Will Walton follow Escambia's lead?

[idlewind]

Looks like the Escambia Commission agrees that the new state law is unfair to employees:

http://www.pnj.com/article/20110616/...-percent-raise

[Zebraspots]

I thought there was significantly less tax revenue and the budget had to be cut as a result. Do we have money for pay increases?

[beachmouse]

A very high percentage of FRS participants work for entities outside of 'state government proper'- local governments, fire departments, school districts, colleges & universities, etc. retain control over their own budgets. My employer is cutting back on office supplies, travel, energy use, and other areas in order to give everyone a 3-4% raise to offset the mandatory FRS employee contribution.

Hey, I'm willing to photocopy less if it means the savings are seen in my paycheck, and I actually come out a little bit ahead- pension is calculated on gross wages, and a year earning x*1.03 (even if I don't get to keep it all) compared to the no-raise wage x alone for the year makes that calculation go up if I end up using x as one of my five highest wage years.

[Zebraspots]

It's great that they are cutting back so they can give you a raise, but as a taxpayer I wish those same savings had been realised a little sooner.

[wrobert]

Looks like the Escambia Commission agrees that the new state law is unfair to employees:

http://www.pnj.com/article/20110616/...-percent-raise

I think there was a lot of things changed in this whole system before the law ever came into being and based on those changes, not seeing where it ever needed to even occur. The first thing said was FRS was going broke. My spouse is in FRS, so I certainly felt that if we needed to give 3% to shore up that fund to make sure she could retire one day, so be it. Then I found out the dollars were not going to FRS but to the State General Fund. Then the State Senate balked and the dollars go to FRS and reduce the government contribution by the 3%. Then all these other changes are made, change retirement dates, coa amounts, things of that nature so the regular contribution put in by the local agency falls by over 6% and even more for high risk and special administrative. So if FRS was about to go broke, why is the amount that the local agency has to contribute reduced by so much more than the 3%. Either they needed the money or they didn't. And if the local agency is getting a reduction greater than the 3% then I do not see any reason why they can not cover that 3%, unless they are going to reduce the millage rate by the amount of the full discount that they are getting the dollars are just going to be spent on something else anyway.

[TheZohan]

It is a paycut that will turn some fine employees away and find jobs in the private sector

[beachmouse]

It's great that they are cutting back so they can give you a raise, but as a taxpayer I wish those same savings had been realised a little sooner.

Part of it was a leadership change- the new guy at the top and his new minion actually did a zero-based budget and they cut some significant spending that wasn't related to our core missions but were often expensive pet projects of the old regime.

[idlewind]

I think there was a lot of things changed in this whole system before the law ever came into being and based on those changes, not seeing where it ever needed to even occur. The first thing said was FRS was going broke. My spouse is in FRS, so I certainly felt that if we needed to give 3% to shore up that fund to make sure she could retire one day, so be it. Then I found out the dollars were not going to FRS but to the State General Fund. Then the State Senate balked and the dollars go to FRS and reduce the government contribution by the 3%. Then all these other changes are made, change retirement dates, coa amounts, things of that nature so the regular contribution put in by the local agency falls by over 6% and even more for high risk and special administrative. So if FRS was about to go broke, why is the amount that the local agency has to contribute reduced by so much more than the 3%. Either they needed the money or they didn't. And if the local agency is getting a reduction greater than the 3% then I do not see any reason why they can not cover that 3%, unless they are going to reduce the millage rate by the amount of the full discount that they are getting the dollars are just going to be spent on something else anyway.

I agree, if they will not give the employees a raise they should give the entire savings back to the taxpayers in the form of lower taxes. Since employees are taxpayers at least they will recoup a little of what they are losing.

[idlewind]

Apparently Okaloosa Commissioners are of the same mind as Escambia:

http://www.nwfdailynews.com/news/cre...-okaloosa.html