30a shopper, I believe the file is too big to post as it is 4 different spread sheets. If I know who you are you are more than welcome to get a copy from me. Also, SWFD has a copy and it's now a public record. There are somethings on there that would not make sense and would need to be explained.
I'm not sure what you were trying to say with regards to special treatment and full retirement, but 21yrs is not full retirement in our plan. Sean would have had to work 25yrs to get full retirement. He is not currently able to collect those benifits due to age. That is what we were trying to point out. Sean spent pretty much his entire working career with the SWFD and was just shown to the curb. If he had done something wrong then I would understand, but it was explained by the chief as a pure budget reduction issue. In our retirement plan you have to work 10yrs to be vested. After that date you have earned some type of pension through the plan. Your compensation is based on the average of the highest 5 years of your last 10 employed, this excludes overtime and is just based on base salary. In Sean's case it would not have mattered anyway he was overtime exempt due to position. You are correct about benefits being tied to years of service. You get 4% per year worked up to 25yrs. Now, I am not on the pension board but I am a pensioneer so I am not an expert in all areas of our pension. It seems I learn new things every day about this system.
My point was that "full retirement" just means you get 100% of your last paycheck for the rest of your life. If the person laid off worked 21years, he'll receive 84%. He won't be living on the streets. ;-) It's unfortunate they couldn't have kept him on, the experience is obviously valuable. But as Bob has pointed out when the money isn't available it isn't available and so some hard decisions need to be made.
This illustrates one of the many flaws I see in these types of retirement systems - it is more cost effective to cut senior professionals. If we moved to a 401K style system the cost to the city to keep senior leadership would be substantially less so the district likely wouldn't let good folks go in times like these.