For those who are interested the agenda for Monday's meeting is posted online.
Agenda
I got a sense of deja vu reading this.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
Residents' Comments
24 Hours a Day/7 Days a Week
Overland, Missouri 63114
OVCC Twitter Tweets
OverlandMo.org News
Overland News from stltoday.com
Blog Archive
-
▼
2007
(60)
-
▼
October
(17)
- Owensby: Sellout Extraodinaire
- Something to Munsch on...
- The Peepin' Tom Fitzgerald Committee
- Cronyism is Alive and Well!
- Schneider to Ward 1: "F*** You"
- City Council Meeting Monday 10/22/07
- A Very Special Blossom Council Meeting
- The Schneider BullSh** Machine
- Town Hall Meeting: RATastrophic
- About Those Rats....
- A "High Profile Project" for COGG
- For Those Interested in Being Part of the Giroux Gang
- Stars aligned or Seeing Stars
- We must PUSH for a City Administrator
- Suzy's Little Helpers
- A different type of Laptop Debate
- Workshop Meeting Tonight
-
▼
October
(17)
Contributors
Welcome
Our rules are simple.
You are free to comment with your opinion on anything that is happening in Overland as well as opinions contrary to that of the post. But, please realize we are free to comment with our opinion of your opinion.
You should be using your own original name, any violation will be deleted.
If you make a claim or accusation, be prepared to back it up with proof.
Please do not cut and paste entire articles into the blog. Please provide a link to the entire article. However, you are free to post a sentence or two from another's work to comment on specifics.
Have fun!
You are free to comment with your opinion on anything that is happening in Overland as well as opinions contrary to that of the post. But, please realize we are free to comment with our opinion of your opinion.
You should be using your own original name, any violation will be deleted.
If you make a claim or accusation, be prepared to back it up with proof.
Please do not cut and paste entire articles into the blog. Please provide a link to the entire article. However, you are free to post a sentence or two from another's work to comment on specifics.
Have fun!
8 comments:
Those pension bills were tabled on 8/13 pending discussion in a workshop.
Did they ever workshop this issue? Or are they just trying it again?
Yes, and when they originally debated this Owensby was on the side of prudent behavior.
Will he object on Monday, and request that these again be tabled and sent to a workshop?
Will he insist on actuary reports for anything that deals with pensions?
Or, will this be proof that Owensby has been bought?
There was a Police Pension Board meeting that covered this issue recently. I attended, but unfortunately since the meeting was held in the City Council Chambers, without the sound system, the audio portion of the video was useless.
At that meeting, they discussed this issue. It was pointed out that Overland's Mandatory retirement age for Police officers does in fact fall within the EEOC exemption guidelines for police and fire and is thus completely legal.
However, Chief Herron asked for a vote to request that the Council eliminate the mandatory retirement age anyway, That vote went 4-1 in favor of doing so, which is likely why it is on the agenda again.
The Chief's stated reasoning for this was that though this mandatory retirement age for police officers was in fact legal, and the City would win if a lawsuit was brought against us for age discrimination, the cost of defending against such a suit would likely be high and could be avoided by eliminating the requirement now.
If you take this reasoning to it's logical conclusion then you have to wonder why Chief Herron is not asking the Mayor and Council to eliminate of the Overland Police Department entirely. After all, even when officers and command staff follow all the laws and standard procedures they can still be sued, and even a successful defense is costly (as we've seen in the past at OPD).
Sailor,
Are you just reporting this or are you drinking the KoolAid, too?
I only ask because a Penion Board meeting is NOT the same as a council workshop. The council did NOT table this matter in order for the Pension Board to review but so that they could discuss it fully, including all of its ramifications, in a workshop setting.
Speaking of ramifications, I assume since this was before the Penion Board that it must have some effect on Pensions. Will we have an actuary study on how these changes will affect the pension's ability to pay future claims?
And, if the Pension Board was just seeing this for the first time when they met, discussed and decided to bring before the board it begs the questions: EXACTLY WHERE DID THIS LEGISLATION COME FROM INITIALLY?
From what I've Board sought no le legal guidance on this topic or an Actuay information. A Report by the Actuary is required by the 2006 Federal Pension Protection Act. Even if the Council recinds the language it could be challenged in Court as being illegal. I personally hope somebody or bodies would do so.
Just look at who it will impact in the very near future and the not to distant future and you will see who is the motivation behind it.
Next thing the City will get handicapped stickers and parking slots at the City Hallfor the Police vehicles.
It sure seems to me that the OPD is quick to unload officers who get sick (Officer Sheffer), but then want to change the rules when the Chosen Ones are involved.
I urge the council to reject this change. What is the feeling of the rank and file on this change, how did their representative vote?
ORT Contrarian I am simply pointing out what happened at the Police Pension Board meeting.
The Police Pension Board voted to bring this to the Council. This is a possible reason why it is on the Agenda now. It is not the only possible reason, but it is one of them and the most likely one in my opinion.
When the subject of being fit for Police Service came up at the Pension Board meeting, Chief Herron stated they could remove an officer who was unfit to fulfill the duties of a police officer.
as Follow The Money mentioned, this happened recently with Officer Sheffer, a 17 year officer who's health declined to the point that he was let go by the police department. The Police Pension has no provision for dealing with such disabilities like the non-uniform pension does.
However, it is my understanding that Officer Sheffer's legal council successfully forced the department to take care of him.
You cannot selectively enforce physical standards. If OPD wants to ensure that all officers meet whatever physical fitness requirements they decide on (and put in writing) they have to test everyone regularly. That would include command staff. Failing to do so keeps them open to legal action should they try to remove another "unfit" officer from thier ranks.
It seems to me that, contrary to the Chief's opinion at the Police Pension Board meeting, the department cannot, without risk of legal action, remove an "unfit" officer from their ranks.
I love the idea that Overland's Chief of Police arguing that Overland's pension plan conforms with existing law but should be changed for fear of future law suits.
We all know this has nothing to do with preventing age discrimination. The Police Pension Board is simply setting-up a situation whereby Officers currently enrolled in another pension program can come to Overland regardless of age at end of career, immediately qualify for Overland's Pension and thereby double-dip their retirement with minimal service to Overland.
The age restrictions should be retained and the time period for vesting in Overland's police pension should not be changed. If an officer wants to work past the mandatory retirement age they should become a private detective.
It worked for Frank Cannon.
Post a Comment