Thursday, July 29, 2010

Milwaukee County Supervisors Display Their Arrogance and Greed

Of course...

A divided Milwaukee County Board Thursday sidetracked a proposal to cut their own pensions and those of other elected county officials by 20%.

If ultimately approved, the cut would apply prospectively to future pension credit earned.

On a 10-9 vote, the board referred the measure for a legal opinion on whether the pension change could advance in the absence of any recommendation from the county Pension Board. The Pension Board, by county ordinance, weighs in on any pension change. But the pension panel has declined to state an opinion.

Voting to delay action were supervisors Gerry Broderick, Elizabeth M. Coggs, Marina Dimitrijevic, Nikiya Harris, Lee Holloway, Willie Johnson Jr., Theo Lipscomb, Michael Mayo Sr., Johnny Thomas and John Weishan.

Supervisors against the delay were Mark Borkowski, Paul Cesarz, Lynn De Bruin, Patricia Jursik, Christopher Larson, Joseph Rice, Joe Sanfelippo, Jim “Luigi” Schmitt and Peggy West.

The measure could come back to the board, but Thursday’s vote suggests there’s a solid though narrow majority opposed to the pension cut, said Holloway, the board chairman.

Whenever I see stories like this, I ask two questions…

Why are elected officials getting pensions at all? 

Why do we allow those elected officials to decide their own pension? 

It’s no wonder there are so many greedy dirtbags on the Milwaukee County Board.

(6) Comments
Posted by Owen at 1737 hrs
Politics + Politics - Wisconsin

  1. Why are elected officials getting pensions at all? 

    Why do we allow those elected officials to decide their own pension?

    I’m sure more voting will fix this.  I can see the change from my house!

    Posted by Jay4Liberty on July 29, 2010 at 1745 hrs


  2. I don’t have my roll call from the 11/2000 pension grab that saw their leader FU Thomas Ament and a couple of their number tossed handy, but I seem to recognize more than a few names that voted for that pension grab voting for this one, including The King and Karen’s Little Brother.

    I wonder if CRG is up for another whack or 10 at the Board.

    Posted by steveegg on July 29, 2010 at 2045 hrs


  3. When there’s no protest from the tax payers of course the Board is going to continue to treat themselves to extraordinary perks. And even when they do protest they have shown there are no real repercussions to be suffered.

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 29, 2010 at 2121 hrs


  4. Exactly right, Why do they get to decide on their own pension? What private sector employee gets to vote on their pension or compensation ? Put it on a referendum and let thier bosses decide (the public) just like the rest of the world.

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 30, 2010 at 0558 hrs


  5. Well! I’ve just voted myself a tax reduction in order to funnel more real money into the private sector to stimulate the economy.

    Anyone think the politicians will agree to that?

    These people are NOT doing such a bang up job that they deserve anything close to what they’re treating themselves to on the tax payer dime. Politicians are (supposed to be) servants of the people, and these big salaries are NOT getting us the “best of the best” as we keep hearing about. Scammers are scammers no matter what hat they wear.

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 30, 2010 at 0959 hrs


  6. I’m not defending them getting pensions or getting to decide how much, but did anyone read the article and notice:

    1) This was not a final vote on whether or not to cut.
    2) It was a vote to defer and seek a legal opinion on whether or not the Co. Board is even allowed to vote on this.
    3) The Pension Board punted.

    According to the County’s web site:
    “The Pension Board consists of nine members - three members appointed by the County Executive (subject to confirmation by the County Board of Supervisors), two members appointed by county board chairman (subject to confirmation by the County Board of Supervisors), three employee members elected by the employee participants and one employee member elected by retired participants.”

    I would argue that a group of this makeup shouldn’t be allowed to vote on this either since it’s about a benefit that some or all of them receive. Maybe that’s why they punted, but they’re the ones who should have sought the legal advice to begin with.

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 30, 2010 at 1032 hrs


Commenting is not available in this channel entry.