Double your pension, double your fun
With reform in the air in Trenton, one of the many unsavory New Jersey arrangements getting a closer look is the practice of "double dipping." Many state, county, and local officials, both elected and appointed, have the good fortune to hold a number of paid positions, each of which carries a full complement of pension benefits (alongside a generous helping of potential conflicts of interest and appearances of impropriety). While many states ban the practice, Bloomberg reports that New Jersey ranks first in the number of public servants drawing incomes or pension benefits from multiple positions. Past attempts to do away with this in New Jersey have failed, perhaps because 19 out of 120 members of the current Legislature hold multiple public offices themselves, including our own State Assemblywoman and County Freeholder Valerie Vainieri Huttle (Job 1/Job 2).
While there may be nothing inherently wrong with one person filling more than one job and receiving remuneration for it, the system easily lends itself to abuses. Perhaps equally important to the politicians now seeking to make an issue of the practice is that it angers taxpayers, who are already faltering under the burden of the state's existing pension problems. Each time voters are reminded of the fact that Monmouth County lawyer Mark T. Apostolou played the system well enough to pull in over $274,000 in salary for 10 judgeships in 2004 (and ensure himself of more than $80,000 per annum in retirement income), the outcry gets a little bit louder.
However, as certain Trenton lawmakers prepare for the latest attempt to outlaw this practice, a simpler solution seems to be staring them in the face. Just yesterday, the Record reported on an initiative to pool school district bank accounts in order to win better terms from banking institutions (Teaneck's Board of Education is among the participants in this new program). Is there any reason that municipalities do not collaborate on hiring too? Everyone but Mark Apostolou would be better off if the 10 employers who each furnished salary and pension benefits to him got together and advertised a single job at a lower rate. The much ballyhooed shared services model might be worthy of consideration here too.
16 Comments:
Not only do I think double-dipping is wrong, I believe it also lends to the question of conflict of interest.
I agree. The example that comes to mind is Jackie Kates, an elected member of the non-partisan Teaneck Council and an employee in the office of Democrats-Weinberg, Johnson and Huttle.
What's with this campaign to smear Jackie Kates? There were two negative letters against her in the Suburbanite today, one making an absolutely bizarre charge about a deal, the other just kind of wrong and unneccessary. And now this.
The fact is, Jackie is perhaps the council's strongest current proponent of non-partisan government in Teaneck. And as I think any councilmember will tell you, the money they receive is not even an incentive to serve, let alone a livelihood. As for her legislative position, she works only for Valerie Huttle and is paid out of Ms. Huttle's staff budget. And I'm sure she's not making anything to shake a stick at there, either.
If "independent thinker" is really concerned about our non-partisan council, he might take some pause at this: unsuccessful council candidate Charles Gonzalez was clearly taking campaign money from the Joe Ferriero machine. Mr. Gonzalez then turned around and spread some of that larder to Mr. Gussen and Mr. Rudolph. That doesn't prove anything really, but it does make one want to hear Mr. Gussen and Mr. Rudolph assert their own commitment to non-partisan government in Teaneck. And I say that as someone who voted for Mr. Gussen and has spared no criticism of the so-called New Beginnings slate.
By the way, as long as I'm sort of on this subject, a little further clarification is needed on a statement by Teaneck Blog:
...19 out of 120 members of the current Legislature hold multiple public offices themselves, including our own State Assemblywoman and County Freeholder Valerie Vainieri Huttle.
If I'm not mistaken, Valerie Huttle's Freeholder term ends this year, and she is not running for re-election. Ms. Huttle backed into her dual office-holding status after Byron Baer stepped down as state senator; Loretta Weinberg then filled his seat and stepped down as Assemblywoman; and Ms. Huttle then filled Loretta's seat. Yes, she could have then stepped down from her Freeholder seat, but as she made clear right from the beginning, she wouldn't do that because she didn't want her replacement to be named by Joe Ferriero.
I have heard, unfortunately, that she simply delayed the inevitable--that her replacement candidate is not nearly as independent--but I don't blame her for trying.
JeffOstroth said...
The fact is, Jackie is perhaps the council's strongest current proponent of non-partisan government in Teaneck.
We thought you are, Mr. Ostroth?
Uh...I'm not on the council.
Speaking of Jackie Kates, she is like a rose looks good smells nice
but why is she being a thorn to
progress ?
I agree. The example that comes to mind is Jackie Kates, an elected member of the non-partisan Teaneck Council and an employee in the office of Democrats-Weinberg, Johnson and Huttle.
This is not a fair criticism. While Teaneck rightly adheres to a non-partisan system of government, there is no requirement that the individuals elected to serve be free of any party affiliation in their personal or professional lives. Ms. Kates' outside activities violate neither the letter nor the spirit of this "law."
Speaking of Jackie Kates, she is like a rose looks good smells nice
but why is she being a thorn to
progress ?
This is also unfair (and uncalled for). Others can opine on the seemingly sexist overtones of this comment. I will just point out that the label "thorn to progress" doesn't exactly fit Ms. Kates, given her long and distinguished record of service to Teaneck. While I and many others disagree with her opinions on a number of issues, she is neither doctrinaire or obstructionistic. It is quite clear that she wants what is best for Teaneck. We may think some of her positions are wrong, misguided, or even foolish, but it is beyond dispute that her intentions are good.
Okay, since when are different points of view not welcome on the Town Council? One of the reasons we have seven members is so we as citizens can benefit from considering all points of view, especially when they are backed up by "homework" and thoughtful consideration of the long-term consequences of seemingly "popular" actions. Jackie Kates does not take stands on issues idly or without thorough research, and tries hard to listen to other viewpoints -- would that all our councilpeople would do the same before rushing forward to "get things done"... In my opinion, there is something to be said for seasoned veterans, and I wish this young council would listen more carefully to what Jackie has to say and give her the respect she deserves.
Anonymous,perhaps you are one of the "seasoned veterans" you refer to. Your comments read like you might actually be a current Council member. Jackie, I mean anonymous! respect is earned.
I absolutely believe Jackie has earned respect -- and then some. Whether or not I disagree with her on some specific issues, I give her tremendous credit for over 30 years of public service -- and you should, too.
Clearly anonymous has a split personality!
Jackie Kates earned my respect years ago. I voted for her each time her name was on the ballot (school board and the council).Unfortunately that is the past. I will not vote for her again. The respect I had for her started to dwindle last year when (as Mayor) she decided that different points of view were not welcome at Council meetings. Her constant eye rolling and rude tone of voice towards anyone(Council members and Teaneck residents alike)who had a different opinion. However that behavior pales in comparision to that of Councilwoman Kates. She constantly distinguishes herself from the "young council" with her "doctrinaire or obstructionistic" actions. I agree with Teaneck Blog... I think her positions are wrong, misguided, or even foolish, but the idea that her intentions are good can definitely be disputed. Watch the next Council meeting on channel 77(The Teaneck Channel)to see for yourself if "Jackie Kates does not take stands on issues idly or without thorough research, and tries hard to listen to other viewpoints" or if she argues just to be heard. I understand that this"young Council" makes her feel old, they have that effect on many of us!It seems like she just wants to embarrass the "young Council" but her actions seem to be more self incriminating.
What disingenuous hooey, beginning with the screen name.
Do I detect the presence of sock puppets?
swurgle is the kindest, bravest, warmest, most wonderful blogger I've ever known in my life.
Post a Comment
<< Home