Scranton to hold hearings on halting double pensions

July 23--Acting on a state auditor general's report, Scranton's nonuniform pension board is widening its investigation of double pension recipients.

An investigation is already underway to determine if seven of the 35 people approved for a 2002 retirement incentive were properly awarded the enhanced benefits. Now, the rest will be examined to see if they, too, were properly awarded double pensions.

Pension board solicitor Larry Durkin said the board contends none of the retirees are entitled to the double pensions based on several findings outlined in the report released last month by state Auditor General Eugene DePasquale.

The report confirmed findings of a Times-Tribune investigation published in December that revealed several issues with the incentive, including that it was never properly authorized by a city ordinance.

The key issue is the wording of four ordinances city council passed between February and September 2003 relating to the retirement incentive. The ordinances set requirements to qualify for the incentive and directed money be deposited into the pension fund to pay for it. None of the ordinances say the pensions will double, however.

Former Mayor Jim Connors, who is one of the double pension recipients, said he is confident he did nothing wrong and welcomes the probe. He receives a pension of $1,211 per month.

"I didn't go out and ask for this when I retired. I accepted the benefits they told me I was entitled to," he said.

Mr. DePasquale was highly critical of city officials in office in 2002, saying they showed a "total disregard" in evaluating the retirement incentive, which has cost the pension fund more than $3 million over the past 12 years. There was no evidence any of the retirees did anything wrong, he said. He still recommended the current city administration investigate if it can stop the payments and/or recoup money already paid.

"It's an unfortunate circumstance they're in. I'm pleased they are following my recommendation and hope they continue to take a thoughtful approach to this before making a decision one way or another," Mr. DePasquale said when told of the pension board's action Wednesday.

The board's decision impacts 26 people who retired as of Dec. 31, 2002, and nine more who retired in 2007 and were deemed to qualify retroactively for the double pension based on a 2006 court ruling. The retirees receive $1,200 to $1,400 per month, compared to a normal pension that pays $600 to $700 a month.

The board voted Wednesday to send notices to all double pension recipients, advising them it will hold a hearing to determine if the benefits were properly awarded. No hearing date has been set. It is also not known yet if individual hearings or one joint hearing will be held.

The investigation is the second launched by the board. It previously held hearings for seven double pension recipients it believed were wrongly included in the 2002 incentive even though they did not have 25 years of service required to qualify for it.

Mr. Durkin on Wednesday said the pension board is attempting to negotiate a settlement of those cases. He said he does not believe the new probe will impact those talks.

Told of the board's vote, several of the 35 retirees facing a new hearing said they believe it is unfair to try to halt their excess benefits because when they were deciding to retire, they relied upon the promise of extra money, as well as continued health care coverage in retirement.

"This has just been a nightmare," said Judy Sharr, wife of Alan Sharr, a Department of Public Works employee who retired at age 53 and receives a $1,225 a month pension. "My husband retired because of this. He was young and didn't have to retire. We could not take a chance of not having benefits."

Daniel Kozlowski , who receives $1,233 a month, also said he relied on the promises made to him when he retired at age 52.

"I don't think it's fair," he said. "I would have kept working but they offered insurance. My wife was sickly then."

Mrs. Sharr said she is also upset by public perception that the retirees did something wrong. She said she obtained numerous documents, including all the ordinances in question, that show everything "was all above board."

If a hearing examiner determines the pensions must be cut, it would be a financial strain, she said.

"We retired because we could be comfortable, not rich," she said.

Contact the writer: tbesecker@timesshamrock.com

___

(c)2015 The Times-Tribune (Scranton, Pa.)

Visit The Times-Tribune (Scranton, Pa.) at thetimes-tribune.com

Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.