Council Votes to Explore Costs of Police Chief Retirement
At the council meeting on May 14th, the council voted 5-2 in favor of determining the cost of offering Chief Ted Glynn full health care benefits should he retire prior to July 1, 2007. The city currently has a sliding scale vesting policy for retiree health care benefits, which is based on a factor of years of service times 4% per year. In other words, an employee with 25 years of service will have 100% of his health care paid for on retirement. With just less than 21 years of service, Glynn would pay a portion of his health care if he was to retire now.
Clearly, there are five members of the council who are interested in “suggesting” to Glynn that he retire prior to July 1st. They obviously recognize that most of the problems highlighted in the Nottley Report fall squarely at the feet of the chief. His ineffective leadership, either by his own choosing or at the direction of City Manager Ken Johnson, have finally found their way into the spotlight of public scrutiny.
I concur with the majority of the council and would also have voted to ask for the information regarding the likely retirement of the police chief. The council as a majority seems in opposition to Johnson, who has made it clear that he would never ask for the removal of Chief Glynn. The times are changing. The rubberstamp seems to have been put in the council drawer, at least temporarily and occasionally. It’s a step in the right direction, however.
The time has come to move forward with new police leadership. Let’s keep our fingers crossed and hope for the best.
May 15th, 2007 at 12:15 pm
I still have a hard time rewarding employees who didn’t do their job, openly admitted they only took orders, caused great stress and unrest in a very critical department of this City and then hand them more money in benefits as incentive for them to leave because management isn’t doing his job. In Clarkston, they fired the Police Chief. It was clean and easy and not a long drawn out affair. If financially the Chief has problems, and finds health care expensive like a lot of working and retired people do, well, sometimes, you have to look at your own personal life style and the toys you buy and cut back just like everyone else does. Handing over more taxpayers money under these circumstances is not appealing, but, if the Chief is gone on July 1, 2007 due to this, then we can move a little bit further ahead, easier in this City.
If the City Manager had done his job, none of this wold have ever happened. So, add this amount to the $21,000.00 that the Manager has cost us this year in additional expenses. If budget cuts come up again for discussion, I hope the Council looks at administration first and remembers these dollars because we sure will.
May 15th, 2007 at 6:07 pm
I agree with all your points, Pat. I think the council sees the need for a new police chief, but is hampered by the city charter in how to go about expressing their point of view.
It may be a small price to pay in the long run, although I too am bothered by the thought of a perk in this situation. But if it is the tool that gets the job done, then it was the right tool.
June 8th, 2007 at 8:33 am
[...] System of Michigan. At least 80% of his retirement health care will be funded by the city, and perhaps 100% if he takes advantage of the apparent inclination of the council to afford him full health care on [...]