is leadership from the top down that has made the difference there, and that is what we are lacking in the city right now.
Fortunately, the council will get this right, we are moving in the right direction and despite it all, they hung tough last week.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
[quote]But [quote][b]if you are employed by the city[/b][/quote], you need to sit there respectfully and allow the council to carry out the city’s business.[/quote]OK… if you are employed by the city, you are expected, when ‘off the clock’ (on your own time) expected to behave better than any other citizen? I do not condone boorish behaviour, but given the general public’s behaviour in other CC meetings, when it is their ox being gored, why wouldn’t you say that ALL who attend CC meetings should be civil & courteous? [quote]I have to put this on the City Manager, the Department heads, and the supervisors in the room.[/quote] OK… so when city employees are off the clock, the supervisors and managers should be responsible for their employees’ behaviour? Get real. Or, when you enter public service, do you give up your 1st amendment and other rights not only during the work day, but on your own time? Should city supervisors take responsibility for their “underlings'” behaviours after work and on weekends, vacations, etc.?
Boorish, disruptive behaviour has no “good” place at CC meetings… yet, under our laws, it can be a “right” (which should be exercised only in extreme circumstances).
I know of a certain blogger who has disrupted those in his/her immediate area during CC meetings… not frequently, but it has happened.
DMG: Worse yet, the department heads were all in the room and no one did anything about it. If I saw one of my employees acting as they had, they would have been in my office the next morning if I did not pull them out of the meeting on the spot.
Wait a minute here. The employees were in a public meeting on their own time. This is NOT a supervisorial issue – reprimanding an employee for behavior on their own time and in a public forum is not OK. Should supervisors reprimand city employees who have a little too much to drink at the City-sponsored July 4th celebration.
I also attended the meeting last week and although I left before the budget was heard, I heard no loud groanings or other “disruptive” behavior during the Cannery discussion. Sure, the place was packed (as it is on other controversial matters), and it was hot, and there was noise from the corridor – this is democracy, it’s not all nice and orderly all the time. I thought the crowd was passionate, involved – exactly what many cities don’t have. I think DMG’s notion that City employees were out of line is off-base. They did what every other constituency in town does when their issue is before the council – they came en masse, they expressed themselves emphatically.
Overall I don’t believe it disrupted the process very much. Let’s see how the public hearings on water rates go!
“Worse yet, the department heads were all in the room and no one did anything about it. If I saw one of my employees acting as they had, they would have been in my office the next morning if I did not pull them out of the meeting on the spot.”
Had a department head done what is proposed above, there would have been an immediate grievance lodged against the department head. The employee’s union rep would deliberately publicize this event and manipulate it to their fullest advantage. There would be the predictable rhetoric of “This is what we have to work with” and how they want to take away our paycheck.
In other words this “calling out,” while emotionally satisfying on the short-term, would translate to a union bargaining chip and distraction in future personnel budget cut negotiations.
The department head would be required to point out the specific written rule in the City’s rules and regulations that specifically authorized this “singling out this poor hard-working, off-duty, and economically threatened employee who may lose his job” Et cetera, et cetera.
Then, there would be a demand for a retraction of the “gross disciplinary action” and a written apology given to the disgraced employee.
Still like the idea?
There was shown an org chart last year with more supervisirs than workers. Layer upon layer of supervisors. Suggest that be realligned to be more realistic and would help the budget too.
City employees need to realize they are not immune from tough economic times. How many private sector jobs have been eliminated which created pain and hardship but that is reality. It us amazing to me we can’t seem to do the same, the obvious here.
Sorry if typos but microscopic on iPhone!
Phil… you seem to have missed the later paragraphs by rdcanning… dripped so much irony in the first paragraph that I needed half a roll of paper towels to sop it up.
SODA seems to focus on the need for city employees to ‘take one for the team’… fine… David’s piece seems to say “take one for the team”, and thank the coach for the opportunity to do so. And the player should ask coach if he/she wants fries with that (no charge, of course).
Houerce:
I used to argue with a classmate of mine (healthcare professional, early 1970s) who worked for UC about his generous retirement compared to my private sector, all employee contributed 491K etc. He would always retort, “our salaries are dismal compared to yours” as justification.
I contend if that was true, it no longer is-especially in cities. Add to that the unheard of cafeteria cash out (who in private gets that) bumps in last tear’s salary to game the retirement system etc etc and you might begin to understand how those if us in private sector who may gave been laid off with limited benefits and NO opportunity to protest with signs, feel when firefighters whine at making upwards if $150K with possible other jobs on the side.
We appreciate our city workers but it is reality time. Unfortunately for us it has come later to this city than to private sector thx to the previous CC and traditions of city govt.
Sorry Hpierce.
It us impossible to proof lists on iPhone since text us microscopic.
SODA… I guess I wasn’t clear… I may disagree on details, but I get your view and respect it… I definitely think the cafeteria cashout is bogus, but I get a kick out of how Rifkin defends it… I believe the medical coverage is the benefit, not the cost of that benefit. BTW, if today’s salaries are on par public vs. private, what about someone who has worked in the public sector for 25+ years?… are you of the opinion that they should have the worst of both worlds? There seems to be a lot of those who would advocate ‘lowest common denominator’… in “good times” , private sector soars, has profit-sharing, etc., and public sector lags… in bad times, public sector should suffer AT LEAST as much as private. Those who feel that way are entitled to their opinion and should feel free to advocate for that ‘system’.
I was at the meeting, and frankly I did not have the perception some city staff were “out of control”. The room was packed to 10 short of capacity according to the fire marshall; every single seat was filled, there were many people standing in the back, and more were standing out in the vestibule. It was extremely hot in the room, which added to the problem. In general, I thought the employees comported themselves appropriately (city staffers I sat next to were extremely respectful and attentive) under difficult circumstances. People going in and out occurs at every CC meeting.
The folks in the vestibule were talking too loudly, but frankly that is a problem at many CC meetings. There really ought to be a sign in the vestibule that says “no talking while a meeting is in session – please adjourn outside if you wish to carry on a conversation”. Or the side conference room could be opened up for people to go inside and speak with each other when meetings are going on in Council Chambers as a possible solution to the noise level in the vestibule. The problem in the vestibule is it acts almost like an echo chamber. Carpeting might help I suppose…
I agree with the above comments from readers that indicate it would not have been appropriate for department heads/the city manager to interfere. The atmosphere was very charged, and understandably so. City staffers were coming before the CC as individual citizens, to say their piece. They were not on duty/under the watchful eye of their bosses. They had a right to sit in Council Chambers free of restraint from “supervision”. They are not children to be monitored constantly, but grown adults that should be treated as such.
However, what I would say is that the few city staffers who did come forward to speak on behalf of their constituency were not helping the cause. What I heard was a lot of complaints that city staff had been somehow “disrespected”; city staff make valuable contributions to the city; the city would not be what it is without them – all of which was irrelevant to the issue at hand – THE BUDGET. No one doubts that city staff make an invaluable contribution to the city, but then city staff is paid handsomely for doing so – it is not as if they are volunteering their time unremunerated for Pete’s sake!
I was at a loss to understand where the “disrespected” comment by a city staffer came from, since I cannot remember anyone on the CC that night or the previous CC meeting “disrespecting staff” during budget talks. How is this whole process disrespectful, as claimed? One of the things the CC is attempting to do is ensure city staff salaries/benefits are there in the future when city staff will need them. Some cities have flat run out of money, and cannot pay salaries or pensions to its current/retired employees. That is the danger…
Hpierce:
“OK… if you are employed by the city, you are expected, when ‘off the clock’ (on your own time) expected to behave better than any other citizen?”
I expect city employees to act respectfully at a city council meeting, period. I understand all of your other points. And yes I expect employees, even on their own time, to behave better than citizens, especially since at least in that arena they are representing the city.
“I know of a certain blogger who has disrupted those in his/her immediate area during CC meetings… not frequently, but it has happened. “
I am aware of one time when I have done it, and I should not have. I don’t know that I have done it since. If I have, I wish someone would tell me, because in my view, that’s not appropriate.
rdcanning:
I’m baffled by your comments. I did not see specifically where you were sitting, but I talked to people all of the room who observed the exact same thing. And the noise in the hall was extremely disruptive. Every time the door opened, I could not hear what was going on AND I saw Paul Navazio’s head turn towards the door.
“This is NOT a supervisorial issue – reprimanding an employee for behavior on their own time and in a public forum is not OK.”
I disagree, if you are a city employee in the city council chambers, you are no longer just a private citizen.
“Should supervisors reprimand city employees who have a little too much to drink at the City-sponsored July 4th celebration. “
It would depend on the circumstance. What makes the current situation unusual is that it is clear that the individual is a city employee and it is a public meeting (as opposed to a recreational event). I don’t think you raise a good analogy.
Hpierce
I appreciate that we are able to discuss this.
not all private sector employees benefit from profits other than keeping jobs and avoiding economic lay offs.
High mgmt receives profit oriented bonuses but others rarely do. I worked in muddle mgmt as a healthcare professional for 17 yrs, no bonus, no incentive and one set of stock options.No emploer retirement. I was totally responsible for my own 401K which I was fortunately able to fund. I am NOT complaining, I have lived my career and oportunities, it has given me. But I am just contrasting public vs private from the private vantage point.
Scary article in Bee today about retirement liabilities of public employees. For instance we pay $158K/yr for David Murphy’s retirement.
Funny thing about leadership is that it all starts at the top..and rolls downhill from their…its the leaders that seem to leave their ego at home when they go to work in the morning that have the most amount of mutual respect in my observation…their seems to be something rotten in Egypt..or Davis right now and has been for sometime. I think we need more plain Janes aboard and fewer career polititians using the school board or the like as a spring board in to politics…you get in ..you serve…and you get out and let the next person give it a try..what we pay city managers and the like is a sin..in Davis we have always been different…we should dare to be different and spread the power out a little more and really dare to be different. These folks could complicate a BM. What happened? TS
One thing I noticed at that meeting … while watching the proceedings live on my computer, occassionally exchanging some emails with David … was that during or immediately after individual city employees gave testimony on the budget issues, the gallery erupted in applause. When that happens, the sound system seems to be programmed to shut off. I recall in the past, when Susie Boyd was mayor, she got very agitated and tried to shout down the clapping, letting everyone know that public displays of approval or disapproval of public comments were forbidden. In the end, Susie’s excitement at the disruption tended to be more disruptive than the applause itself … but during this meeting, as far as I could tell from home, Joe Krovoza never pounded the gavel to quiet the clapping, and it quickly faded as the next speaker approached the microphone. My take, thus, is that unless it goes on far too long, it’s better to say nothing and let applause die out as it will. It might also be nice to not cut the sound system out whenever people clap.
David you’re beginning to sound like Don Saylor.
Rifkin: Good point on the applause.
Toad: Don Saylor would never say what I have said.
SODA… did your employer contribute to Social Security? I assume you have that, in addition to your 401(k)… did your employer match any portion of your 401(k)? You seem to indicate that in the private side, employers pay salary only and the employee is 100% responsible for ANY income in retirement. Not sure that is accurate.
[quote]Scary article in Bee today about retirement liabilities of public employees. For instance we pay $158K/yr for David Murphy’s retirement. [/quote]I could never justify THAT arrangement. Perhaps that was a problem with a weak-kneed school board, rather than an indictment of public employees, generally.
[quote]And yes I expect employees, even on their own time, to behave better than citizens, especially since at least in that arena they are representing the city. [/quote]I respectfully disagree with you on this. They were representing their interests, as individuals who are employed by a “municipal corporation”. Many are also taxpayers and should have a voice at a ‘stockholders’ meeting for the corporation in which they are stakeholders, if not stockholders (as well as employees).
Hpierce
yes SS but no contribution to 401K by employer. No cafeteria cashout. No retiring early and no pension. Now that I am looking at soon to get SS benefits it is way lower than public employee benefits I believe for time and income.
I am not saying the two arenas are equal. I am just saying reality must come to the public sector.
I am certainly not trying to defend or minimize Murphy’s pension, but it is not true to say that we are paying $150+ K per year for his retirement. CalSTRS works similarly to CalPERS, you have an employee contribution rate and an employer contribution rate. That ends when they retire. Someone can correct me if I wrong here, but I don’t believe we pay anything towards his pension after retirement.
HPIERCE: I have no problem with them voicing their opinion at a public meeting. They are entitled to do so. I do have a problem with the way that some of them conducted themselves. Paul Navazio told me that Department Heads will apparently deal with these issues and that there will not be a repeat.
[i]”Someone can correct me if I wrong here, but I don’t believe we pay anything towards his pension after retirement.”[/i]
If a retiree’s pension is underfunded–as determined by an auditor–then someone has to pay to make sure the funding is there. Further, it is my understanding that administrative employees–such as a retired superintendent–would not have his pension through CalSTRS, but rather through CalPERS. AFAIK, CalSTRS is for K-12 and community college teachers and not for administrators or most other district employees, like janitors, landscape maintenance people, food service workers, etc.
My guess thus would be that in the case of David Murphy, CalPERS shows a large funding deficit and is sending a monthly bill to the DJUSD to make up for that.
yeah but Murphy gamed the system at the end staying on as a consultant and cashing in all his leave until he hit I’m guessing now 62 to get the full 2.4 age factor instead of the 2 at 60. The school board of course let him.
[i]” I definitely think the cafeteria cashout is bogus, but I get a kick out of how Rifkin defends it …”[/i]
For the record, I see cafeteria benfits as being a component of total compensation. And I see our largest fiscal problem as a city being that we have let total compensation for employees inflate far faster than revenues have inflated. The result, compounded by the recession, is a present-term fiscal crisis and a long run debt crisis.
As such, I don’t see the solution to the city’s problems tied up in reforming its cash-outs for cafeteria benefits. The last contract essentially did away with cash-outs for new hires who take the medical insurance and slightly modified them for people who have medical coverage from another source. I am not against such reforms. However, tinkering with components of compensation by taking a few bucks here and a few bucks there from this employee or that one does not get us to the heart of the problems we face, near-term and long.
The real issue is that we are paying our employees in total comp–salary + cafeteria + pension + vacations + holidays + retiree medical + life insurance + worker’s comp + long-term disability + Medicare–far more than we can afford. There are only two ways this primary issue gets solved: we end up laying off a large number of workers and get far less in city services or we reform our labor costs at the level of total compensation.
There is a secondary issue which this crisis has brought to the fore: we have 133% as many firefighters and fire captains employed on our force. If we want to have our roads maintained, going back to our traditional staffing model will solve our near and long-term problem with deteriorating streets and other infrastructure. But just dealing with the over-staffing of the DFD will not solve our problem of paying far more in total comp than we can afford for everyone else.
CORRECTION: “we have 133% as many firefighters and fire captains employed on our force [b]as we need[/b].”
Someone in an email who is a City employee and who agrees with me that we need to go back to the 3-men-on-a-truck staffing model for the fire department made a cogent observation. This person said (paraphrasing): “What will probably happen is that they will fire all the youngest, lowest paid firefighters to accomplish that goal. As a result, we will end up with a comparatively old force.” The interesting comparison is with how teachers get laid off: last in, first out.
This kind of situation has never faced the City of Davis, as far as I know. I wish the Saylor council would have taken this step five years ago when I first suggested it. It could have been done by attrition. Now we will face the horrible situation of having to lay off people, chosen I don’t know how, who have done nothing wrong. I feel terrible for those who will lose their jobs. But I know this is coming. It has to be done.
Rich: There is an alternative, in fact, a likely alternative, they will give some inducement to firefighters within a few years of retirement to do so.
I think we are seeing the scenario in real time when employees abuse the collective bargaining process. If left unchecked collective bargaining can be exploited by workers to make unrealistic demands – namely rediculously high salaries.
just as employers at times make unrealistic demands of their employees. if left unchecked, there would be no minimum wage for example.
in other words, everything in moderation.
we are also seeing a classic defense. if your unrealistic demands are not left, play victim.
Bruce Colby confirmed that the District pays none of that pension presently, it all comes from the state fund.
Additional information, both Toad and Rifkin were wrong with regards to Murphy. Murphy was never a consultant to the school district.
Certificated employees (Teachers, Counselors, Psychologists, Nurses, Librarians, and Administrators) are covered by CALSTRS. Most K-12 administrators are certificated.
All classified employees are covered by CALPERS.
These are funded by contributions from the employee, employer and the growth of the pension trust fund.
STRS benefits are based upon three variables.
Credited Service X Age Factor X Average Monthly Salary = Unmodified Monthly Benefit
Credited Service
Service credit for which required contributions have been paid. A full year 1.0 FTE is one credit. Unused sickdays adds to credits.
Age Factor
A percentage determined by your age on the last day of the month in which your retirement becomes effective. It equals 2% at age 60 and is reduced by 0.01 (one one-hundredth) of 1% for each month or fraction of a month in which the member is under 60 but at least 55.
For members seeking early retirement who are age 50, but under age 55, the factor is further reduced by 0.25 (one quarter) of 1% for each month or partial month under age 55.
For members over age 60, the factor is increased by 0.033 for every quarter year of age to a maximum of 2.4% at age 63 and over.
Mr. Murphy was a STRS member. The age factor is set by the age at retirement, this is up to the employee when they decide to retire from STRS. Mr. Murphy was never a consultant of DJUSD. He was given a severance payment that was part of his employment contract. This severance had no bearing on his age factor. Mr.Murphy was no longer an employee when he was receiving severance payments. It was his choice when to start his draw down.
[i]”Additional information, both Toad and Rifkin were wrong with regards to Murphy. Murphy was never a consultant to the school district.”[/i]
I never said or implied that he was.
[i]”Bruce Colby confirmed that the District pays none of that pension presently, it all comes from the state fund.”[/i]
That will likely change. CalSTRS is terribly underfunded and without more money from districts and or the state, it is headed to bankruptcy ([url]http://www.pionline.com/article/20100127/REG/100129854[/url]): [quote]
CalSTRS’ investment losses have left the system underfunded by $42.6 billion, with almost double the unfunded liabilities it had estimated 19 months ago.
In a report on the $131.9 billion system’s website, Jack Ehnes, CEO of the California State Teachers’ Retirement System, estimated its defined benefit program would run out of money by 2045 without [b]an increase in contributions by school systems[/b], the state of California or teachers. [/quote] What distinguishes CalSTRS from CalPERS in this regard is that CalPERS is authorized to set its own rates. So PERS is also badly underfunded and has been increasing the rates it charges its member agencies to make up for that deficit. CalSTRS needs to raise its rates to cover the pensions of people like Murphy and others, retired and still working. But until the state legislature approves a rate increase, the districts don’t yet have to make new, higher payments. But it is just a matter of time before they will–or STRS goes bust.
I am sorry that I got the discussion off track with the David Murphy example, but had just read that in the interesting Bee story this am.
Go back and check your own writing from the time David. Murphy spent quite some time using vacation and maybe sick leave and wrote some sort of instruction manuel for a couple of years. This allowed him to collect a paycheck and defer filing his retirement papers. It would be interesting to see what he actually produced during that time. The trustees probably let him do this to avoid making his departure any nastier than it already was and because the pension problem hadn’t yet become the issue that it is today. I don’t blame Murphy for trying to defer or the district for letting him. This is how its been done with administration for too long they were all just going with the flow. However it doesn’t make it right and it is galling to see these administrators who are already making excellent money and benefits scam the system. Sadly, if Murphy had not milked it for those last couple of years until he hit 60 he would still have a nice pension.
Rifkin:
“I never said or implied that he was.”
I didn’t say you did.
Mr. Toad:
That’s different than being a consultant. Basically he was fired and given a severance. If He has worked as a consultant it’s not for the school district.
[quote]hat’s different than being a consultant. Basically he was fired and given a severance. If He has worked as a consultant it’s not for the school district. [/quote]Are you sure of this, David?
I checked with Bruce Colby to confirm.
A severance that allowed him to juice his pension by around $20,000 a year for life. Plus the what was it 2 years worth of salary. Nice severance wish I could get one of those packages. When a teacher gets an early retirement package I doubt it ever adds up for them like that even on a percentage basis.
One other point, Robert Reich had a nice piece in the SF Gate yesterday where he wrote about how all the productivity gains had gone to the top in the last 40 years and compared that to Germany where they had not and have a more even distribution of wealth. The difference was that we have busted unions right and left in this country until only seven percent of workers are unionized here. What we are seeing here is a sort of system that mimics the private sector in education where, even though there are still unions in education, the compensation packages at the top are excessive while the rank and file get squeezed.
Mr. Toad:
[quote]A severance that allowed him to juice his pension by around $20,000 a year for life. [/quote]
According to CalStrs document for reporting qualifying salaries, severance is not reported (for retirement benefit). Therefore Mr. Murphy’s contractual severance did not boost his retirement amount. Same for cashing out any unused vacation or sick leave, if that was the case.
[quote]Rich: There is an alternative, in fact, a likely alternative, they will give some inducement to firefighters within a few years of retirement to do so.[/quote]
Yes, this is a good way of getting around the problem… it is done at the federal level all the time…
Davisres is correct.
According to Colby: “He retired at age 60 (age credit of 2% +.033% for each quarter past age 60). He was age 60 at the time of his termination with DJUSD. His termination date as an employee was July 31, 2007. His STRS service credit stopped on this date. His STRS retirement started on August 1, 2007. His retirement factors were set on August 1, 2007, the day after his termination with the district.
He received 10 months of severance past the termination date, August 2007 thru May 2008. This was part of his employment contract that originally ran through June 2008. His severance had no impact on his pension rate.”
From the Davis Vanguard 3-4-07 “WHile he intends to retire on July 31, 2007, he announced that the Board of Education would appoint an interim superintendent now and he would immediately hand over all his responsibilities.”
So he only got 5 months out of it so .05x 37years =1.85 x 200,000= 3700
So he only grabbed an extra $3700 a year for ever.
Up in Woodland theI was told the HR guy got a $25,000/yr raise this year and then announced he was going to retire. Nice pension spike there.
This sort of stuff goes on all the time and is allowed because we have all this decentralized decision making and combined pooling of the pension money. More for those at the top at the expense of those at the bottom is what is killing our economy.