A case of "double dipping"
Mayor Tomas Regalado vetoed a "double dipping" incident last week at City Hall.
The City Commission voted 3-2 to allow four retired employees to come back to work for the City, which would of course allow them to receive a salary and also keep their City pension.
This sounds crazy when you think about it. At first glance I agree with the Mayor, especially since it was only available for four high paying jobs. But what's the difference if the people went elsewhere to work. While it is a case of double dipping, it's a legal case. Isn't it?
District Commissioner Marc Sarnoff proffered the bill and Commissioners Michelle Spence-Jones and Willy Gort voted in favor, Commissioners Francis Suarez and Frank Carollo voted against it.
From the Miami Herald report, "Some critics speculated the bill was crafted for a pair of outgoing senior assistant city attorneys who are set to retire at the same time as City Attorney Julie Bru at the end of September. Under the new law, if either Assistant City Attorney Maria Chiaro or Warren Bittner got Bru’s job, their yearly compensation would exceed $350,000."
The report went on to say, "Sarnoff denied the bill was crafted for any one individual. He said it was necessary because the city needs experienced personnel in the four positions at issue.Several residents and the city’s fire and police unions spoke out against the change."
I can understand that the city needs experienced personnel, but why not reach out for some fresh blood? But then again, if the four people got jobs in another municipality, how is that different? They did their time here and now they want to work again.
I am torn on this issue, I don't know what the answer is. Both sides make good points. While I usually agree with the police and fire unions, how many careers does a cop or fireman have? So many work 20 years then go on to other careers, isn't this similar to double dipping?
What do you think?
The City Commission voted 3-2 to allow four retired employees to come back to work for the City, which would of course allow them to receive a salary and also keep their City pension.
This sounds crazy when you think about it. At first glance I agree with the Mayor, especially since it was only available for four high paying jobs. But what's the difference if the people went elsewhere to work. While it is a case of double dipping, it's a legal case. Isn't it?
District Commissioner Marc Sarnoff proffered the bill and Commissioners Michelle Spence-Jones and Willy Gort voted in favor, Commissioners Francis Suarez and Frank Carollo voted against it.
From the Miami Herald report, "Some critics speculated the bill was crafted for a pair of outgoing senior assistant city attorneys who are set to retire at the same time as City Attorney Julie Bru at the end of September. Under the new law, if either Assistant City Attorney Maria Chiaro or Warren Bittner got Bru’s job, their yearly compensation would exceed $350,000."
The report went on to say, "Sarnoff denied the bill was crafted for any one individual. He said it was necessary because the city needs experienced personnel in the four positions at issue.Several residents and the city’s fire and police unions spoke out against the change."
I can understand that the city needs experienced personnel, but why not reach out for some fresh blood? But then again, if the four people got jobs in another municipality, how is that different? They did their time here and now they want to work again.
I am torn on this issue, I don't know what the answer is. Both sides make good points. While I usually agree with the police and fire unions, how many careers does a cop or fireman have? So many work 20 years then go on to other careers, isn't this similar to double dipping?
What do you think?
posted by Tom Falco at 6:00 AM
YOU MAY NOT LIFT THE PHOTOS & TEXT. IT'S COPYRIGHTED INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY. YOU CAN HOWEVER SHARE A STORY ON SOCIAL MEDIA BY USING THE LINKS HERE.
For linking to this one story, just click on the time it was posted & just this story will open for sharing - only through social media. Not copying and pasting.
13 Comments:
I had a discussion with a few veteran city activists (not Grace Solares whom you should interview for this since she was in vocal opposition in the commission meeting), the following are thoughts from that talk:
1) The city attorney's office represents a constitutional office that exists on a separate level than other jobs in a city. Normally, the city manager can set the pay level themselves unless restricted by ordinance or the charter like in this case.
2) With that said, this resolution was designed for constitutional officers returning after retirement like the Herald mentioned (I can't speculate why Sarnoff would use doublespeak here).
3) Further strengthening the case for point 2 is that the City has a long tradition of re-hiring city pensioners as consultants as extremely high pay rates. This idea here reduces the possibility for the reasoning behind the resolution to benefit a specific group of people.
4) The real question to ask is why go through all this cloak and dagger to create an incentive that obviously begs to retain outgoing assistant city attorneys to stay on as the city attorney? That is the $350,000+/year question. Note: While this practice of hiring consultants is contentious it is more transparent and you hold a city employee responsible for he actions of someone else (a CYA syndrome kicks in and we get better government).
5) Regalado should veto resolutions like this that are obviously shady or at least passed under poor reasoning. This is one of his few responsibilities in a weak mayor system. The veto is the ultimate sanity check.
I think i speak for everybody when i say we are tired of hearing these kinds of stories.one they are to long and two theres really nothing we can do so why bother reporting them.
To Anon @ 11:50.
No. You don't.
Speak for yourself. I have my own mouth.
As long as the story IS reported I CAN do several things. I can vote, write or call the offices involved. Hell, I can go go picket City Hall then spray paint "Bannana Republic" on the front of it. There are dozens of things I can do, stupid or intelligent, to try to show my approval or disapproval. However, I can't do anything without information.
Truth to tell, I prefer these types of Grapevine articles to the fluff advertising pieces written as stories.
So again, no. You don't speak for everyone and the next time you feel the need to speak for me kindly STFU.
O.F.
Yep this type of story shows no one in their right mind can vote for Francis Suarez for mayor as he is connected from the buttocks to and supported by Sarnoff not to mention that his father was already a mayor of the city and now a commissioner at the county, stop the culture of nepotism and corruption in Miami, recall Sarnoff. Now why did Spence-Jones vote with them too!!!!!!????
Now that we know there are 4 commissioners working for themselves (against the mayor and the good interests of the City), this move was probably done to create a situation where the assistant city attorneys that have been so accomodating the commission's shenanigans can be promoted to city atorney with additional pay. This would then be an attempt to consolidate power and enrich their coalition.
Nepotism belongs only in the arts. Give Francis a paint brush and get him in front of a canvas, not a canvassing board.
I totally agree.... who cares?????????
None of this is surprising. It's government, i.e. legalized mafia, as usual. The only way out is to limit the power that governments have over you and community. It doesn't matter if a government action is legal, what matters is if it's ethical.
If it was a private business than it would be a business decision that would affect the company and its customers. People would have the ability to support or not support. However, anything that the government does is "at the barrel of a gun" and forced onto citizens whether the like it or not. Taxation is legalized theft, which is how these salaries and pensions are paid to city employees. Therefore, I'm against this government action, because it involves the initiation of violence.
Nothing will stop them from doing what they want trust me NOTHING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
limit the terms and make it so that they can't come back and give other people a chance
Terrible. No reason to be torn Tom. Here's the solution - if you come back, your pension is put on hold until you actually retire.
I think this is Sarnoff trying to set himself up.
If a city employee is collecting a pension while getting paid to work for the city at the same time, this taxpayer will be at City Hall with a pitchfork. The sense of entitlement these people have to my money has gotten beyond the pale.
Be wary of anything Sarnoff is involved with. Its usually for his benefit or the benefit of someone he knows.
Post a Comment
<< Home