Main menu:

 

Subscribe by email:

Delivered by FeedBurner

Categories

Archive

Site search



Pension Problem

One Wednesday, the Globe wrote a top-of-front-page story about Romney’s appointment of his communications director Eric Fehrnstrom to the Brookline housing authority. The story detailed how this appointment would entitle Fehrnstrom to a state pension: “While the Brookline position is part-time and pays only $5,000, the pension Fehrnstrom receives will be calculated based on his top three earning years in government.” Fehrnstrom earns $160,000 in his current position.

Break it down: by working part-time for $5000 a year for two years, Fehrnstrom vests a pension that is based on his $160,000 salary, not his appointment.

There was a burst of outrage in the news and on the web, and from certain members of the left, a distressing display of glee.

What is totally absent in this discussion is whether Fehrnstrom is a good choice for the position. Review the 800 words in the article – not a single one of them refers to his qualifications. They only talk about the benefits that he would reap. Shouldn’t qualification be the first test? Why is the reward so important and the qualification so irrelevant?

This dust-up points out the real problem. The Massachusetts pension system needs to be reformed. The rules should be changed so that career paths like moderator-to-legislator, aide-to-committee, and clerk-to-teacher career transitions are rewarded fairly. The system shouldn’t be so open to abuse. The system should’t turn a $5000 appointment into a $500,000 political football.

This is one of the areas where we’ll see just how effective Deval Patrick is. The unions love this system and will be loathe to change it. Many in the legistlature benefit from the current system, and certainly know people who benefit from it. Can Patrick bring about reform? Or will be be absorbed by the system?

Comments

Comment from QM
Time: November 25, 2006, 8:46 pm

his is one of the areas where we’ll see just how effective Deval Patrick is. The unions love this system and will be loathe to change it. Many in the legistlature benefit from the current system, and certainly know people who benefit from it. Can Patrick bring about reform? Or will be be absorbed by the system?

What do you mean “absorbed by the system”? Exactly what reason has he given anyone to believe that he’s not already part of the system, lock, stock, and barrel?

Patrick is going to be an unmitigated disaster for this state because he is beholden to the leftiest of the left here. Which means he’ll end up rubber-stamping every crazy regulatory expansion and tax hike the Great and General Court dreams up.

Comment from dunster
Time: November 26, 2006, 2:42 pm

I didn’t vote for Patrick because I feared the scenario you describe.

But, until shown otherwise, I intend to give him the benefit of the doubt. I want him to change the system. I hope (and hope is the right word) that he can be the Democratic outsider that chnages the system.

If Patrick can pull it off, Massachusetts will be a better place. I’ll be cheering him on, so long as he heads in that direction.