Terry Riley asks for more time and information with regard to action on the MAST/KCFD pension funding.
Yes, this took place last week. However, if you think the issue of pensions for former MAST people--in fact, the issues of pensions in general--is going to go away, you are sadly mistaken. Remember: Information is Power.
The gobbledygook refers to the city pensions and the actions would cause the city to finance $40 million over 10 years for former MAST employees to have their now Fire Department pensions funded. When MAST was MAST, it had 401 (k) plans and other retirement options of that nature--not a classic pension. Part of the deal with the merger was that MAST employees would be in the pension plan, with their pension status reflective of all their years of service at MAST, not starting at April 2010, the merge date. Now, this is complicated financial stuff. However, the entire Kansas City pension system for its employees has been described as "upside down" and MAST only brings about $4 million to fund the pensions.
As the debate raged, here were some of the debate points:
1. It was feared that there would be "a wholesale attack on" the retirement pension funds by retiring former MAST employees who could retire with full pension starting in late 2011, and there would be no money.
2. There were fears that the plan was illegal under the laws of the state of Missouri. Terry Riley in particular felt that more information was needed about this point.
3. Former MAST employees, including paramedics, emergency medical technicians, dispatchers, and vehicle technicians (these folks prepare, clean and stock the ambulances) serve the city well and deserve a pension.
4. Questions as to whether or not the KCFD can maintain the same revenue level as MAST (patient charges, medicare/medicaid, collections, membership, nonemergent transports, etc.) came up.
5. Some felt that MAST board spent $6 million ineffectively and in fact the phrase "golden parachute" was used in reference to people leaving the EMS service as the merger/take over process started and continued in 2009. Actually, I could use the term accused, as in "MAST board was accused of spending $6 million on golden parachutes."
6. Funkhouser several times felt that approving the financing of the $40 million over 10 years had to be done as soon as possible, terming it "a good deal for the city."
7. City Manager Troy Shulte felt that money would come over the 10 year term from reducing EMS administration costs, "Overtime issues" that would reduce costs, and the changes in Federal health care financing ("Obamacare" effects, if you will). Ed Ford thought the money would end up being pulled from general city revenue funds and the health levy.
So after all this complicated and frequently contentious debate, a vote was taken to push ahead and omit the second reading of this ordinance. If you were watching on Ch. 2, this vote got fouled up rather badly, but when all was clear as mud, the item fell short of the 9 required to pass. So we will hear from this issue again, not this week as the Council is not meeting, but sometime in the future. In fact, the entire pension issue, of funding these usually very nice pensions for many of these government jobs, is going to have to be dealt with.
Again, one of the critical points that those of us who stood opposed to the folding of MAST was this pension issue. It is only illuminated even more by the general state of pension funding in Kansas City--and in the nation.
Understatement of the year: "This takeover has had some challenges."--John Sharp
8 comments:
Some one should look into the matter of Sharp's change of stance. Before he was on the council and after he left MAST he was adamantly opposed to combing MAST and fire. He was so opposed he had community members go to city hall and testify about what a bad idea it was. He even had people writing letters. Then when he got on the council and the issue came up again, he (miraculously) decided it was a good idea. Because he is ultimately only concerned with himself, someone should check into what he got for changing his mind.
those cost savings from 'overtime issues' basically come down to having people work 24 hour shifts with no overtime. they have the people take this 'class' that basically makes them firemen-lite but they are not qualfied to do anything related to fires. so in this way, they can get them to work an extra 800 some hours per year at no increase in pay.
unfortunately, it has meant that some crews are up for nearly 24 hours continuously or if they are able to sleep, it is not more than an hour at a time.
so you tell me, is making life and death decisions and driving a big heavy ambulance around on no sleep a good idea? is it what is best for the bottom line, or the best for people's lives?
Thanks for the comments folks!
Anon 1:03 am:
It's going to sound a little crude but let's face it, Sharp is for John Sharp. He is not all that interested in what you and I think--he is very interested in what the power players think. It looks to me that he was appeasing local 42 and Louie Wright. I assume that the payback was some nice union loyalty. Anything else? Hmmm?
Anon 9:14 a.m.
Research has shown that 24 hour shift have bad effects on medic performance, and worse, on medic health. I did the research on line about one year ago, but a quick Google just now yielded this reference for example.
http://www.fireengineering.com/index/articles/display.articles.fire-engineering.volume-160.issue-5.departments.fire-service-ems.the-24-hour-shift-impact-on-health-and-safety.html
In a busy house, in particular, for medics, a 24 hour shift just doesn't work all that well. So yes, in spite of the research, the KCFD is working the EMS crews on 24 hour shifts thus getting work for nothing, lessening the amount of OT required and available.
The Observer
Tony linked to this and there is a good comment thread going on!
http://www.tonyskansascity.com/2010/09/mast-pension-roundup.html
The Observer
Observer, excellent blog! You wrote this very well and covered many interesting points. Too bad Louie and the Henchmen will be working the council folks for the next week like pimps on whores, to get this passed! I figured the taxpayers would get screwed in this 'deal'.
T.O.:
Wow...change a few of the names,it this could pass for a LOT MORE cities across the nation...
(who knew?)
Good post.
What can we do about John Sharp and his interference in the Hickman Mills School District. These boundary changes are for his benefit. Rumor has it that he is grooming Bonnaye Mims (president of the failing Hickman Mills School Board) to be his successor. The woman doesn't have an original thought in her head and does whatever John Sharp or the Superintendant tells her to do. Even the majority of the school board follow those two blindly. Both of them need to go.
Harmon:
Sharp's got to go, that is all there is to it. It's not that I disagree with him so radically--I agreed with his stand on selling home produce for example--but he is a political animal, a chameleon who changes colors as needed to preserve his seat. Need a community servant, not a political animal in these times.
As to the C-1 Sup, I am less and less impressed, and if she is hiring family and friends to do important jobs, not only does she need to go, they all need to go too. All we need is for HM C-1 to become an overbloated patronage laden organization like the KSMSD, as hard to move to change as the QEII.
The Observer
Post a Comment