Will you submit to the Chair, please, any ideas that you have moving forward in the future to address this issue. You've been on all sides of this issue.
I mean, I actually have. It's attached to the testimony. It's the report that we had done, and there are a series of recommendations.
Yeah. Just follow-up on that. But I think I heard you say, Mr. Dubow, that you didn't have any suggestions as far as the pensioners go; what you were talking about had to do with the present City employees? Did I hear that right?
No. It had to do with future City employees, not current employees or current retirees.
So do you 73 2/27/07 - LABOR - BILL 060828, ETC. have any recommendations about what we're talking about today?
Well, the recommendations that we were talking about was actually how to reduce the unfunded liability over time, which would involve for new employees things like looking at the way pensions are calculated, looking at contributions from employees and maybe even looking for new employees, at least offering them the ability to go to a defined contribution plan instead of a defined benefit plan. And all those things would help the health of the Pension Fund, which in the long run would help all the people in this room.
Well, you start to get benefits almost immediately, and those benefits then get larger and larger over time.
Was there 74 2/27/07 - LABOR - BILL 060828, ETC. any discussion directly about the pensioners of today? I mean, as far as -- or is it just basically if you take care of the future, it will eventually help the others?
In terms of making changes, we didn't recommend any changes for benefits to current retirees or employees. I mean, there's discussion of how their benefits compare to other cities.
How was that, by the way? I asked Mr. Jannetti that. How did that compare?
Their benefits were comparable to other cities. Some places had started to make changes that made their benefits lower than the benefits here; other places have slightly higher benefits. But they were not out of line with other jurisdictions.
Do you know was there cost of living adjustments in some of the other major cities to the 75 2/27/07 - LABOR - BILL 060828, ETC. pensioners?
Any other questions from this Committee? (No response.)
Seeing none, thank you, Mr. Dubow, for your testimony this morning. The next panel will be members of District Council 47 and 33, Mr. Tom Cronin, Carol Stukes, DC 47 pension representative, Mr. George Karalius of District Council 47 and Mr. Sherman Harris from District Council 33.
The union sister on my right and the union brother on my 76 2/27/07 - LABOR - BILL 060828, ETC. left will give the major testimony for District Council 47 this morning. I'm merely in an Alan Arkin role as a supporting actor today. But I do want to make, if I could, a couple of comments.
Sure. My name is Thomas Paine Cronin. I'm President of AFSCME District Council 47.
First of all, I want to say to Jim Turner, who is still here, I want to publicly say this: That's some of the most calmest and most eloquent testimony that I have heard in a long time with respect to pensioners, and I just want to publicly thank him for his significant contribution today to all City employees. One of the comments -- and I'm here certainly and our union is here in total solidarity with the uniformed services and with District Council 33. 77 2/27/07 - LABOR - BILL 060828, ETC. So I want to make that absolutely clear. We have four City unions together and this is where we get our strength, and I'm proud to say that we're going to stay together. I want to make a comment about the issue that was raised about the COLA saying, well, anywhere from to 10 years we could afford a COLA, and then 11 the comment -- I heard another comment 12 that was made that, will some of our 13 people be around in 13 or 16 years. 14 Well, we have people, gentlemen, that may 15 not be around for another 15 or 16 months 16 and they need this relief now. It was also said that what we're asking for is really a minor adjustment. We're not asking for a huge increase here. We're asking for a minor adjustment. And it scares me when I hear somebody who I personally know and like, Rob Dubow in the back, today sounded like a MAC machine that talks, talk about changing the pension for the newer 78 2/27/07 - LABOR - BILL 060828, ETC. workers. And I know we're not here to talk about that, but let me just -- if that's a shot across the bowel, let me just say that we'll be prepared to answer that at the time of labor negotiations, because we're not going to take a step backward on pension issues for our older employees and we're not going to take a step backward for our newer employees on that issue. A comment was made by Moon Reilly, kind of stole our thunder a little bit, about sacrifices that the City employees have made throughout the years and he made reference to something that Carol may want to talk about a little bit, and, that is, when this City was in trouble -- and this is certainly not to point the finger at anyone here or anyone in the past, but when this City was in trouble in the '80s and the beginning of the '90s and there was a real threat, there were stories in the print and the electronic media every day 79 2/27/07 - LABOR - BILL 060828, ETC. about the crisis that we faced in the City, that it was going to go bankrupt, that there were going to be no City services, no City paychecks, et cetera, et cetera, I just want to remind folks that it was the City unions here and the people in this building, some of them who are no longer here, that made that sacrifice for the City and said that you can use the Pension Fund to help out the City so we can continue to provide services, a decent level of care to all of the people in the City of Philadelphia. We made that sacrifice then. Somebody could come back and say, Well, you got a fair rate of return at the end. We didn't dictate that fair rate of return. The banks did. But I just want to remind people that it was the City unions that stepped up to the plate when we needed to step up to the plate for everyone in the City, whether they were union members, whether they were just regular citizens, 80 2/27/07 - LABOR - BILL 060828, ETC. what-have-you. Finally, like other union leaders, I have heard time and time again, particularly our older retirees who come in who get a pension check, maybe they retired in the late '70s or early '80s, and what they have to pay for, the escalating costs of healthcare, and what's left over that they may have to pay for the rest of their bills after they pay their healthcare is just -- it's a crime. It really is a crime. And, finally, I want to say that to all of you -- and it's just a reminder that the folks that we're talking about, the retirees, they can't strike and they can't take job actions, whether it's this flu or that flu, or do anything of the sort.
What they're looking for really is a small measure of justice by coming here and asking you to consider the facts, because really you are, along with the unions, the only opportunity that they have not to be 81 2/27/07 - LABOR - BILL 060828, ETC. totally condemned to a life of poverty. So I would just like you to please consider that, and say thank you for hearing me out.
Please state your name for the record and proceed with your testimony.
I am George Karalius, former City employee, retired. Currently for the last seven years I've been a trustee of the retiree chapter 13 District Council 47. More recently on the Executive Board. I am their representative on the Pension Board as an observer. I have no vote, no say. But I've been in the investment and insurance field for the last 15 years since I retired and I have a good handle and understanding of the funding and the workings of the Pension Fund. You know, last time I testified here was when Jimmy Paone had an inquisition about why I made the Mummers march in the rain in the 1989 parade. 82 2/27/07 - LABOR - BILL 060828, ETC. Well, today, many years later, I'm here in a more grave matter that has been addressed by all my former colleagues, co-workers, Moon Reilly and everybody else. It's the state of our retirees. Now, I represent over a thousand in our retiree chapter, District Council 47 retirees. We expect we'll be up to 2,000 in the next year and a half, maybe less. Many of those people have retired 20, years ago. They're in 13 their 80's. My friends, they're 14 starving. Their entire pension check 15 goes to cover for their health costs, as 16 you heard from many others before, and a 17 lot of times they have to add to their 18 health insurance out of whatever other 19 sources they have. They're on poverty 20 line. 21 You know, it is very difficult 22 for me to explain, because they know I 23 attend most of the Pension Board 24 meetings, how the Pension Fund can afford 25 100, 200, 300, 400 thousand dollars in 83 2/27/07 - LABOR - BILL 060828, ETC. DROP money and yet we cannot get a simple perhaps one hundred dollar a year for each year of retirement for our retirees. My friends, if people have been retired years ago and they're getting 7 a pension check several hundred dollars a 8 month and they get a check for 2,500, 9 that's more than covers their four, five 10 month pension. That covers a lot of 11 their health insurance costs. They're 12 the people that we're most concerned 13 about. 14 I retired. I have another job, 15 another career. I'm doing well, but if I 16 had to live just on my pension -- my 17 purchasing power back in '92 was $42,000. 18 My pension today, my purchasing power is 19 less than $14,000, and I retired well. 20 Think about those that left with pensions 21 of 8, 9, 10 thousand dollars 20, 25 years 22 ago. 23 Really, the retirees are in 24 your hands. We ask for an adjustment to 25 the Pension Adjustment Fund. I think 84 2/27/07 - LABOR - BILL 060828, ETC. that's a very simple solution, and you are really the key. Thank you very much.
Good morning, everyone. My name is Carol Stukes and I'm a pension trustee for the City Board of Pensions and Retirement representing District Council 47 and all City employees that sits on the Board. My other union trustees, Moon Reilly and Ron Stagliano, had already spoke. Unfortunately, Bill Rubin, who represents District Council 33 and also City employees, is not here today, but they have already told us that 33 gives support to what we're doing today. I want to thank the union presidents for supporting us on this issue. When we did the Pension Adjustment Fund -- and I'm not going to 85 2/27/07 - LABOR - BILL 060828, ETC. speak on all the figures and stuff you already heard. I'm the one that always comes from the morale aspect, so I have to deal with from my heart issues here. We had no idea that the City intended to put that 76 percent funding as a requirement. As Moon spoke, when we did the Pension Adjustment Fund, it was at 53 percent. So that's what we assumed the funding level requirement was going to be. But as we sit here today, that's not true. When I got on the Board in 1994, I had to deal with a survivor, somebody's widow, who her pension was $232, and I was like almost crying at the hearing because we had to tell the lady she couldn't have the money no more. And I'm up there fighting with my other colleagues saying, Give her the money, $238 is a drop in the bucket when you're talking about millions and millions and billions of dollars, and we couldn't do it. And it hit me as a reality that that 86 2/27/07 - LABOR - BILL 060828, ETC. could have been my mother. My mother was deceased at the time, but it could have been my mother. It's somebody's mother that no longer has the pension of $238. Mr. Jannetti talked about the impact on the present active employees and he talked about it on the retirees. Like George said, we did something for the active trustees that the -- the active employees that retired ones don't have. And for all of us sitting in the room going forward, we put in the DROP program, a Deferred Retirement Option Program, that kind of gives our people going out the door some kind of cushion to deal with their finances going out the door. Most people walk out the door with a hundred thousand dollars. Some more than that. And a lot of us have benefitted from that DROP program. Unfortunately, the people that went out before we instituted the DROP program doesn't have any cushion. So they're starving. They're at the dollar store, 87 2/27/07 - LABOR - BILL 060828, ETC. they're buying cat food, they splitting their pills in half. We all know the same situation. They turn on the gas stove to get heat and trying to decide what they're going to do. We are taxpayers. Most people don't think we are, but we are taxpayers. So whatever happens, we have a say in that. As Tom said, every time the City needed help and came to the Pension Board, the four unions got together and said, We're going to help the City and we're going to help them do what they need to do so that the other taxpayers in the City of Philadelphia won't go without service. Talk about the MMO. They reduced the MMO, but the City is having surpluses. You have to fight to get another penny more in above what the MMO said. And I'm asking, is the City taking in their fiduciary responsibility when they do these five-year plans, when they do the budgets and are they considering 88 2/27/07 - LABOR - BILL 060828, ETC. the retirees as part of their five-year plan? Because if they was doing it fiduciarily, it would not be a decision on how are we going to cut future employees, it would be a decision on we have to include the retirees in our budget so that they can get some sort of adjustment. We shouldn't even be dealing with a Pension Adjustment Fund. These retirees should be having a COLA, which this City refused to deal with from the beginning and that's why we had to fight for a Pension Adjustment Fund.
When we go around and talk to other cities, the average COLA that people are getting is about four percent. When we sit and tell people we don't even have a COLA, they look at us like we're crazy. And their funds is doing worse than us. They give their people COLAs. So we sit here because we have to always constantly fight the City on what should happen for retirees. And why 89 2/27/07 - LABOR - BILL 060828, ETC. are we fighting for retirees? Because one day we're all going to be retired and somebody is going to be sitting here fighting for us and for that benefit that we're going to need going out the door. And that's where I'm at. I'm not going to make it long. I said what I had to say. It's just that we look at it differently. The trustees take their fiduciary responsibility seriously and that's why we changed the way we do business. We fought and we have been fighting the City to reduce the actuary rate since 1999. It took them six years, six years to bring it down a quarter of a point. Six years. We had testimony in 1999 from consultants that said the City's actuary rate of return was too high, too high. So fiduciarily they should have been looking at that, not waiting six years to do it. And that impacts on the return of the fund also. When we tell people that we 90 2/27/07 - LABOR - BILL 060828, ETC. have a nine percent or now eight and three-quarters, they look at us, again, like we're crazy, because most funds is between seven and eight percent. So you see we're still too high. And all we hear from the City is that, But it's going to cost us more money. So I'm saying they're not fiduciarily doing what they're supposed to do to make sure the Pension Fund is whole. Thank you. )
Ms. Stukes, I just want to make sure this gets on the record, because it answers a question I asked both Mr. Dubow and Mr. Jannetti. You said that your research shows that a lot of cities there are COLAs for the pensioners, correct?
Yes. And when we testified in 1999 -- in 1998, '99 when we 91 2/27/07 - LABOR - BILL 060828, ETC. was doing the Pension Adjustment Fund, the four unions brought in actuaries and they said the average COLA was about four percent for the different cities that were doing it. So the City knew then that they was looking at like a four percent. We wasn't even asking for that high of a return. Like always, we try to take both sides in consideration when we do these things. You understand what I'm saying?
And basically the answer always from the Administration was we couldn't afford it; is that basically it?
Ms. Stukes, 92 2/27/07 - LABOR - BILL 060828, ETC. thank you so much for everything that you do on the Pension Board. I can say that all of us that are accumulating pension time in the City of Philadelphia, we're all very glad that you're there defending us.
Seeing none, thank you so much for your testimony this morning. Is there anyone else here that wants to testify in favor or against this bill? Please come forward. Please state your name for the record and proceed. OFFICER McCANN: My name is Robert McCann. I'm a retired Philadelphia police officer. I came down here today after about two weeks ago I called all City Council persons, all of them, in reference to supporting this 93 2/27/07 - LABOR - BILL 060828, ETC. bill for people who are retired like myself. I received ten answers back and I received one phone call hung-up. So they're upsetting me, so I decided to come down here and testify. I gave your secretary my name. And I may be a little different than most people here testifying. I'm down here testifying so that we can get a cost of living for my wife. And let me give you a little example of that. I spent time in uniform as a blue suit and tie man, plain clothes as a blue suit. I was never a boss, never wanted to be a boss. And my college education is the School of the Hard Knocks out there on the street. I'm not a very articulate speaker, but I'm going to tell you where it comes from my heart. I'm married 48 years. Twenty-eight years ago I came to the City when I was working and I asked for a favor. This is the second favor I'm asking for. Twenty-eight years ago my 94 2/27/07 - LABOR - BILL 060828, ETC. wife had cancer. At that time, breast cancer, women had the life of five years to live. I'm fortunate today when I left this morning, 48 years being married, she's still there. But I asked to get transferred to a daywork job. I don't care where it was, sweeping streets, whatever you wanted me to do. The reason why I wasn't transferred when I went to the City for help was because my partner and I made a good amount of arrests and couldn't be spared. My wife has cancer. Twice I put in. I then went to somebody who was here in politics. I told them the story. Twelve o'clock that night I was transferred. So that's the first favor I asked for anybody, and that was for my wife. A young man just testified -- and I'm sorry. I don't know all these percentages, all these actuaries, all this type of stuff like that, and I 95 2/27/07 - LABOR - BILL 060828, ETC. " I don't see how he can. I believe he's working, getting a pay. And I'm sure in the next years or seven 7 and a half to 15 years that he hopes to 8 get increases in his pay. 9 My electric, my gas, my taxes, 10 my Blue Cross/Blue Shield, car, food 11 comes out to 1,842 a month. My wife 12 hasn't gone to the hairdresser. I 13 haven't gotten my hair cut. We didn't go 14 over to the Mayfair Diner or down to the 15 seashore. This is what it's all about. I'm down here now -- my wife deserves not to say to me, When does the pension check come in so I can make an appointment for the hairdresser? She deserves to go there. Maybe these people don't feel that way. That's what I'm here for. Forty-eight years of the same lady, she deserves it. You don't want to give it to me? Anybody can do what they want to 96 2/27/07 - LABOR - BILL 060828, ETC. me, but you don't do it to my family. I appreciate what you gentlemen here are doing. Every time I walked in these halls for years and I would see 6 different people who were in the City 7 Council or people who are Senators now, 8 all I heard was, Bob, any time I can help 9 you, give me a call, give me a call, give 10 me a call. First time I ask for my wife, 11 because I did a good job, the only thing 12 that was working for me was -- and many 13 of these people are much better policemen than I was. 1972 I was in the hospital for quite a number of days. I was fortunate enough to get 11 people out of a fire. And the person who helped get me transferred was the only person that came out to that hospital, PGH, to see me. Newspapers made a big deal about it. Television made a big deal about it. And I never asked for anything.
So I'm here today and I'm asking you gentlemen and I'm asking the City Council, there's 97 2/27/07 - LABOR - BILL 060828, ETC. nobody on that Board of Pension who is working knows what it's like. There isn't a Councilperson who knows what it's like. Forty-eight years with my wife, I do not know what it's like to have cancer. Only if you been there. I'm here now retired. As I just told you, $1,800. My pension doesn't come anywhere near that 2,000. I'm asking for something so that I don't sit home and wait for the pension check to be able maybe to go to the diner. I don't know how many people here that are working, how often they go out to eat, but I found in going on years, it's 17 coming down to very, very little, very 18 little. And this is when after having 19 four kids, 14 grandkids, hey, it's mom-mom and pop-pop's time. So I'm down here for Dorothy. That's her name, Dorothy McCann. She's the one that deserves whatever you can give her. This isn't something that we want. It's something that we deserve. I 98 2/27/07 - LABOR - BILL 060828, ETC. don't mean this in a facetious manner: A year and a half ago City Council put in for a raise because Council President at the time said, City Council is as good as the New York Council. I spoke to one Councilperson. I asked him if we, the police officers in Philadelphia, retired or active, are as good as the police officers in New York. He said, Absolutely. So if we're as good as them, I think that maybe you could think -- and I don't know of any Councilperson who would say that we're not as good as anybody else.
Better. OFFICER McCANN: You did say better. Thank you. So if we're better than New York; Carney, New Jersey --
Philadelphians are better than New 99 2/27/07 - LABOR - BILL 060828, ETC. Yorkers. You know that, right? OFFICER McCANN: Thank you. Carney, New Jersey; Mt. Pocono Police Department in Pennsylvania, who all have cost of living, medical and were able to have Social Security. I don't have that. You gentlemen in your pocket right now -- and I only can bet you five bucks -- have more in your pocket than I get in Social Security a month. So what that's pointing out -- (Applause.) OFFICER McCANN: What that's pointing out to you -- maybe it's a little facetious. I'm sorry. I don't get diddly-squat. Now, I had a good friend of mine say to me, a good friend, You're the one that wanted to be a cop. Well, thank you for the seven days in PGH Hospital or the other 20-some visits that I made. I wanted to be a cop. City Councilpeople here now have the ability, I understand -- I don't 100 2/27/07 - LABOR - BILL 060828, ETC. know actuaries, I don't know percentage, I don't know any of that stuff, how much has to go into the Pension Plan, how much has to go there, but when I hear $4 billion, I'm looking at enough to go out and get something to eat for dinner as a special for my wife. Every time I go to the grocery store, I cannot go -- I appreciate the time you're taking. I don't know how long -- I could go on for days, but I'm not going to. Every time I go to the grocery store and we get that grocery, the lady doesn't come up to me and say, Well, what's that actuary man say? Oh, you're going to get something in seven and a half years, 15 years? Oh, okay. Well, look, take the food now and come back when they decide that it's going to be. But the other guy who is working behind me and has a job in that finance office, he has no problem because he just got his big paycheck. And I don't fault him for 101 2/27/07 - LABOR - BILL 060828, ETC. that. He worked that. I don't fault myself for coming here for my wife, Dorothy McCann, and asking you gentlemen and the rest of City Council to turn around and say, I don't care what it costs. I don't know the ins and outs. I just know that next month when I get my pension check I would like to see a couple bucks more, and I appreciate anything that you can do. I thank you so much for your time. (Applause.)
Thank you, Officer McCann. We do care about you and Dorothy. OFFICER McCANN: You wouldn't be here if you didn't. Thank you.
I'm sorry. With due respect, I'm going to need for 102 2/27/07 - LABOR - BILL 060828, ETC. you to sit down, please.
My name is Edward Lewis. I live in the 66th Ward, 33rd Division. My Councilperson for the first time I'm meeting right now is to my left. I did years in the Police 10 Department. I need to stand to show you 11 something. See how I'm dressed? If it 12 wasn't for the Police Department, I would 13 not have nothing to wear. That's a 14 30-year sweater. 15 I gave more than 22 years. I 16 gave something that his father gave, and 17 one of your members up there had a 18 relative, a father, that was in part of 19 City government. I've gave three 20 children to this city. I'm asking you to 21 help all of us and anybody out here that 22 has children in here to let them know that you, our City fathers, care about us. I do not believe any of you that you're going to help us at all. I 103 2/27/07 - LABOR - BILL 060828, ETC. believe we're going to die starving. Thank you. (Applause.)
Thank you for your testimony. Sir, if you stick around, I think that we will prove you wrong. (Applause.)
Is there anyone else who wishes to testify on this bill? Please come forward. Please proceed. State your name for the record.
My name is Joe Herkness. I'm a citizen. I'm a retiree. I'm a member of District Council 47's retiree organization and I'm the former Executive Director of the Philadelphia Pension System. I just heard about this bill 23 last week and I've been out of touch a little bit and I was out of town, so I got in here today because I'm very, very 104 2/27/07 - LABOR - BILL 060828, ETC. interested in it. Rather than get issues about the percentages and all this stuff, the basic concept here with this bill is, a rising tide raises all boats. It's simple. If you agree with that, then you agree with this bill. Because the pensioners do not participate in any increases in the Pension Fund until one percent above the actuarial assumption. 75, right? And they just lowered that, which helps the Pension Fund, and that's a pretty good thing for the City to do. 75. 75 and above, there's a 50/50 split. 25 percent. It's the same as if we make 100 extra dollars, you and I, right? The City -- or the Pension Fund, Pension Fund, and the retirees, we make a hundred extra dollars. The City keeps nine and gives the pensioners ten every year. Well, I'll take that deal every 105 2/27/07 - LABOR - BILL 060828, ETC. year if I'm the City. And as a manager, we negotiated this thing in the ante room 4 right over here whenever it was. John Reilly will tell you what it was. I don't got that good a memory. And this issue -- this language is the most progressive language for any management group that's administering pension funds in this country. I challenge anybody to come up with legislation that is based on your performance. The big stripers on Wall Street, they love to say, Oh, we're only going to pay you according to performance. You're a CEO. If your stock makes ten percent, we'll give you a bonus. Well, this is what it is. The retirees get a share only if the Pension Fund shoots the lights out. You got to hit the ball off the wall. It's beginning of baseball season. You got to hit the ball off the 331 wall down the stadium for them to get a dime. 106 2/27/07 - LABOR - BILL 060828, ETC. 75. Rob Dubow was here. Pretty good guy. Knows his numbers. Charlie McPherson next door. If there's somebody that knows more about the Pension Fund than Charlie McPherson, I don't know who it is. And you got a lot of sharp people watching this fund. 75, the retirees get zip. Nine percent the retirees receive just one -- they get zip. 75 percent on a five-year smoothing average. Now, the testimony before from the Board of Pensions, he said, Oh, annual. The thing is based on your actuarial funding, which is based on the June 30th report. So it's the five years ending last June. They're going to add them all up, divide them by five and they're going to tell you -- by the way, Council has to have a report given to you, according to this law, every year on what's the status of the Pension Adjustment Fund and what's the status of 107 2/27/07 - LABOR - BILL 060828, ETC. what's going on. And if nothing happens after about months, you just want to 4 know. So there should be a series of 5 reports that come every year that say 6 what's the status of the Pension 7 Adjustment Fund. 8 But this is -- and once again, 9 and I'll get off the air, because this is 10 really an emotional issue, and what's 11 emotional is really a double safety net 12 for the City. And that's when it went 13 in. And I can remember like it was 14 yesterday it was so important, as far as 15 I was concerned from my position as the 16 Executive Director, because I had spent 17 14 years as a trustee and an employee 18 representative in the City. I then had the privilege of serving as the Executive Director for seven years. 4 billion. The pinstripes took 200 million 108 2/27/07 - LABOR - BILL 060828, ETC. 25 billion that lowered the unfunded liability. 25 billion in the Pension Fund and not give anything to people who have been out 15, 16, years and didn't get a dime.
12 So this is where this 13 language -- that's where this idea 14 started to come from, and the language is 15 put together by some hard, banging 16 negotiations even to the last minute in 17 the hallway. This 76 percent funding was where the Pension Fund ended up after, as John Reilly testified, after that fiscal year three or four months later and we've had some good performance. So at 76 and they say whatever it is July, we got to stay there, and it was a second level. It was still one percent above. 109 2/27/07 - LABOR - BILL 060828, ETC. Remember, the assumption was nine percent. So then you had to make ten. So it was over ten. So if you made 5 percent for five years, right? Ask 6 anybody in Wall Street about 11 percent 7 for five years. Unless they want to lie 8 to you, they'll say, Oh, we can do better 9 than that. Always beware of a naked guy 10 trying to give you the shirt off his 11 back, but the -- I don't know where that came from. But anyway, the one percent and then the retirees share 50/50 in the excess. They run past these words very quickly. Excess. It's a real nice word. 75. If I make one percent more, that's pretty good numbers. 8 billion over five years. The adjusted value -- that's a strong performance. Not just one year. That's five years. That's a strong performance. Whether you're in your local bank or credit union or whether you're on Wall Street, 110 2/27/07 - LABOR - BILL 060828, ETC. five-year consistent performance is a pretty good return. And so after that five years, you have that one percent. Then you share 50/50. So the Pension Fund gets the first one percent of the excess and it goes against the unfunded liability, and that's a good thing. Then after that, they start to really hit the ball. It's like guys on the bench, Put me in, Coach. We're winning ten nothing, how about letting this guy play? And that's really what it amounts to. 75 percent plus a percent, the retirees participate in a 50/50 split. A rising tide raises all boats, and that's all I have to say. I think this bill is easy and it's easy for management, and I don't think they should be afraid of promises. They're being afraid of promises that they've made to all these people who work. And the only way they have to pay is if they make enough money to pay for the promises. If 111 2/27/07 - LABOR - BILL 060828, ETC. they don't, they don't have to pay. That makes eminent sense. Every manager in the country would love to have the same thing. He wouldn't have to go back to the constituents and say, We have to give the retirees extra money this year and there's a political issue. Because if you make the dollars in the Pension Fund, they will get it automatically. Thank you, and I ask if there are any questions. )
Seeing none, Joe, thank you for your testimony. Anyone else that wishes to testify on this bill? (No response.)
Seeing none, this will conclude our public hearing and we will now move into our public meeting. We are now in our public 112 2/27/07 - LABOR - BILL 060828, ETC. meeting, and the Chair recognizes Councilman Goode for a motion on Bill No. 4 060828.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I move that Bill 060828 be reported out of Committee with a favorable recommendation and that the rules of Council be suspended so as to permit first reading at our next Council session. (Duly seconded.)
It has been moved and seconded that Bill No. 060828 be reported out of Committee with a favorable recommendation and further moved that the rules of Council be suspended to permit first reading of this bill at our next Council session. All in favor signify by saying aye. (Aye.)
Those opposed? (No response.) 113 2/27/07 - LABOR - BILL 060828, ETC.
The ayes have it. The Chair recognizes for a motion Councilman Goode on Bill No. 6 060892.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I move that Bill 060829 be reported out of Committee with a favorable recommendation and that the rules of Council be suspended so as to permit first reading at our next Council session. (Duly seconded.)
It has been moved and seconded that Bill No. 060892 be reported out of Committee with a favorable recommendation and further moved that the rules of Council be suspended to permit first reading of this bill at our next Council session. All in favor signify by saying aye. (Aye.)
Those 114 2/27/07 - LABOR - BILL 060828, ETC. opposed? (No response.)
The ayes have it. This concludes the public meeting. I would like to thank everyone for your attendance and your testimony. (Applause.) (Committee on Labor and Civil Service adjourned at 11:55 a.m.) - - - 115 CERTIFICATE I HEREBY CERTIFY that the proceedings, evidence and objections are contained fully and accurately in the stenographic notes taken by me upon the foregoing matter on February 27, 2007, and that this is a true and correct transcript of same. ______________________________ MICHELE L. MURPHY RPR-Notary Public (The foregoing certification of this transcript does not apply to any reproduction of the same by any means, unless under the direct control and/or supervision of the certifying reporter.)