Below is the 3 page order from Judge Stone, the Circuit Court Judge seated in Okaloosa County who is handling the County's Case regarding the 401(a) issue between the Board of County Commissioners and the Clerk of the Court, Pam Childers. Although caught off guard by Jim Little's article on this topic (as the BCC was not made aware of this order before it made it into the PNJ Friday Morning)--I did note something from Little's article (and the Judge's order) which was somewhat interesting and telling:
"Stone also wants further arguments on how Florida law defines compensation and salary. Stone noted that one law makes supplemental compensation illegal to elected officials, while the law that created the Florida Retirement System says that retirement contributions are not considered supplemental compensation under the law. Stone said he doesn't find it 'reasonable' the legislature would've created the authorization for the retirment programs while also making contributions to them illegal"
Right. (Imagine that I am saying that, a reaction to just that seminal quote above from Judge Stone's order, really, really s-l-o-w-l-y)........ R-I-G-H-T.
read the order for yourself, below.
9 comments:
If this judge doesn’t have the balls to do the RIGHT thing, you will lose on appeal. Guaranteed
12:03--I don't know this judge but the fact he didn't recuse (as some believed all the judges in the first circuit would do) shows he has "balls" (your words). I have been told he is very intelligent and very efficient. I agree with your assessment in part. If he rules correctly (in that retirment benefits are not extra compensation and NOT "illegal") then he will rule for the county. Because this is bigger than just Escambia County and I trust he knows this......There are city council members, other county commissioners, all kinds of College and Community College administrators (elected and appointed) and other local "officials" all around this state who are currently enrolled in such plans......this ruling will be monumental. So dominoes will fall if the plan is found to be "illegal"--- which I do not believe it will be (but you obviously believe it will be ruled as illegal). Where you are correct, in part, is that the clerk, once the judge rules in the county's favor, will likely appeal. Not likely, for sure. But that is also where you are wrong, because there is no guarantee the DCA will overturn a judge's ruling if they rule for the county. And even if they do, you are also wrong because it won't end there no matter which way the ruling goes--the question will then go to the Supreme Court. Because this is a question of great public importance. The sad thing is it never had to come to this in the first place but now the battle lines are drawn and lawyers are ringing up fees and running up the bills faster than a spinning fan------and the taxpayers are footing the bill.
Great public importance???? It is paramount to theft and lining the pockets of “public servants “
5:11--Your opinion only that it is "theft." I wonder what you think about the other elected officials in the county, like the clerk of the courts, who also have retirment plans funded by the taxpayer that are MUCH larger yearly? Let me guess: in a shallow opinion like yours--every other elected official is entitled to what the FRS charges, currently over 50% of their salary, for their retirement----except for the commissioners that you hate, right? So your hero the clerk, using round arithmetic, costs taxpayers about $86,000.00 per year for her retirement which is perfectly fine right---but county commissioners deserve nothing in your opinion? Right. Check, got it.
The clerk is worth every bit of 86,000 + more. Is that why Luman called her a " B****" ? He likes to get "fckn pissed" right? He has respect for law, right? https://youtu.be/Rtx-shod31c
Check, got it.
Taxpayers footing the bill, indeed. During the time all this first came up, taxpayers were being brutalized by a couple of local contractors, while the director was MIA and y'all were arguing about the retirement contributions endlessly. No one had a clue except the taxpayers, some of which had their retirement and live savings evaporated. Should they just suck it up buttercup, because the BOCC was distracted and the director is ignorant? Do they deserve that in your opinion? When's the last time it was even mentioned at a meeting for updates or addressing the public about it externally, when Lumon thanked "Tim and his staff for being so great and on top of it" ?
More lies Jeffrey! Pretty sure Clerk Childers is not participating in the 401a which means her actual compensation is not the same as those Bocc members participating in the 401a. Don’t try to play the shell game that it costs the taxpayers the same. You, and everyone else should know the excess going to the FRS is to pay toward the unfounded actuarial liability to make sure the FRS plan is solvent for the rank and file career employees The game the BOCC is playing is pathetic
7:57 and 10:08--take your Adderal and focus on facts. Focus, don't conflate other issues not on point. Bottom line question is and always has been whether or not the 401(a) plans ----currently in use THROUGHOUT the state in multiple locations by both elected and appointed public officials--is legal. Period. That is the seminal question and it is and has been. Now, once we have that question answered definitievely, then we can discuss what an appropriate rate of return should be. But under the existing laws enacted, duly by the state--these sorts of plans are ubiquitous around the state--cities, counties, sheriff's offices, and especially colleges and community colleges. Peel the onion back and you will see LOTS of highly compensated public officials (appointed and elected) on 401(a) plans or similar ones with high rates of returns. So you two can fixate and focus your anger on the county commission if you'd like, we are low hanging fruit, easy targets. But recognize the fact, focus, and realize this case is much larger than just this county and the three commissioners on this (401a) plan, and the implications and ramifications of the ruling will ripple out throughout the state. 10:08--you are the liar. Re-read what I wrote, read it s-l-o-w-l-y if necessary. I never said she is in a 401 (a)--I simply stated the FACT that her taxpayer funded retirment cost to the taxpayers is $86K yearly, WHICH IT IS. Ours is $30K LESS than hers yearly. And the amount is FIXED by the state, not us. Understand that, please, before you spew your garbage lies and opinions as facts. You dislike the commissioners, and HATE our retirement costs, yet you celebrate the equally HIGH costs of the retirment plans of every other elected official in the area, county, region and state. So the real issue is simply your HATE of the commissioners, and nothing else. You are utilizing this retirment plan issue as your weapon which we can all spot. The rate of return between various plans is different----but the cost to the taxpayers is the same. Under state law, the 401(a) is an allowable option for multiple classes of employees and public officials. If you don't like that, talk to the state legislature and have them fix it. In the meantime, try to find a different topic to weaponize, this one's way too easy to dismantle. Run along, go fine another issue with which you can attack that will more than likely also be another dead, red herring.
Well I know you aren’t stupid but perhaps you should stop trying to prove you are by making stupid statements such as above. There is a difference between what the county pays for Childers and others retirement and what they actually get compared to the BOCC clowns getting 100%. Atl least have an honest argument
8:39: I am so relieved that you don't think "I am stupid" :)--but with that said you illustrate your own stupidity and/or ignorance when you fail to apprehend the crystal-clear fact that this is precisely the argument that must be had. We have to know if what the legislature has authorized is actually legal. The "percentage" rate of return to an individua l commissioner in that program is high, I'll give you that. No, I'll go a step further, it is obscenely high. That said, the issue of return is not a material part of the legality question. We have to answer the basics, which I believe the judge is working toward. 1. Are retirement proceeds "extra income?" (I believe the answer is NO. and 2. Can elected officials participate--as they are currently? (NOT JUST HERE, either). Once we answer those questions, then we will have the clarity necessary to fix an appropriate rate of return locally if that is what the members of the board choose. Remember, I am not enrolled in that plan, I am in the FRS pension plan. I simply believe the clerk is overstepping her authority here and on a number of other issues as well, if I'm being honest. And finally, here is a brain teaser for you: If the board voluntarily reduced the rate of return by 20%, resulting in a SAVINGS to taxpayers but still a better rate of return than for the FRS investment plan--would your blood still boil at these "clown" (your words) commissioners "getting such a HUGE rate of return, DAdgummitt!!"? And I'll preface that by saying high level appointed and elected individuals THROUGHOUT the state (and several right here in Escambia County)are currently gettiong this high a rate of return (25%-35% of their salary yearly) on similar 401A type plans right now because they are legal. So I get back to my original theory which your comment above proves. It really isnt about logical discourse and debate with you, because you are JUST FINE with a high level county, city, or other public official getting 30% on their gigantic (sometimes exceeding$200K) but you will fight to the death against the members of the BCC getting the same style plan that is currently authorized by state statutes---like it or hate it--it is authorized currently and in use statewide. Why? You only are "hair on fire" mad with the local commissioners because it really isn't about te 401a or the rate--it's about your seething, raging hatred of this board of county commissioners. Check, got it.
Post a Comment