Friday, February 13, 2009
'His enhanced, early pension'
Hub Blog is starting to sound like a broken record even to myself: Another ‘egregious’ pension payment. At least he can argue the already dispersed $403,751 is a bang-for-the-buck jobs multiplier -- unless he had the audacity to save some of the money.
There are so many juicy aspects to this case – the alleged ‘firing’ and the ‘school committee’ service and the early nature of the ‘retirement’ and the blatant double dipping. Take your pick. My pet peeve is the ‘firing’ aspect. The pension payout was apparently triggered by an alleged anti-patronage law covering fired workers -- but that law is now legally outdated. The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that patronage in most cases is illegal. See Rutan vs. Illinois Republican Party. I know all about it. I covered it at the time. I’ll stand corrected if it’s since been modified. But the court ruled in 1990 that it’s a violation of public workers’ 1st Amendment rights if they’re fired for political purposes. Generally, all non-policymaking employees are protected by the court’s decision. They have legal recourse to unfair firings, promotions, transfers and hirings: The courts. But Massachusetts has never adjusted its laws to Rutan – or at least its patronage laws as applied to pensions. The reason is obvious: The anti-patronage law that applies to pensions isn’t really an anti-patronage law. It’s about keeping the gravy train going for the ruling governing class.
As for the case above, the ‘fired’ individual sure looks like he was in a top policy-making position – and therefore not protected by the Rutan decision that tried to give governing administrations flexibility to hire, fire, promote and transfer key managers at will in order to implement policies. They’re not supposed to be protected. But they’re protected, pension-wise, in Massachusetts. Guess why. See above reference to gravy train.
More on Rutan here and here.
Update -- Howie's found something almost unbelievable: A 61-year-old ex-state senator who's not collecting a pension. What's up with that?
Update II -- Outraged Liberal has more on government vettings and hirings.
Update III -- David on the latest pension absurdity:
Hub Blog is starting to sound like a broken record even to myself: Another ‘egregious’ pension payment. At least he can argue the already dispersed $403,751 is a bang-for-the-buck jobs multiplier -- unless he had the audacity to save some of the money.
There are so many juicy aspects to this case – the alleged ‘firing’ and the ‘school committee’ service and the early nature of the ‘retirement’ and the blatant double dipping. Take your pick. My pet peeve is the ‘firing’ aspect. The pension payout was apparently triggered by an alleged anti-patronage law covering fired workers -- but that law is now legally outdated. The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that patronage in most cases is illegal. See Rutan vs. Illinois Republican Party. I know all about it. I covered it at the time. I’ll stand corrected if it’s since been modified. But the court ruled in 1990 that it’s a violation of public workers’ 1st Amendment rights if they’re fired for political purposes. Generally, all non-policymaking employees are protected by the court’s decision. They have legal recourse to unfair firings, promotions, transfers and hirings: The courts. But Massachusetts has never adjusted its laws to Rutan – or at least its patronage laws as applied to pensions. The reason is obvious: The anti-patronage law that applies to pensions isn’t really an anti-patronage law. It’s about keeping the gravy train going for the ruling governing class.
As for the case above, the ‘fired’ individual sure looks like he was in a top policy-making position – and therefore not protected by the Rutan decision that tried to give governing administrations flexibility to hire, fire, promote and transfer key managers at will in order to implement policies. They’re not supposed to be protected. But they’re protected, pension-wise, in Massachusetts. Guess why. See above reference to gravy train.
More on Rutan here and here.
Update -- Howie's found something almost unbelievable: A 61-year-old ex-state senator who's not collecting a pension. What's up with that?
Update II -- Outraged Liberal has more on government vettings and hirings.
Update III -- David on the latest pension absurdity:
You know, it's this kind of thing that makes folks who aren't reflexively anti-government want to pull out their own fingernails.
