Pension for Baltimore City council members

Submitted by 2468975 t3_z61wl6 in baltimore

Do the citizens have any power to weigh-in on this in a way that would have results?

Isn’t it a conflict of interest that the people voting to reduce the years of service required for a pension are the same people who would benefit from said reduction? Something is wrong with the way our system works if we can’t overturn this.

These same people voted that police need to work 25 years, rather than 20, in order to qualify for a pension. The reason for this was to reduce financial burden on the city. Now they vote for a lifetime of pension after only 8 years of service!? That will create huge financial burden for the city. Additionally, if politicians were motivated by serving the people and their communities, rather than a payout, wouldn’t we have people in these positions for the right reasons and see better results?

Do we have any power here? This is a serious question. How can we stand up and not let this fly?

102

Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

Kooky_Deal9566 t1_ixyzh0j wrote

You realize that, with the term limits measure voters approved, council members can only serve for 8 years. So, either they get no pension or they get one after two terms.

.

49

Animanialmanac t1_ixz12hl wrote

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.

17

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.

20

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.

18

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.

−3

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.

−7

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.

10

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.

13

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.

22

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.

11

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.

8

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.

−5

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…

3

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.

5

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.

16

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.

7

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.

2

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.

3

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

−1

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.

4

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

7

2468975 OP t1_ixz5wve wrote

I will email the Mayor. Thank you.

6

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.

5

EthanSayfo t1_ixzebdt wrote

You can call the Mayor's office as well, and speak to a staff member. I've done it.

1

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.

7

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.

6

todareistobmore t1_ixzp3u4 wrote

> and expect a full pension after eight years.

This bill doesn't change the eligibility for a full pension.

4

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.

3

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!

1

2468975 OP t1_ixz2okj wrote

Is there any other job you can do for 8 or 12 years and have a pension for life? If these positions don’t offer such a compelling financial benefit then maybe self-serving individuals wouldn’t be interested and people who want to better their community would be in these positions instead.

14

[deleted] t1_ixz8q43 wrote

Maybe, or maybe only already wealthy individuals who wanted to used the position to further empower and enrich themselves would take it.

But probably not.

5

Admirable_Story_5063 t1_iy0it1n wrote

Nah during their 2nd term they know they won’t be beholden to the people. They won’t face any political consequences so they’ll be free to do any crummy little thing during their 2nd terms.

3

Ambitious-Intern-928 t1_ixz3x0j wrote

Actually not true, because they could run for other positions in city government. Also, ANDDDDD?? Let's be honest here, they didn't EARN one after 12 years either! What other organization/company gives a pension after 8 OR 12 years? I have to be at my job 10 years to be "vested" but I actually need like 25+ years of service to meet the full requirements. Baltimore City government is like a parasitic monarch, it's totally self serving to those in charge. As if 70k/year isn't compensation enough.....half of the members miss half the meetings anyways, even fail to vote on key issues being discussed

6

Admirable_Story_5063 t1_iy0j762 wrote

They can’t run for any other position though. It only 8 years total for all government positions.

Also your job sucks. Don’t make other people have worse positions in life because your job sucks.

−1

Ambitious-Intern-928 t1_iy0lpqc wrote

No, it's not. One could be on city council 2 terms, city council president 2 terms, then mayor 2 terms. Name one company that gives pensions after 8 years or troll somewhere else.

−2

Admirable_Story_5063 t1_iy0xw1k wrote

You’re correct about per government position. Though I still think this law is bullshit. Also I’m not a troll because I fucking live here. I’m a concern citizen and know that term limit is bs for legislators.

There’s a lot of problems with Baltimore politics and this isn’t going to fix anything.

2

Sjkerans t1_ixz0q1d wrote

Exactly. With the passage of Question K, anything else effectively abolishes the pension system. That said, you can make the argument that council members shouldn’t qualify for a lifetime pension in the first place, or that 12 years of service is a significant enough sacrifice to merit that benefit whereas 8 isn’t, which a lot of people would probably agree with.

That said, as far as I understand it, the realistic path to change this would be be A) the mayor vetoes the bill or B) another question gets put on the ballot for 2024 to repeal the term limits imposed by question K, and then the presiding council votes to return the pension qualification to 12 years

3

Appropriate-Lab-5015 t1_ixzg7lo wrote

The big problem is, for most (if not all) of these city council people, the city council salary is better than they've ever made, or basically the best they could do. Some (again, nearly all) have only worked for the govt and have zero experience outside gov jobs. This includes the mayor. Also, Dorsey, Cohen, Torrance, Costello, and a whole bunch of others.

The effects are obvious with the way the mayor and council operate. A lot of grandstanding and meaningless sound bites with rather little substance.

0

bmore t1_iy073ok wrote

Can you point me to something that says "nearly all" of city elected officials have never held jobs outside of government? And to be clear you're specifically asserting Dorsey, Cohen, and Costello have never held jobs outside of government?

5

kelzbeano t1_iy0yze5 wrote

Pretty sure Dorsey worked at the family business, Soundscape.

2

Cryptizard t1_ixzm3v9 wrote

You think $75k is the best they could do? After all the connections they make from being a councilperson?

4

Appropriate-Lab-5015 t1_ixzpmt2 wrote

I mean their actual skills of they had not been a council person.

Most Baltimore City council people are incredibly untalented and have never had a significant non gov job.

1

Cunninghams_right t1_ixzp5hi wrote

Fuck em. They can get a real job or put some of their significant pay into an IRA

−2

DeathStarJedi t1_iy01th4 wrote

Yeah, they should get no pension. It's a part-time position, with now a maximum of 8 years of service.

−4

WDer t1_ixzgahj wrote

Don’t forget the Fire Department (firefighters and paramedics) is roped in the Police pension as well and also got fucked with the 25years. And it wasn’t for “All new hires”. There were guys months away from their 20 year pension that got told “Doesn’t matter 25years now”. Didn’t matter what contract they signed, it got changed, 10 year court battle for nothing.

40

2468975 OP t1_ixzgvk8 wrote

And from my understanding some city positions no longer have a pension option at all anymore for new hires.

−6

Valstwo t1_iy015ue wrote

That is not the case - all of the city union jobs have pension.

9

2468975 OP t1_iy03523 wrote

Maybe I am misinformed, but I know someone who works for the city and is part of a union. He gets a pension, but told me that new hires no longer have the option. They have 401k only.

−1

Bun_Bunz t1_iy205ry wrote

This is false. You have an option for 401k only or a hybrid 401k/pension plan

Am city employee

3

SuperBethesda t1_ixz6lwt wrote

Could the residents of Baltimore create an initiative on the next election ballot for a vote to override this legislation?

38

bmore t1_ixzay8o wrote

Yes, if you want to do this you can.

26

2468975 OP t1_ixzid41 wrote

How does one go about doing this?

8

sllewgh t1_ixzjsr4 wrote

You need to collect a lot of signatures. This will require a lot of time, help, dedication, organization, money. It is not a small task. If you're serious, research organizations behind successful ballot initiatives and ask them.

19

2468975 OP t1_ixzkb4x wrote

Thank you! This is the type of response I was hoping for. How individuals can realistically take action. Thanks again.

17

sllewgh t1_ixzlv82 wrote

Individuals cannot realistically take action. Only unified groups can do anything. Also, the fight isn't going to be over when the ballot initiative is passed. If that's all you're organized to do, and everyone goes home afterwards, you've done nothing. My organization led the way for the Affordable Housing Trust Fund to be passed via ballot initiative. A year went by and the city hadn't put any money in the fund despite it passsing, so we had to gear up to fight again. Then we had to fight to make sure the money was used correctly.

In summary, individuals can't do shit. If you want the city to do something the city does not want to do, you need a committed group organized for the long term for a cause, not an individual policy.

12

2468975 OP t1_ixzussl wrote

I plan on researching organizations with successful ballot changes. Maybe I can volunteer and be part of a group to make change. Thank you again for sharing your knowledge and experience.

9

sllewgh t1_ixzxz6v wrote

Any time! Making these changes is absolutely possible, it happens all the time... but it takes a lot of work. It's very good to get off the sidelines- win or lose, if you participate you'll learn a lot about how power and our government really function.

6

YumChickens t1_iy0j9t7 wrote

I think Ryan Dorsey who is a council member that was incredibly against the pension bill is pushing something like this, I’d follow his Twitter page

2

DfcukinLite t1_ixzamle wrote

This is what y’all voted for when you wanted term limits. Now this is what you get.

16

2468975 OP t1_ixzb16l wrote

Are you really Nick Mosby? This sounds like how he would respond.

−8

moderndukes t1_ixzdbxf wrote

They’re just speaking the truth. If there’s an 8 year term limit, then this is what was going to happen.

14

[deleted] t1_ixze9ju wrote

[removed]

−7

[deleted] t1_ixzf28r wrote

[removed]

5

[deleted] t1_ixzfkwj wrote

[removed]

−3

[deleted] t1_ixzi34u wrote

[removed]

1

[deleted] t1_ixzmp3p wrote

[removed]

−1

[deleted] t1_ixzp5mj wrote

[removed]

2

bmore t1_ixz3b62 wrote

Voters decided we should have term limits despite research/evidence they're not a good idea, so I don't really take issue with pension matching the term limits. I do think it was a shitty time and way to go about it (thanks Nick Mosby). I hope the mayor vetoes it and council introduces an amendment to repeal term limits next election, giving a longer period of time for debate that isn't solely funded by a right wing billionaire.

I also have no issue with pension for councilmembers. I think they should be paid more and be full time. Being a good councilperson is a terrible job. I'd rather try to get more good people running and serving, even if it sometimes accidentally rewards a Robert Stokes.

15

Appropriate-Lab-5015 t1_ixzi6pr wrote

Counter argument: surrounding counties with part time council members ALL have better constituent services than any Balt City district. (Balt Co isnt great, but I mean AA, Howard, Carroll, and Harford.)

Bad county council people in surrounding counties also are challenged and lose primary elections, unlike in the city. Harford District E is an example from this past cycle.

7

2468975 OP t1_ixz53pv wrote

I might try to be a Robert Stokes. 8 years to work part time while making 70k+ / year and then get a pension? Seems better then the 40+ years I will spend working full time while contributing to my 401k with no guarantees.

4

bmore t1_ixzatep wrote

Perhaps you should lobby to have better working conditions in your job as well. The US really fucks over its workforce, and it's a uniquely American thing to respond to that by trying to erode employment benefits for others that have it better than you instead of advocating for better benefits for more people.

10

2468975 OP t1_ixzykpz wrote

And is this situation uniquely American? If so, why does the monarchy exist? Why does the caste system still exist (even if legally it doesn’t)? What you have said sounds good, but given your lack of response to how to put anything in action, the responses seem to simply parrot popular views, but lack substance.

1

2468975 OP t1_ixzc1ut wrote

Aren’t our elected officials supposed to do this for us too? But as demonstrated here, they vote that police should work 5 years longer to qualify for pension and they should work 4 years less. I agree, corporate America has issues. That is why we need elected officials who give a crap about us and not just themselves.

0

bmore t1_ixzd4cv wrote

>Aren’t our elected officials supposed to do this for us too?

Well it really depends on what voters are asking of them. I'd certainly like them to expand worker rights and benefits. But that doesn't seem to be popular enough in this country. As I said, people are more interested in tearing down benefits for others than organizing for better conditions for all.

IMO the Fire/EMS pension vote should have been a loser that threw people out of office, but obviously our populace doesn't care that much about first responders getting good benefits given it was a politically inconsequential vote. That sucks and I disagree with it, but I'm clearly in the minority.

7

2468975 OP t1_ixzircv wrote

How do I, a voter, ask something of my elected officials and actually be heard?

1

MontisQ t1_iy22pcv wrote

Call them, email them asking to meet, or tell them when they knock on your door during election season.

1

2468975 OP t1_ixzgk0r wrote

You have a lot of good responses. You have suggested that city residents can create legislation to try and overturn the pension ruling or lobby for workers rights, but haven’t said how. How, do I, a single person, go about lobbying? How do I start legislation? I’m not being sarcastic. I’m honestly asking to be educated. What is my starting point to act rather than just talk? For example, the person who responded to email the mayor and provided a link. That is actionable. That is an example of what I’m hoping to learn.

0

Cryptizard t1_ixzmiug wrote

You know the average Baltimore city police officer makes substantially more than a councilperson.

6

2468975 OP t1_ixzom7i wrote

Are you sure? From what I see a baltimore city police officer makes $60-105k at a full time position. A council member makes $76-135k and many of those positions are considered part time.

3

Cryptizard t1_ixzq5jh wrote

The council president makes more. But regular council members all make the same, $75k.

12

2468975 OP t1_ixzqxkp wrote

So not significantly more than all police? And then if you factor in full time vs part time work?

1

bmore t1_iy07km9 wrote

Police make overtime. The median salary at BPD is in the 90s, and overtime pushes it into the 100s easily.

7

Douseigh t1_iy6et7n wrote

ANALYSTS at BPD make 76k starting. No grad degree needed

1

SaveFailsafe t1_ixzeva6 wrote

Voters: I insist that we introduce term limits!

Also voters: how dare my votes result in consequences?!

9

CrabmanIndustries t1_ixzigx6 wrote

I don't see a problem. We lowered term limits so it only makes sense to lower the vesting years.

Plenty of jobs give pensions after five years. Police, military, and all federal positions. It might not be a full pension but you get a percentage times years of service.

Hopefully we will see the term limits over turned by the next election and then we can talk about returning the old pension requirements. Term limits empower lobbyists and weaken local oversight.

8

2468975 OP t1_ixzjzjo wrote

Do the jobs that give partial pensions after 3 years start paying that pension immediately or only after the person turns 65?

In the case of the council members, do their pension payments start after 8 years or after they turn 65? That makes a difference for sustainability in the long term.

For example, the police are vested after 10 years. If they leave after 10 years, they will get a small pension after turning 65 years old. They are fully vested after 25 years. That means that after 25 years of service they get pension payments regardless of their age. Someone correct me if I’m wrong please.

3

[deleted] t1_iy0yczm wrote

[deleted]

−1

CrabmanIndustries t1_iy1mvds wrote

Should have said five years but https://www.calstrs.com/retirement-benefits

As for federal employees, you are vested in your employer match after 3 years and you must work at least 5 years with the Federal Government before you are eligible for a FERS Federal Pension, and for every year you work, you will be eligible for at least 1% of your High-3 Average Salary History.

Normally when I hear pension, I expect it to begin at age 62, not while you are of working age. Maybe we have different expectations of the word.

3

Admirable_Story_5063 t1_iy0jdh5 wrote

Reading all of the responses here make me realize how utterly dumb Baltimore voters are.

8

Ambitious-Intern-928 t1_ixz2ztq wrote

I'd be down to scream and shout on Holiday Street if anybody else is. Not sure it'll do anything tho, it seems like the government here only gets more arrogant and pushes harder when people stand up. That's literally what they're doing here "ohhhhh you THOUGHT you'd get rid of us, okay fine but we're still getting a pension hahahahaha." Look how they continue to praise the school leaders for the great job they're doing as people protest various issues in front of city schools headquarters.

7

EntireAd9048 t1_iy47gaq wrote

People in the sub have aggressively defended Santelises (city schools CEO) and the city council in the past week.

It's the strangest thing. It's like a reflex to criticism. People think it's "anti city" to point out that these ppl suck at their jobs and Baltimore deserves better. They said "if you don't pay 400k, no one will want to be schools CEO", despite people in the same that pointing out city schools is like the 5th biggest school district in the state and top 5 performers like Howard, Carroll, and Harford pay their school superintendents half of what Santelises makes.

You're simple not allowed to criticize city leadership. And that's part of the culture that holds Baltimore back.

3

SewerRanger t1_iy0kdt6 wrote

We (as in the city) just passed a resolution limiting them to only 8 years of service (technically they can work somewhere else within the government, but the reality is they only get 2 terms). Is it any wonder they want a pension to start at that point?

5

noahsense t1_ixzn31a wrote

What I don’t understand is that overwhelming anti-security in retirement sentiment. Nobody else is going to make sure these people aren’t part of the growing elderly homeless population. It’s really not that much money.

3

[deleted] t1_ixzn7c6 wrote

[deleted]

1

2468975 OP t1_ixznv0n wrote

Good idea. How do we do that?

1

noahsense t1_ixzrx2o wrote

We make sure that being an elected official doesn’t have to only be an aspiration for the wealthy. And we do that by making sure lower-income people don’t have to make financial sacrifice to represent others.

4

S-Kunst t1_iy0prua wrote

In my research of Washington DC history, I have learned that members of Congress have generally done well for themselves. There are so many primary, secondary and artery ways they benefit from their position in office. It need not be by bribes or payola. The same is true with city council members. It is suppose to be a part time job, but from what I have seen up-close, they are working the system either for power or remuneration in one form or another every time they are in the public eye and almost always behind closed doors. More of us, including myself, need to show up for events which the councilmen host or take part in . You will see a small cadre of people constantly vie for the councilman's attention. These are almost always people wanting some favor or business deal with they can get from that elected official.

The whole idea that they should benefit from a pension esp now that they have a two term limit, it icing on the cake.

1

S-Kunst t1_iy31yo2 wrote

What kind of money are they to get? I was a Balt County School teacher for a decade and only get $180/ month. I hope that a person who was city council person for a few years is not getting thousands/month. Seems like an over-reach for a job which has so many other perks.

1

festivus_maximus t1_iy0uiu1 wrote

Hah hah hah. First cut down on how many years they can serve, then limit their pensions, so there is really no reason why a principled person would want to be in politics.

Very clever, Baltimore voters. Very clever.

0

AttisofAssyria t1_iy0wua9 wrote

Hah hah hah. We don't have any principled people in Baltimore City politics now sooooooooooo....

1

EntireAd9048 t1_iy38fl0 wrote

They're doing a great job, so i certainly hope they get a nice pension after 2 terms. We shouldn't want them to have to get other jobs at any point

0

bad_scott t1_iy0dp5t wrote

simple, give the cops zero pension, then the city won't have any financial issues with it

−1

Bostonhook t1_iy2q9q3 wrote

That's objectively stupid. What about the firefighters, whose share a pension with the police system? Should they be stripped of their earned benefits because you have a grudge against the BPD?

2