Councilmembers regretting retirement deal
| Saturday, Jun 20 2009 12:00 PM
Last Updated Saturday, Jun 20 2009 12:00 PM
As the rift over negotiations widens between Bakersfield officials and the city's police and fire unions, another nagging issue has become apparent: Some leaders who originally approved a lucrative retirement benefit now question the action.
"I think it was a mistake," said Councilmember Jacquie Sullivan, one of five remaining city councilmembers who OK'd the so-called "3-at-50" plan in 2001.
Blame for a negotiating impasse with police and a predicted impasse with firefighters has been put mostly on the council's two newest members, Zack Scrivner and Ken Weir, who lambasted 3-at-50 during election campaigns.
But the new guys aren't the only ones questioning the plan's expense.
After a few stock market crashes, Councilmember David Couch views 3-at-50 in a new light.
"At the time, the projections we saw were that it wasn't going to cost very much at all," he said.
Couch doesn't know what portion of the cost spike can be pinned on the upgraded benefit. City staffers have told him it's impossible to nail down a number.
"I have a feeling it's a large part of the problem," he said.
Councilmember Harold Hanson, too, has had a change of heart with hindsight.
"Knowing what I do today, I believe 3-at-50 was somewhat generous," he said.
Derek Tisinger, a city firefighter and president of the local union, said firefighters recently offered to pay much of the city's costs for newer hires, but city officials are no longer negotiating in good faith.
Bill Ware, president of Bakersfield's police union, which is at an impasse with the city, said he doesn't know what's going to happen next.
Bakersfield, like most of California's sizeable cities and counties, adopted the pension deal for safety employees after it debuted in 1999 for the California Highway Patrol and essentially trickled down to the local level.
The plan allows retiring police and firefighters to collect up to 90 percent of their salaries -- 3 percent for each year of service -- starting at age 50.
Exactly what role 3-at-50 plays in Bakersfield's lapsed contracts with its safety unions is impossible to know. Discussions go on behind closed doors, through negotiators.
Even if the city establishes a lesser pension plan for new hires -- something strongly opposed by the unions -- the change wouldn't help with short-term budget costs.
Newfound questions among some councilmembers doesn't appear focused on short-term costs, though.
The city was trying to be competitive with other locales when it approved 3-at-50, Sullivan said, but the plan simply isn't realistic.
"We need to correct the mistake," she said.
