City Council held hearings Tuesday on whether or not elected officials should be eligible for the Deferred Retirement Option Program (DROP).
Councilman Bill Green, chair of the labor and civil service committee, has authored a bill that would bar elected officials from applying for the program, although those who have already enrolled — Anna Verna, Frank DiCicco, Frank Rizzo, Marian Tasco — would be allowed to stay in the program, as would Joan Krajewski, who is already getting benefits after "retiring" for one day before her current term started.
DROP was designed to retain experienced employees, giving them an incentive to stay in their jobs for four more years rather than retiring; employees get a lump sum pension payment and accrue both pension and paycheck.
This is a no-brainer: elected officials don't belong in DROP. They aren’t “employees,” and don’t “retire” from their office; voters choose their retirement dates.
In previous debates about DROP, it has been estimated that the program costs taxpayers about $7 million. The cost of Council’s participation in the program is unknown. Obviously, we’d like to know, since it’s our money.
But we have two other beefs with issues that came up during these hearings: We question whether Council should be voting on issues that directly affect their own compensation. We’d like to see a taxpayer commission that has some kind of authority to rule on such issues.
Secondly, Councilwoman Krajewski sought the advice of the city Solicitor’s office before pulling her “retire for a day” stunt and they issued a letter giving it the okay. The details of that letter, though, have not been made public. Shouldn’t such details be open to scrutiny? One explanation we got was that council members consult the city solicitor’s office because that office represents council members in its capacity of legally representing the city. So, a council member who asks for a ruling from the solicitor’s office is, in effect, consulting his or her lawyer, and such communication is privileged. We’re only taxpayers, but this seems a bit convoluted to us. We elect people to represent us. Doesn’t it follow that the people they seek out to represent them also, by association, represent us? What do you think?
Comments (1)
I think voters should force Krajewski to "retire" like she said she would. This kind of stuff only happens because Philadelphia voters appear to tolerate it (and/or don't have anyone better to vote for).
Other than that, I agree with your take on the issue. Voters/taxpayers definitely have a right to know how the law works. Even if the exact text of Krajewski's letter can't be revealed for whatever reasons, we still deserve some kind of explanation as to why what she did is allowed under the law.
Posted by Goofy | May 15, 2008 4:26 PM