David Josar and Leonard N. Fleming / The Detroit News Detroit --Businessman Dave Bing became Detroit's 62nd mayor -- and third mayor in eight months

The task of cleaning up pension abuses has deeply divided Massachusetts lawmakers, who are not only wrangling over sweeping reforms, but also confronting whether they should give up pension enhancements for many members of their own chambers.
Discuss
COMMENTS (98)
Pension abuse coverage

On one side of the debate are Senate negotiators and Governor Deval Patrick, who believe all current state officials should give up pension rights critics have called dubious. On the other side are House leaders and advocates for the state's judges, who argue that it would be unfair to apply the changes to already-vested public servants.

The stakes are particularly high for lawmakers, who in many instances will be determining the size of their own retirement benefits.

Under existing law, at least 93 of the Legislature's 200 members are on track to be eligible for early, enhanced pensions potentially worth hundreds of thousands of dollars each in additional lifetime payments, according to a Globe review.

State Representative Robert P. Spellane, chairman of a conference committee that is trying to forge a compromise and may issue recommendations as early as today, said last week that he believes the law requires the Legislature to exempt current members from elimination of the benefit.

Spellane cited a 1973 advisory opinion of the state Supreme Judicial Court saying pension rights are contractual obligations the state must honor.

"The SJC is very clear that pension rights begin the day an individual begins public service and participates in a retirement system," Spellane said in an interview in his office. "The House clearly supports the SJC ruling."

The Massachusetts Judges Conference, the Beacon Hill lobbying organization that represents most of the state's 370 judges, also supports that position, he said.

Patrick, however, wrote in a letter to legislative leaders last week that they must apply the pension changes to themselves for the sake of credibility.

"The issue that is most important to me is applying most provisions of the legislation to current employees," he wrote. "Without this, the benefits of these essential reforms will be delayed for a generation, and public confidence in our retirement system will suffer."

Patrick termed the letter confidential, but its contents were published by State House News Service and a copy was also obtained by the Globe.

In an interview, Senator Steven C. Panagiotakos, chairman of the Senate Ways and Means Committee, declined to discuss the application of the pension changes to current members, even though it is contained in the Senate bill.

But he was adamant that enhanced pensions had to be eliminated. "You can't justify them," he said.

The key pension enhancement at issue was authorized by the state in 1945 to protect employees who were fired to make way for patronage appointees. In 1950, lawmakers expanded the law to include elected officials who were ousted by voters or who failed to gather enough signatures to qualify for the ballot. Such "termination pensions" allow officials, if they have worked for the state for 20 years, to collect immediate pensions worth one-third of their pay, which is a big retirement advantage for people who are in their 40s or early 50s.Continued...