posted August 20, 2008
How do you dig through all of the confusion in the media coverage on the issues surrounding the Chattanooga Fire and Police pension fund? The taxpayers of Chattanooga have a right to know the truth.
Let's take this issue back to the year 2000. As the date approached for the vote for the referendum, over 200+ retired city of Chattanooga policemen and firemen formed a group called the Chattanooga Fire and Police Retirees' Association to inform the voters of the possible pitfalls of the proposed changes to the fire and police pension fund.
These men and women, who also served the city honorably, were characterized as having "personal issues and bad blood" by then-Chief Jimmie Dodson. He called their opposition to the plan as being "inflammatory". I might go on to quote Chief Dodson in his letter to the Chattanooga Times Free Press, dated July 28, 2000, "I've thought long and hard for many months about why someone would be so vehemently against a plan which (a) is not expected to cost taxpayers any more money...."
As a matter of fact on election day many of those who supported the change held nicely printed campaign signs in front of the polls asking the voters t vote for the pension fund change, and I quote from their own signs, "NO Cost to Taxpayers"
Mr. Frank Hamilton, the Fire and Police Pension fund administrator, now denies making the representation that the plan would not be at "no cost to the taxpayers", even though pictures are printed in the pension fund newsletter dated September 2000 showing those poll workers holding the campaign signs that I described above.
Now let's take a look how the plan changes have panned out since they were voted on in 2000. The market took a huge downturn. The pension was saddled with large payouts with those who took the DROP plan and retired. The city over the last few years has shored up the plan in additional contributions (taxpayer money), and the economic times deem that this can no longer go on.
What Mr. Hamilton does not want is for another vote to come up for the taxpayers to decide whether they want a tax increase to keep the substantial benefit package in place. (Remember, they told you that the plan would not cost the taxpayer additional money?)
Instead, Mr. Hamilton is the one using "inflammatory remarks" when he mails out newsletters that accuse the working committee of not wanting to consider new changes to the plan that would increase minimum widow's benefits. (Yet, this is another misrepresentation told to the membership to further inflame the membership against those on the committee.)
The working committee was only charged with the responsibility to discuss the DROP benefits and the pension board composition. Mr. Hamilton is good at trying to obfuscate the issues surrounding the problem at hand, which only raises my curiosity.
Maybe Mr. Hamilton can explain to me why the pension board hired the Moriah Group, a public relations firm headed by Davis Lundy, to "explain" the decisions that brought us to this point? Why do you need a PR firm to explain your decisions? At what cost is this PR firm charging the pension fund, which is composed of taxpayer and membership contributions?
Just as the mayor and City Council are held responsible by the taxpayers for their decisions, you, Mr. Hamilton, and the elected board should be held responsible for your actions by the membership of the pension, which includes "actives" and "retirees".
Shed the light of day on the expenses incurred by the pension plan that you used to campaign for these changes in 2000 and that you continue to use to hire PR firms to defend your actions. I am sure that the taxpayers would like to be enlightened on those issues.
In my opinion, Mr. Hamilton has done a great disservice to the pension members by the way he conducts business. I do have a vested interest in seeing that this plan remains sound by virtue that I am a beneficiary of the plan.
Valerie Morris
Harrison
* * *
They have hired a PR firm? They are paying for it with pension fund money? Money that is contributed from taxpayer funds?
That fund is to pay benefits to employees that have served the city. Not to fund political activities.
Jerry Yates
* * *
Valerie Morris has every right to be
concerned about her pension. I'm concerned about mine. I was one of
the 200 that was against the change to the DROP to start with.
I still don't think Frank Hamilton has any business having the position he has as administrator of our pension. He weaseled his way into the job without any experience whatever in finance or business.
The whole pension board is operated under the good ole boy operation. You scratch my back and I'll scratch yours. The way they disregarded the
200 retirees when they went to the drop is a good example of what they
think of the retirees.
We don't have any representation on the board and we did not get anything out of the change except putting our
pension plan in jeopardy. Oh, they will tell you we got a three percent
yearly raise. We get that if they vote to renew it every year.
I would like to see the government come in and investigate the pension plan myself. The pension board is not going to do anything worthwhile for us. I'd like to know why they moved our pension millions from SunTrust Bank to a bank that doen't even have a branch here in Chattanooga. When they moved the account, the retirees who did not have auto deposits could not even cash their checks;. The pension board had to open up an extra account with a local bank so the retired people could cash their checks.
I hope they get the pension on some solid foundation, but I don't have much hope. I'm afraid what's going to happen is the city is going to take control of our pension. I hope not, but every administration since Olgiati has been trying to get control of our
pension.
I told Mr. Hamilton and the rest of the board this before they went for the change. It's going to be real interesting to watch the outcome of this circus. Stay tuned, it may get real interesting.
Ken Bowman
* * *
It’s obvious that Mayor Littlefield and Dan Johnson want control of the Fire and Police Pension Fund. Why else would they try to change pension benefits and expand the Pension Board without having all of the facts in front of them? It now looks like our Mayor and his chief of staff want to shove these changes down the throats of our public servants by placing this issue onto the November ballot for a referendum vote.
Why the rush? Why not wait for the financial study that the city’s committee requested so everyone can better understand how the proposed changes will affect police officers and firefighters?
This pension is the only retirement security our public servants have available to them. Unfortunately, police officers and firefighters do not have Social Security or even a 401K to help plan for retirement… just the pension benefit. This is why this issue strikes strong emotions among those who protect and serve this city. If changes need to be made to the pension, it is a decision that needs to be taken seriously and with as much information as possible.
The fact that the mayor, Dan Johnson and their cronies are pushing so hard to move forward with these changes while discounting any compromise the fund’s board has proposed reveals their true agenda. They want to take the first step towards gaining control over yet another private entity. First, the mayor wants to go after the water company, and now he wants control of the pension fund.
I hope Mayor Littlefield will put an end to all of this mess. If this issue does go to a referendum, I want the Pension Board to know that they have my support as I will oppose any effort by the city to takeover the Pension Board and cut the retirement benefits for those who work hard to keep our city safe and secure.
Mark Johnson
* * *
I find it interesting to read how Valerie Morris and Ken Bowman criticize Frank Hamilton for his role in the ongoing debate around the Fire and Police Pension Fund.
First, I believe it was the city who decided to openly criticize and attack the Pension Board rather than work together to find a solution to their concerns. I also believe the Pension Board has every right to defend the Pension Fund from criticism and should actively fight the city’s effort to takeover the pension fund. If the Pension Board needs help with talking to the media and communicating its message to the public, then it should hire a PR firm. I believe this is why Mayor Littlefield recently hired Waterhouse PR to educate the public on key issues and why the Chamber of Commerce hired a PR advertising firm to develop its “Tell the World” and “Chattanooga Can Do” campaigns.
To me, I believe this criticism sounds more like sour grapes. Valerie Morris, her husband Wayne Morris and Ken Bowman have actively opposed the pension changes from the start. Even though these changes were overwhelmingly approved by the voters in 2000, they continue to criticize Frank Hamilton and the Pension Board for these changes.
We can argue back and forth about the merits of these changes. But one thing that we can not deny is the Pension Fund was established to provide a quality retirement benefit for our public servants. I was one of the voters who supported the changes back in 2000, and I continue to believe our public servants deserve a quality pension benefit that allows them to retire with financial security.
I encourage everyone to look past the rhetoric and realize that the city wants control of the Fire and Police Pension Fund. Dan Johnson and others within the city have said they want to change the pension plan because it’s too rich and has led to higher contributions from the city. I’m not sure if I agree with this statement, but I do believe the city is using this pension issue as a means to get more control of the Pension Board.
As Ken Bowman said in his op-ed, the city’s Pension Review Committee has become a circus. I hope the city and the Pension Board can work together and find a solution that addresses the City’s concerns while protecting the Pension Fund and member benefits. If a solution can not be reached, then I look forward to working with the Pension Board again to defeat this power grab by the city.
Bud Adkins
* * *
Ken Bowman raises a good point about retirees not having a voice on the Pension Board. I have several friends that work for the Chattanooga Fire and Police Departments so I posed this question to them. To my surprise, I was told retirees already have a voice. Just like all other Firefighters and Police Officers, they can vote for candidates running to serve on the Pension Board. In fact, I was told retirees were a key voting bloc in a couple of recent elections.
I’m not sure why Ken Bowman wants to have one or more members on the Pension Board that will specifically represent his interests rather than the best interests of the Pension Fund. Is that not the role and responsibility of all Pension Board members?
If retirees do not agree or support the actions of one or all of the Pension Board members, I would encourage them to form a coalition and vote them out of office. I hope Ken Bowman and other retirees decide to participate in the democratic process and voice their opinions at the ballot box rather than sit back and criticize the Pension Board from afar.
Martin Smith
| Dining Out | Business | Movies | Focus | About Us |
| Church | Living Well | Memories | Outdoors | Real Estate | Student Scene | Travel |