Animanialmanac t1_ixz12hl wrote
Reply to comment by Kooky_Deal9566 in Pension for Baltimore City council members by 2468975
The term limit measure limits elected officials to two terms in a twelve year period. They can apply for another role in the government or run for office again after the four year break.
I didn’t support the term limit measure at first but I’m glad it passed. Hearing Councilman Stokes talk about city council being the only job he has makes me wonder how many council members are in it for money. Years ago council members had full time jobs in addition to being the council rep. It’s absurd these council reps have no other source of income, do very little for the areas they represent, and expect a full pension after eight years.
partyvi t1_ixzlf5f wrote
If the pay is too little, the only people that can afford to be a council member will be ones with outside income (business owners, wealthy people that don’t work full time). I would rather someone be a council member that needs the job, rather than someone who owns a business that may skew their work to benefit themselves or other business owners.
imbolcnight t1_ixzr5fz wrote
Yeah, it's the same rhetorical appeal of politicians saying they will refuse or give up their pay (like Trump did). It sounds nice, like they're doing it out of passion and not money, but it's only because they are already wealthy and can eschew a regular salary and rely on outside contract work, passive income, just regular wealth, etc.
It reminds me of the argument used to underpay social workers and teachers. "They shouldn't be in it for the money." Also, most city council persons are paid like $70k? That's higher than median in the city, but that's not exactly rolling in it. It's enough that an average person can do it and not need a second job.
Strong pay also decreases the incentive to seek outside enrichment.
ETA: I think as a general rule, yes, it requires a lot of careful consideration when legislators are voting on their own compensation but also, it feels like the earlier outrage that the CEO of BCPS gets paid a salary that seems high but that is also regular to low for a CEO overseeing an organization that big.
2468975 OP t1_iy03mvr wrote
I don’t disagree with your point. It is valid. But business owners would have a vested interest in reducing crime in the city and making it more appealing for visitors with money to visit the city. Not saying they also wouldn’t do shady things for their own benefit. It’s really a challenge to get decent people and give them the support to make change.
Appropriate-Lab-5015 t1_ixzoyu2 wrote
Council member as a jobs program. I'm dead.
To your other point -- very few wealthy people on country council in Baltimore region. I'm sure there are some but I can't think of 1. It's certainly not anything near a majority.
partyvi t1_ixzpjyi wrote
This is why being a house delegate for Maryland pays $50K/yr - the only people that can afford to perform that job have other outside income. This is why regular people get left in the dust when the state writes legislation and contracts go out to well connected companies. Public service should be just that - public service, not a vehicle for the rich to legislate for more profits.
2468975 OP t1_ixz2c6w wrote
My point exactly. People shouldn’t be in these positions for a payout. What other job can you do for 8 or 12 years and get a lifetime pension? They should be in the position because they want to make their community better, not for a paycheck.
frolicndetour t1_ixz5yb0 wrote
Most government jobs come with a pension that vests after 10 years. The state and city do this I believe. The federal government does after 5. The amount is based on years of service so you get more if you work longer. I don't disagree about people not being able to vote on things that benefit themselves but in just pointing out that pensions for government employees are incredibly common.
2468975 OP t1_ixza656 wrote
That’s a fair point, but correct me if I’m wrong, if you leave after 10 years you are vested and will receive a small pension, but won’t get paid that pension until you’re 65. To receive a full pension, with immediate payments, you may have to work 30 years. Whereas, in the instance of city council members, they are going to receive their full pension after 8 years of service and will receive it immediately, rather than only after turning 65 years old. That equates to decades more of payout to these council members when compared to other government employees. It doesn’t seem sustainable.
todareistobmore t1_ixzyg04 wrote
> Whereas, in the instance of city council members, they are going to receive their full pension after 8 years of service and will receive it immediately, rather than only after turning 65 years old.
Well, no. Neither full pension at 8 years or immediately. But also a big thing you seem to be overlooking is the number of people this affects--it's likely in the dozens, max. In total cost terms, it's a rounding error.
2468975 OP t1_iy00hp1 wrote
Thank you for clarifying that question. Now that it is clarified (not full or immediate), I agree it’s inconsequential now, but what about in 20 years? When dozens could have worked 8 years, turned 65, and now collect? Is that sustainable for Baltimore city government? Honestly interested in your opinion.
sit_down_man t1_iy10d4x wrote
Having this much focus on city council pensions is kinda wild. That’s such a tiny tiny portion of the budget and tbqh a very reasonable thing have regardless…
frolicndetour t1_ixzas5e wrote
I think that's about right. Does the bill provide for them to get a full pension? I haven't seen it and all the articles say they are "eligible" for a pension, which I guess I assumed meant that they are vested and would get something based on their years of service. If they get a full pension after 8 years, that is definitely bull.
bmore t1_ixzc5xz wrote
They get 2.5% of their highest salary x years served, and if elected after 2016 it's capped at 60% of their highest salary.
The pension for someone who ran for council, stayed on until they were term limited at 8 years, and retired would be about $15k annually. So anyone trying to use it as a get rich quick scheme as implied by folks in this thread would be...bad at getting rich quick? There are better ways to make money.
frolicndetour t1_ixzctkv wrote
Ok...yea that's what I thought. That it would be vested and then calculated based on time in, not the full pension. Because one of the articles seemed to suggest that they could supplement their time in by getting a job in city government, which wouldn't be necessary if they got the full pension after 8 years.
2468975 OP t1_ixzeu4i wrote
No one gets their full salary as their pension, but do they get this pension immediately after 8 years or after turning 65? That does make a difference for sustainability.
2468975 OP t1_ixzbjt3 wrote
I’m glad we’re having this conversation. I took it to mean 8 years full pension because when the police pension was revised, they said it changed from 20 to 25 years. That is for the full pension. Nobody talked about their partial pension after 10 years. We definitely need clarification of this point.
Thebronzebeast t1_ixzdb1u wrote
It still pisses me off how they can take from those who put their lives on the line to put into their own pocket as if Baltimore doesn’t have a problem keeping those positions already. The more I see the more I think of the wire as a documentary instead of tv show
Animanialmanac t1_ixz8aps wrote
Baltimore City paramedics and firefighters must work for 25 years to receive their full pension. I worked for the state of Maryland and needed 15 years to qualify for early retirement benefit, which is less than the full benefit.
ElectricStar87 t1_ixz6f4p wrote
Extremely helpful comment. I’d been searching for this.
[deleted] t1_ixzxg1n wrote
[deleted]
Animanialmanac t1_ixz49xz wrote
The answer to your original question is to vote them out next election. I already have many reasons to vote for someone other than Phylicia Porter next time, Porter has ruined our neighborhoods, exploited our roads, elevated her friends and destroyed the moral of our communities. Porter voted for the shorter pension requirements in the first vote, she abstained in the second vote when it was clear the bill had enough votes to pass without her. I won’t forget this when I cast my vote in two years. I’ll remind my neighbors, we’re already talking about what we can do to support someone other than Porter. The previous council rep Eddie Reisinger had his bad sides but he was never this corrupt. What council rep is in your area? How did they vote? Would you vote for someone else next election?
I wrote an email to the mayor urging him to veto the bill, sometimes his staff responds to my emails, I hope a staff member reads them all at least.
Maybe as a city of informed residents we can push the mayor to veto this bill? You can use this form to email the mayor. https://mayor.baltimorecity.gov/node/28
2468975 OP t1_ixz5wve wrote
I will email the Mayor. Thank you.
Animanialmanac t1_ixz7lrk wrote
Perhaps you could make a separate post encouraging others to email the mayor, I’m sorry the link is buried in my comments.
EthanSayfo t1_ixzebdt wrote
You can call the Mayor's office as well, and speak to a staff member. I've done it.
Appropriate-Lab-5015 t1_ixzgutc wrote
In other counties, council, council president, etc are part time jobs paying like 40k. There is a separate full time county exec who often has a staff of civil service people with relevant experience who administer the county business. A lot of the the council people are long time workers and business people who have "skin in the game" and are not living off the people.
Furthermore, in the city, all these full time council people have staffs of handpicked people who eventually get on the city dole in permanent positions. There are still a LOT of remnants of failed past city administrations (e.g. SRB and Young, who were both council pres before becoming mayor and utterly failing at it) In the surrounding counties, the jobs these people do, like constituent services, are handled by full time (career) county employees.
In the city, it takes interventions from council members to fix embarassingly basic issues like street lights, trash pick up, trucks on residential street,etc precisely bc it's a political patronage system rather than a well functioning govt. When a problem is finally addressed, residents clap like well trained aquarium seals instead of realizing the problem would've been dealt with immediately if the city was run properly.
MontisQ t1_iy0qc7a wrote
>Years ago council members had full time jobs in addition to being the council rep. It’s absurd these council reps have no other source of income, do very little for the areas they represent, and expect a full pension after eight years.
I don't want my councilmember to have another obligation- I want them full time committed to me and my needs as a constituent.
todareistobmore t1_ixzp3u4 wrote
> and expect a full pension after eight years.
This bill doesn't change the eligibility for a full pension.
Admirable_Story_5063 t1_iy0ikhd wrote
No the term limit is 8 years in a 12 year period and that’s it.
I hate the fact that the term limit passed( who the hell puta term limits on a treasury position?).
This is going to bite Baltimore in the ass 20-30 years from now. I guarantee it.
wbruce098 t1_iy1np77 wrote
With the current pay raise, it’s only $76k, which is about the same as early career tech or cleared gov contractor pay — translation: not that much for a professional working in a senior leadership role.
We are fortunate that Baltimore has a relatively low cost of living compared to the rest of this area, and that’s easily enough to support a family and own a home here, but not much more than that. I’m surprised anyone who can get elected wants to do more than 2 terms at that salary, actually, except… that pension! (For reference, Mosby makes about 135k, Scott makes just shy of 200k, and most members of congress make ~175k. Maryland legislature only makes 50k, but I imagine they may not be in session often enough to prevent most of them from working full time jobs elsewhere. (I honestly have no clue how busy city council work is though)
I’m not saying their new pension rule is good of course. But I definitely understand where they’re coming from with the new term limits rule (it’s still corrupt though).
OP, u/2468975, if you wanna start gathering signatures, I’d sign a petition. But maybe give them a choice with the legislation:
Either they restore 20-year pensions to police and firefighters, or they restore 12-year pension to the council. Maybe have the voters vote on both as separate measures!
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments