Two of the most vocal opponents of city employee pensions benefit from the pension plans themselves, yet they cite mayoral candidate Mike Hogan's endorsement by the Police and Fire Unions as a conflict of interest in addressing the city's pension problem. Is this criticism valid when the same system they criticize benefits their income?
Rick Mullaney, as former General Counsel under the Peyton and Delaney administrations, receives a $150,000 pension from the City of Jacksonville. $30,000 of that is paid from the city's general fund because he is considered to young by the Federal government to receive the full payout from the pension fund alone. His young age and benefit bring to question his criticism of the 25 year term of service requirement in the current Police and Fire Pension that allows employees to retire at a rather young age.
Audrey Moran's pension benefits are through her husband, Duval County Judge John A. Moran, II. Judge Moran receives a pension of $6,007.14 a month, which is roughly equivalent to $72,000 a year. Nick Callahan of Jax Politics Online documents Moran's pension in his March 10, 2011 article.
With pension reform being a central issue to this campaign, it will be important to select a mayor that can remain unbiased an impartial if any effective change is to be made. Moran and Mullaney's conflicts of interests may skew an objective analysis of possible solutions.
Both candidates' focus on addressing the pension is off target. Moran and Mullaney talk about reforming the outputs of the policy, proposing different ways of distributing benefits to recipients and reducing the benefits dispensed. Outputs is not part of the problem, the problem is with inputs. As discussed in earlier posts, the problem with the pension stems from the city government's neglect of its contractual obligation to pay its part of the pension plans. If the pension problem is to be fixed, the solution should focus on inputs rather than outputs.
Have you watched either of the debates? Hogan didn't show up to the first one because his people know that he loses supporters every time he opens his mouth and can't string a sensible sentence together. Moran skirts the issues opting instead to toss in the words 'next mayor will need to bring HER experiences gained in all three sectors' at every opportunity. Mullaney keeps coming back to his 300 pt plan to shrink government and grow jobs without ever discussing them intelligibly. He did mention his pension claimed due to his years as a prosecutor, but he swears that the City Council is onboard to cut their own (future) pensions in favor of a 401k plan. Can you tell I'm not impressed with any of them? I would have to say that Alvin Brown has my attention, but that might just be because he isn't throwing blind words out there like "cut waste, fraud and abuse" without trying to explain exactly what can be addressed.
ReplyDeleteDr. Thomas caught me in the hallway several weeks ago and asked who I was voting for in the mayoral election. I realized that I am quite relieved that I could tell him that I am a St. Johns County resident (and leaving the state in the summer) so the election matters little to me. It is sad to see that none of the candidates seem to be looking into the real issues as evidenced by the debates that barely scratch the surface of issues.
I agree.
ReplyDeleteCandidates are doing little to provide substance and are clinging to their talking points like a toddlers blanket. I have not been kind to Moran, Mullaney or Hogan in this blog - so your disappointment is not alone.
I do like Alvin Brown. I think he's a smart man, but I worry about his experience in local politics. He is at a disadvantage in that he's not as embedded in the system as Moran, Mullaney and Hogan are. I am also beginning to feel that he is using this campaign more like a tool to help a future one, possibly as a contender to Corrine Brown's seat after redistricting. His Washington experience would be more applicable there.
Other than that, I'm sorry to hear that you're leaving the state this summer. I was going to see if you'd be interested in becoming a contributor to the site. Oh well...
Moran's pension is paid for by the state, not the city. additionally, Judge Moran's is from over 30 years of service, yet is one half of Mullaney's. once again, Moran is simply taking the benefit of the existing law, while Mullaney negotiated, wrote the law, and ensured it's passage to benefit himself. Without his efforts, he would not have been able to role his pension earned from the state, which is lower, into his city pension, which is higher. so it's actually very very different.
ReplyDelete