megalomike t1_iye75i5 wrote
mosby trying to cast this as the will of the voters barely even rises to the level of a non seqitur.
moderndukes t1_iyebfok wrote
It is partially the will of the people - it’s in reaction to the term limits referendum
megalomike t1_iyebtmi wrote
you're delusional if you think a single person voted the way they did so nick mosby can enhance his own retirement benefits.
moderndukes t1_iyecs5x wrote
No, I’m just reading the article. The bill reduces years served from 12 years to 8 to align with the new term limits.
megalomike t1_iyedcqw wrote
nobody anywhere asked for enhanced retirement benefits, if the vesting requirements weren't touched for 50 years not a single voter would care, it's unheard of for a legislature to raise their own benefits without having to stand for reelection to receive them. not sure why you're riding nick mobsy's nards on this but you look comical.
LongjumpingShot t1_iyeisip wrote
I voted for term limits and what I’d prefer is 2 terms with a new official for the 3rd. During the 4th term the previous incumbent can win his seat back now that the city has a true comp. With this new head to head you can earn your pension.
If mosby really cared what the people think of his pensions he’d would ask the people instead of voting to enrich his colleagues with a rushed bill.
You may disagree but this notion that mosby is assuming this is what the people who want term limits wants is purposefully dishonest. I get it, you don’t like term limits which is all the more reason you shouldn’t interpret the intentions of the majority who do.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments