By seeking and winning salary increases, school superintendents across the state have maneuvered around a new law aimed at closing a loophole that had allowed employees to boost their pensions by counting fringe benefits as part of their salary.
The loophole, closed as part of the 2009 pension reform law, was famously employed by former University of Massachusetts president William M. Bulger, who successfully included his housing allowance in his pension calculation, enhancing his retirement pay by $17,000 to $196,000 a year.
Comments
If the salary information is public then this does not seem to me to be circumventing the state pension law. If salaries are up to the school boards (who are presumably responsible to local voters) but pensions are up to the state then perhaps they should also become the responsibility of the schools boards. Either that or perhaps the state should cap salaries, or cap the amount salaries can be recognized as contributing to pension amounts. This seems to be a question of local versus state control.
Actions such as these only serve to undermine the credibility of government and give ammunition to those who seek to weaken it. With all the lawyers sloshing around state government one would think they could write laws that clear, concise and prevent end-arounds. My theory is that most anti-tax sentiments are a result of the never ending drumbeat of stories such as this. It seems public officials put more enery into finding ways to suck money out for personal gain than to provide value for the taxpayer.
At the very least this absolutely unethical. Taxpayers need to ask why the school committees are doing this demand that it be stopped. we must remove these corrupt committee members.
The will soon be a wave of crushing debt as a result of the pensions of all Mass. employees.
So once again those at the top are screwing the folks who have spent a lifetime contributing to their pension, and don't have the boards in their pocket to inflate the base salary to ensure they receive a pension grossly disproportionate to what they actually contributed. This means that the state workers who have toiled for years have less in the pool of their pension investments to draw from. The average pension withdrawal is in the range of $30k. These "leaders" are just being greedy at someone else's expense.
The smaller a governmental unit is, the easier it is to manipulate. Thus reforms passed at the state level are bypassed at the local level via maneuvers like the ones described in this article. Regional school districts are especially vulnerable to this phenomenon. They are comprised of multiple communities, and the school committee members are appointed and not elected.
FredBil wrote, "The smaller a governmental unit is, the easier it is to manipulate. Thus reforms passed at the state level are bypassed at the local level via maneuvers like the ones described in this article." >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is much easier to manipulate the public than local governments. You asume that the law and/or rule was passed with the intention that it be 100% effective. What if those in the know were aware of how it could be gotten around? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Now I know that it's much easier to consider local governments as, shall we say, less then brilliant, rather than one's self...
One last thought: if the powers that be want a law's direct intentions to be followed then they should ensure that the law itself ensures that result. And don't think the "ethics" talk and possible "shaming" to come will work. Most human being do not respond well to "shaming". You are creating the motivation to subvert the entity doing the "shaming".