Today’s Globe, front-page, above the fold. Gotta love it.
Governor Mitt Romney has installed his most prominent aide, Eric Fehrnstrom, as the state appointee on the Brookline Housing Authority, a move that will allow Fehrnstrom to qualify for a state pension when he reaches retirement age.
Fehrnstrom, who earns close to $160,000 and is scheduled to leave his state job Jan. 4, would have been nearly two years short of the decade of service required of state employees to vest in the pension system. The five-year housing authority term will allow Fehrnstrom, the governor’s communications director, to exceed the 10-year threshold and be vested.
The additional years of service could mean a difference of several hundred thousand dollars to Fehrnstrom during retirement. Without them, he would not have qualified for a public pension at all.
While the Brookline position is part-time and pays only $5,000, the pension Fehrnstrom receives will be calculated based on his top three earning years in government.
Cool — now we can substitute “Eric Fehrnstrom” for “Billy Bulger” in the Mass. Political Dictionary’s definition of “pension abuser.”
And then the article moves from dry reporting to straight comedy:
Fehrnstrom insisted yesterday that his interest in serving on the Brookline Housing Authority is purely civic-minded.
“I’ve lived in Brookline for the past 20 years, and I have two children in the public schools, and I look forward to serving my local community,” he said in a statement e-mailed to the Globe.
Fehrnstrom declined to comment on the pension implications of his appointment….
[T]he governor’s chief of staff, Mark Nielsen, called the Globe late last night and said that when Romney appointed Fehrnstrom to the Brookline board last week, he did not realize his aide could use the position to qualify for a pension. “When the appointment was made, the governor did not know that Eric Fehrnstrom could accumulate service time toward his pension,” Nielsen said.
One word: BWAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!
IMHO – and PLEASE keep in mind how many Democrat legislators this applies to as well – it should go to top TEN years, which would protect lifelong fulltime workers, OR stipends of less than $10,000 should not count towards creditable time (that would be harder) OR only full time should count (harder still).
<
p>
There are DOZENS of legislators of both parties who were Selectmen, Moderators, Planning Board members, etc. – if they got a stipend it counts towards a pension. Some are taking home 80% of a legislator’s salary after only two terms based on these town/county/municipal posts.
<
p>
Kerry Healey tried to address this, and the SEIU hit her upside the head with a baseball bat, which I regard as a disservice to their rank-and-file membership who DO have 20-30 years in the system, but were told Kerry Healey would wipe out their pensions.
<
p>
SEIU is part of Deval’s kitchen cabinet, right? What say you, Gov.-elect Patrick?
which was one of Healey’s ideas that Patrick offered her some praise for, as you’ll no doubt recall.
<
p>
It’s a mess, and Patrick should try to fix it.
…so how is it that the Glob knows that he would NEVER hold any town, city, county or state job ever again?
<
p>
Why, Orleans is looking for somebody at the dump even as we speak!
This is the system we have. It may suck, but it’s what we got, so we gotta live with it until we change it.
there’s a difference between changing:
<
p>
(a) how much pension benefit one gets and, implicitly, who qualifies for a gov’t pension, and
<
p>
(b) changing how the money is stored altogether (pension –> 401k, etc.)
<
p>
I think many folks are in favor of having a look at (a). It seems clear that pension “abuse” is taking place at the top, not by the rank and file civil servants. While it doesn’t add up to a large percentage of the overall budget, finding any reasonable savings is important. Trying to pull off (b) along with (a) will certainly find more opposition. I could be wrong, but wasn’t that part of the Healey plan?
<
p>
Not sure where you draw the line between rank and file versus the top, but I personally know of at least as dozen situations where municiple employees nearing retirement have managed to ‘game’ the system.
<
p>
If I know a dozen, then there’s probably at least 50 times more out there than that dozen.
<
p>
On the Healey plan, you’re right she advocated moving new employees into 401(k) type plans and out of the current (underfunded and often abused) benefit plan.
By that I mean: if the people think that this abuse is happening at the top (thanks, Herald!), than they’ll be in favor of reform. Is it being “gamed” below? Sure. But, on any given case, it’s not as expensive, nor likely to be as blatantly unfair appearing as the case in this blog entry.
<
p>
As for new employees — sure, the current guys wouldn’t lose their current plan in this particular change. But, (1) slippery slope fears, plus (2) sticking up for future union members are both important issues which led to many within labor fighting the change.
<
p>
Personally, I’m skeptical of moving everyone to 401k. It’s not obvious to me that it’s a better plan than the more traditional pension. Note that ‘cheaper for the gov’t’ is not necessarily ‘better’ in my opinion.
<
p>
But, bottom line: it would seem that pension reform that decided how things were calculated would be far more palatable than changing the system itself.
<
p>
Defined benefit plans discriminate against younger workers. Silicon valley innovated the defined contributions because younger workers demanded it.
<
p>
They’re don’t necessarily cheaper benefits, but they are easier to administrate.
And this should lay to rest any notion that the 9C cuts were out of a desire to be fiscally responsible.
<
p> – Dan
The Legislature can send any porked up version of a budget they want to the Governor, secure in the knowledge that most areas are exempt from cuts, and any that are made are the Gov’s fault because of the Balanced Budget Law – which does NOT apply to the Lege!
<
p>
I can hardly wait for the first round of ‘Patrick’ cuts…
…not that I read it. But Healey only talked about merging the county pension boards with the state. She never talked about any of the “third rail” pension issues, liek the top three, or the 80% retirements for cops at 56 (with Reed had) or the T workers retiring in their 40’s.
…or whatever the hell they called the web page.
Sometimes you just can’t top brazen “screw you” Beacon Hill hackdom for comedy. I couldn’t make this stuff up.
<
p>
This is priceless…but wholly expectable. The Globe article had everyone howling around this office today…and some of the people know him.
…ANY Democrat would have known to sign the appointment on Jan. 2nd at midnight – at the last possible moment, right when the gay marriage storm cloud breaks!
that Fehrnstrom could use this position to qualify for a pension, then I am sure he will reverse the appointment to the Brookline Housing Authority as soon as possible.
<
p>
Yeah, right.
<
p>
This Governor gives the word ‘hypocrisy’ new meaning.
…on his next swing through Massachusetts. Mid-2007.
of bwaaaahahahahahaha. this is the perfect situation to trot it out.
<
p>
although according to urban dictionary, david, you may be an “evil villain”.
The Howie Carr article about this one ….
The 10 year rule seems to me like a pretty good rule. Anyone who’s given 10 years of service to this state deserves something.
<
p>
It’s not like you can say that part time years shouldn’t count, either, because that’ll probably hurt as many middle class people as shooin hacks like Fernyboy.
<
p>
The only reform I can possibly see is changing it from the top 3 years for the calculation. However, again, that’ll hurt a lot more middle class people than anyone else – for every Fernstrom, there’s someone like my Dad – who’s put in almost 30 years as a teacher and is finally earning a salary that allows them a little more comfort (and I say a little because my step mom hasn’t been earning much for the past 4 or 5 years, due to the dying travel industry after 9/11 when her business pretty much went away and never really returned when people figured out they can use the internet). My Dad, who easily works 60 hours a week (he’s a teacher, head football coach and Athletic Director), may make something like 80 grand a year… but like I said, he works 60 hours a week (and that’s in the offseason, when he doesn’t have football) to do that. And his salary is what allows my family to pay the Lynnfield mortgage and keep my 10 and 13 year old brother and sister fed and comfortable in what would otherwise (because of the travel agency that my stepmom just recently closed down) be a financial nightmare. I don’t know about any of you, but I think schools should pay their employees enough so that they can actually afford to send their kids to the very schools they work in.
<
p>
So, coming from that anecdotal evidence, I don’t think it would be a bright idea to kill off the top 3 year calculation in total. However, it wouldn’t be a bad idea to change it to a top 4 or 5 year average, though it would need to be analyzed to see just how many regular, non-political hack appointees that would effect.
<
p>
Furthermore, there’s no way Fernstrom will get a Billy-Bulger-esque pension, unless he stays working for another 20 years. A 10 year pension is probably only eligible for 15-40% of the top 3 calculation (which may mean something like a 15-25k pension for Fernstrom, which really isn’t much considering you have to give up social security and pay into the pension system to get a state pension).
<
p>
So, again, I don’t see how the system can be reformed. And if the system can’t be reformed to fix an injustice, I don’t really see the point in complaining about it (other than for the sake of complaining).
Suppose that you graduate from higher education today and start tomorrow, working for the state for $50K per year for 10 years. Then, you quit.
<
p>
Unless you have chosen to contribute, your pension equals -0-.
<
p>
Suppose someone else who is 40, starts tomorrow, and works for the state for $50K per year for 10 years. Then, he quits.
<
p>
His pension equals $5000.
<
p>
Fair? Your opinion?
You CAN take the money with you when you leave, but that’s it.
<
p>
Frankly, I don’t understand your question.
age at retirement shouldn’t.
<
p>
I’d like to see “Top 3” years of pay expanded to, say, “Top 5”. I also think that your actual age is irrelevant, only the number of years of service. Finally, this whole “vacation/sick day” uproar of late — I think most people have it wrong. I shouldn’t have to take a sick day or risk losing it. At the same time, if I earned 10 hours of sick time at $20 an hour and I get a $5 raise, my number of sick hours should be reduced to 8 since ($20/hour x 10 hours == $25/hour x 8 hours). If I want to defer taking those days until I’m 60, that’s fine. But, if I earned ’em at $20/hour, they shouldn’t be paid at a rate of $25/hour, and my boss should be on the ball enough to make me take a sick day if my productivity sucks because I’ve got the flu. After that, my compensation is my compensation, and shouldn’t be reduced because I don’t get sick or take arbitrary 1 day vacations.
MANY people don’t realize that when they go to collect a penion that there is a Social Security offset, as we are one of maybe three states that do not require a Social Security contibution as well. So, that 10 years will be DEDUCTED from any future Social Security payout by the Federal government!
<
p>
THAT is another reform – we should become a contributory state. Then, people who work for the state but ALSO have their 40 quarters in Social Security could collect both. As it happens, I worked for the Feds when Reagan required Federal employees to begin to pay Social Security, and you would have thoguht the SKY was faling! NOW, those retirees can collect both!
I meant to say the value of a pension based on ten years service, not ten years docked from Social Security.
This is the real hypocrisy. One day Mitt cuts the Mental Health budget (and other needy programs) and the next day he slips a fast one, giving his loyal servant a sweet heart deal at the expense of the taxpayers.
<
p>
My blood is boiling over the blatant hypocrisy. It is so damn sad. This Thanksgiving Mitt will gather around his dinner table in Belmont, and Eric Fehrnstrom will give thanks, around his feast in Brookline, to his friend that gave him a few hundred thousand dollar retirement bonus–while hundreds of families around the state will be struggling with mentally ill family members because of the cruel cuts made by Romney and Fehrnstrom.
<
p>
God I hate Republicans and everything they stand for!
And Frank, you are too sophisticated not to understand 9-C. Tell me, why did the Lege leave only social services vulnerable, instead of MOTT or MHD or other earmark havens?
<
p>
And the state hospitals will NOT cease inpatient operations, it was announced today, as you may well know.
Any guesses what Patrick will do with the $425 million in 2007? He can take them all out of the rainy day fund with a wave of the pen.
<
p>
<
p>
2. He does not dip into the rainy day fund.
<
p>
3. As I understand it, Romney’s action was not at all necessary, since we’re not at the end of the fiscal year and we’re not running out of cash.
<
p>
<
p>
So it’s certainly arguable that 9C was inappropriately invoked. In any event, my guess is Patrick restores much of the human services money, maybe other items as well, and assumes that Widmer is right. If he’s not, Patrick’s always got 9C down the road.
A booming Christmas season.
<
p>
By the time he has to make the 9C call in January, he’ll have more data and maybe some more money.
<
p>
I agree with you that he’ll probably split the $425 million somehow, but he has to have better collections in November to December to do it without reaching into the stabilization fund.
<
p>
Right now, Widmer may say the economy is generating strong revenues but DOR has re-benchmarked upward by “only” $202 million since October.
Buy lots of stuff!
I just heard they were going to shut down new inpatients this as late as this morning on the radio. Where did you read the announcement? I want to check it out. Thanks.
Clickee thingy
…citing facts. You’re sophisticated to understand that Romney is painting an IMAGE of cutting services for the poor while giving golden parachutes to his cronies.
<
p>
In this case maybe I am guilty not being reality based, but folks aren’t stupid and they can spot a hypocrite a mile away.
<
p>
(FYI, MOTT funding, I believe, is on the cut list. Not sure about MHD.)