Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

MoCo Administrator: Slow Down Disability Overhaul Bill

Montgomery County

Legislation to overhaul Montgomery County's police disability retirement system should be put on hold until county officials have a chance to negotiate the issues with the police union, a top personnel executive told a legislative committee this morning.

"We are currently bargaining in good faith with the FOP [Fraternal Order of Police] on some changes," said Joseph Adler, director of Montgomery's Office of Human Resources. "If those issues cannot be resolved through this process, then the council has a prerogative to determine if a legislative fix is appropriate."

The legislation, sponsored by Council President Phil Andrews (D-Gaithersburg-Rockville) and Council member Duchy Trachtenberg (D-At Large), would change the way applications for disability retirement are reviewed and create a two-tier level of benefits depending on the severity of an injury. "The buck stops with the county council," Andrews said.

But at least two other council members appear to favor seeing what happens from the negotiations. Valerie Ervin (D-Silver Spring), said moving forward on the legislation "would go around the collective-bargaining process...We are on a slippery slope here."

-- Dan Morse

By Anne Bartlett  |  January 22, 2009; 6:17 PM ET
Categories:  Montgomery County  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Medevac Overhaul Plan Has First Hearing
Next: Gay Rights Group Made the "Terrorist" List

Comments

Sixty percent of Montgomery County police who retired within the past four years have retired on full disability. These people have not been shot by guns. They have been shot full of homeowner money. Homeowners cannot be used as ATM's Save Our Homes!

Posted by: robinfickerofrobinrealty | January 23, 2009 1:26 AM | Report abuse

Good morning Ficker, just how many police officers (an actual number/count) retired on disability last year...and the previous year? We are all now aware that the "sixty percent" figure was an effective attention-grabber for those with a police-benefit-reduction agenda.

As tax payers, we are concerned that we have an effective police force (of which solid benefits for officers and their families is a critical factor) and if our govt is run efficiently.

Has an honest cost-benefit analysis been performed to see if this major-overhaul of the police disability retirement system is worth it to tax payers? In other words - balance the funds and opportunity costs of the system changes versus the additional benefits paid out.

We are all also aware of the influence of insurance companies on such processes. Did a disability insurance corporation or contractor thereof have any influence or role in this police-benefits-reduction agenda?

These are just a few good questions that I think informed taxpayers would like answered. Why the rush? Isn't it better to carefully examine the situation in the clear prior to implementing expensive changes?

TGIF

Posted by: free-donny | January 23, 2009 8:41 AM | Report abuse

The rush is that homeowners are being used as ATMs and homeowners are already be assessed at least 10% higher than homes on the same street are selling for. A straw shows the way the wind is blowing Don. Thanx.

Posted by: robinfickerofrobinrealty | January 23, 2009 12:14 PM | Report abuse

Ficker, hello. So, you don't have any answers or facts in response to our taxpayer questions?

(1) How many police retired on disability last year and how many the previous year?

(2) Has anyone seen a cost-benefit analysis of this "disability overhaul plan"?

(3) How deep is the involvement of disablity insurance company(s) in this police-benefit-reduction effort? Were the "experts", independent doctors or insurance company numbers-crunchers?

Thx

TGIF

Posted by: free-donny | January 23, 2009 2:36 PM | Report abuse

Let me tell you about the class of 1964 at West Point, Donny. 35 killed, 100 wounded, less than 5% retired on full disability. Every graduate went to VietNam.

Posted by: robinfickerofrobinrealty | January 23, 2009 3:30 PM | Report abuse

Well, thanks, but with all due respect, is that valuable information intended to answer these questions?

(1) How many police retired on disability last year and how many the previous year?

(2) Has anyone seen a cost-benefit analysis of this "disability overhaul plan"?

(3) How deep is the involvement of disablity insurance company(s) in this police-benefit-reduction effort? Were the "experts", independent doctors or insurance company numbers-crunchers?

Clever ploy, sir. These are worthy questions, though. If our govt is to be run effectively and efficiently, they should be answered and not ignored.

Have a good weekend, Ficker.

Posted by: free-donny | January 23, 2009 3:37 PM | Report abuse

Interesting. Hmmmm. Does anyone know the answers to those three questions? Can anyone lend even a bit of validity to this push to reduce police benefits? Honestly curious about this from a taxpayer's point of view.

Posted by: free-donny | January 27, 2009 8:25 AM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company