• Scam Diego alerts

William J. (Bill) Sheffler, the board member of the San Diego City Employees' Retirement System who pressed the staff and his colleagues for transparency and full disclosure, has been dropped from the board. He got a call from Jay Goldstone, the City's chief operating officer, five days ago and told that the mayor wanted to try different people on the board. Sheffler, who heads Sheffler Consulting Actuaries, had served four years. He regularly gave information to the Reader and at least one other publication that often didn't use his name, knowing that he might be considered a renegade. "It was an issue of independence," says Sheffler. The mayor "has a problem with independent board members." Explains Sheffler, "Pension boards are different from water boards or park boards. You don't have a duty to the people who appointed you. You have a duty to the participants in the plan. The mere fact that the mayor wants other people in there implies to me that he wants his own people in there to represent his interests, but his interests are not the same as the interests of the retirement plan and the interests of the plan participants." Sheffler notes that "a huge payment to the plan is due in 2010; I don't know if he wants to see the payment reduced so the City can afford it, or increased so he can have leverage against the unions." Sheffler was preparing information on a board member, John Thomson (whose term is expiring), who has represented the firefighters. "He never voted against allowing a disability pension for [firefighters]. I was in the initial stages of a study to prove that statistically." Sheffler notes that Mayor Sanders is the former police chief: "He still may have this attitude that whoever I appoint will do things the way I want them done." Sheffler says that during his tenure, "I said what was appropriate and necessary and didn't give a damn whose ox I was goring. I think the mayor understood that, and [such an attitude] doesn't make for a good political ally." Sheffler knew that other board members didn't like his outspokenness, but doesn't know if they communicated this to the mayor. Several years ago, the mayor had asked him to resign over a completely different issue, but Sheffler had refused.

  • Scam Diego alerts

Comments

JustWondering April 12, 2009 @ 1:45 p.m.

So when did Mr. Sheffler appointed term actually end? Was he like Mr. Provolos who stayed on the board beyond his term? Who might replace him?

I appreciated Mr. Sheffler's no nonsense approach. His statement: "You don't have a duty to the people who appointed you. You have a duty to the participants in the plan." Is dead on. This is exactly why the State Constitution protects vested pension benefits from politicians.

If Mr Sheffler is correct with his analysis:"I don't know if [Mayor Sanders] wants to see the payment reduced so the City can afford it, or increased so he can have leverage [the payment amount] against the unions." They our Mayor is playing some of the same games, [underpayments] that got us into this mess.

Hopefully the SD Reader, VOSD and other responsible media will keep close eye on this one.

0

SurfPuppy619 April 12, 2009 @ 3:43 p.m.

Wow JW-coming from a current San Diego cop or FF, that is an amazing post.

0

Don Bauder April 12, 2009 @ 5:30 p.m.

Response to post #1: Sheffler was appointed by ex-Mayor Murphy. So the Sheffler term is coming to an end, but he won't get a second one. You see what happens to board members who take their posts seriously: of course, the board member has a fiduciary duty to plan participants and owes nothing to the mayor. But this mayor doesn't see things that way. Best, Don Bauder

0

Don Bauder April 12, 2009 @ 5:32 p.m.

Response to post #2: Some dangerous games are being played, and JW smells them. Best, Don Bauder

0

tiredtaxpayer April 12, 2009 @ 9:54 p.m.

Don, It seems interesting to me that you mentioned in the article that Mr.Sheffler was preparing information on fellow board member John Thomson for never voting against a disability pension for a firefighter. Don't you think that Mr. Thomson, ( who is a firefighter ), would have the unique ability and insight to recognize an injury that COULD have occured as a result of the PHYSICAL DEMANDS of the occupation and would vote accordingly ? OR were you merely trying to discredit a public safety official,( or firefighters in general for that matter ), who has faithfully and courageously served the citizens of this city for over THIRTY YEARS. I trust that the readers of this blog have the ability to discern your motives for adding that little tid-bit of information which had no bearing whatsoever on the theme of the article.

0

Don Bauder April 13, 2009 @ 6:21 a.m.

Response to post #5: Early firefighter retirements might legitimately result from on-the-job injuries. But again, they might not. Sheffler is saying that Thomson has never voted against a disability pension for a fellow firefighter, and from a statistical perspective, that is very suspicious. I think Sheffler is wise to speak up on that point. San Diego needs a thorough investigation of disability retirements of both firefighters and police. I suspect it would be an eye-opener -- exactly what the City needs in this current crisis. Best, Don Bauder

0

JustWondering April 13, 2009 @ 8:19 a.m.

Regarding disability retirements... I thought that was the purpose of the disability retirement review program that SDCERS has in place. In fact, I believe the during the latest review period (annually) disability payments were terminated to some of those who were receiving them.

Has there been abuse of the disability program? ABSOLUTELY!

Are there checks and balances to root out the abuse? Yes.

Has SDCERS done enough to stop ANY fraud? No.

Should SDCERS and maybe the District Attorney do more? Yes!

Recovery of any overpayments and costs would a great first step. Then administering a strict program to stop or discourage questionable applications in the future. In my mind disability means UNABLE to work. Those who can work should NOT be able to collect.

0

JustWondering April 13, 2009 @ 8:28 a.m.

I also find it odd that our Mayor want to rid himself of Mr. Sheffler. Wasn't it Mr. Sheffler who led the charge to lower not only the assumed rate of return and the rate paid on interest crediting. Without his leadership, I suspect the system would still be paying an interest rate of 7.75%. Instead SDCERS is paying a more realistic 3.54%. That rate is lower than what Mr. Goldstone suggested late last year.

Mr. Sheffler and the board also set up an annual review making the system more responsive to market conditions.

Is our Mayor more concerned about having one voice, his, or good fiscal policy?

0

Don Bauder April 13, 2009 @ 10:06 a.m.

Response to post #7: Yes, there have been abuses. SDCERS has not done enough to stop the frauds. SDCERS and the DA (or the city attorney's office) should definitely do more to root out these abuses. Instead of getting rid of a board member who wants to do something about the frauds, the mayor should appoint more board members with the same reformist zeal as Sheffler. But don't expect that under the current mayor. Best, Don Bauder

0

Don Bauder April 13, 2009 @ 10:09 a.m.

Response to post #8: Good points. Yes, Sheffler led the fight to reduce the interest rate on DROP accounts. The mayor was on Sheffler's side on that one. Nonetheless, the mayor wants Sheffler off the board. Best, Don Bauder

0

SurfPuppy619 April 13, 2009 @ 11:30 a.m.

Don, It seems interesting to me that you mentioned in the article that Mr.Sheffler was preparing information on fellow board member John Thomson for never voting against a disability pension for a firefighter. Don't you think that Mr. Thomson, ( who is a firefighter ), would have the unique ability and insight to recognize an injury that COULD have occured as a result of the PHYSICAL DEMANDS of the occupation and would vote accordingly ?

By tiredtaxpayer

And by your logic EVERY SINGLE DISABILITY WAS LEGIT- and all were justified because this FF knows more than medical doctors do And he has expert training and skills in identifying injuries. I never knew FF's, whose educational requriement is a GED, had 12 years of medicals school and training-it is shocking. Shocking I tell you......wow, it just never ends with the SDFD scams.

Hey tiredtaxpayer (ironic handle-should be "happyFF"), when a person votes 100% of the time in one direction-especially when that direction benefits and pads the pockets of the person or their friends, then I think most people will recognize that scam for what it is.

0

JustWondering April 13, 2009 @ 12:33 p.m.

That's odd...Johnny don't you ALWAYS vote for bankruptcy...is your position a scam?

0

tiredtaxpayer April 13, 2009 @ 12:34 p.m.

I trust that the readers of this blog have the ability to discern your motives for adding that little tid-bit of information which had no bearing whatsoever on the theme of the article. ======================================= I should have said most of the readers of this blog. I don't think someone with the attitude, (and no PROOF), that all firefighters and police officers are corrupt, (and GED educated ),would understand that mentioning that in the article takes a swipe at all public safety professionals who serve even the ungrateful in society.

0

SurfPuppy619 April 13, 2009 @ 2:11 p.m.

I don't think someone with the attitude, (and no PROOF), that all firefighters and police officers are corrupt, (and GED educated )..............

I don't think all FF's and cops are corrupt. Far from it.

But I do think there is a lot of corruption-as in nepotism and cronyism that is wide spread and rampant- within all gov jobs, and especially in the FD.

I do know for a fact that 80% of ALL cops at hire have just a GED or HS diploma though.

FD currently requires certain courses that limits the number of people who can apply-so they would have a semster or two of college-but there is no requirement for a degree, not even an AA degree, to be hired.

So tell us tiredtaxpayer, what fire station do you work at-or are you retired at age 50 pulling down more now than when you actually worked???

Or are you Thomson?

0

Don Bauder April 13, 2009 @ 3:19 p.m.

Response to post #11: Sheffler was preparing a statistical analysis because it is indeed mathematically curious that a firefighter will vote 100% of the time for firefighter disabilities. Best, Don Bauder

0

Don Bauder April 13, 2009 @ 3:22 p.m.

Response to post #12: I'm not sure SurfPuppy votes 100% of the time for BK. You seem to be saying that any time he discusses a SD civic problem, he says the solution is BK. I'm not sure that is true. Best, Don Bauder

0

Don Bauder April 13, 2009 @ 3:25 p.m.

Response to post #13: I don't believe anyone on this blog has said that all FFs and police are corrupt. I would hope that nobody believes that. Best, Don Bauder

0

Don Bauder April 13, 2009 @ 3:30 p.m.

Response to post #14: You're up, tiredtaxpayer. Best, Don Bauder

0

tiredtaxpayer April 13, 2009 @ 5:25 p.m.

Don, I went a little to far with the corruption charge, and I regret doing so. With that said , I have been reading this blog for a while now and I've noticed that when you and your regular posters work yourselves into a frenzy concerning public safety/ pension issues you lean towards painting everybody with the same brush. I would hope you feel that the vast majority of police and firefighters are committed profesionals and are indeed exemplary citizens. As far as Mr. Thomson is concerned the impression that was insinuated in your article was that he was involved in cronyism or corruption when voting for disabilty pensions. I fail to see any other reason for adding that information other than to besmirch his character along with the rest of the public safety community. If there is an investigation in process involving Mr. Sheffler or Mr. Thomson over disability pensions I would hope that it would be front page news by your former employer.

0

Don Bauder April 13, 2009 @ 8:58 p.m.

Response to post #19: If I had thought that Sheffler's complaint about Thomson apparently never voting against FF disability retirements were irrelevant, I would not have printed it. I thought it was indeed relevant to the discussion we have been having on this blog for a long time. And I strongly feel that a probe of disability retirements both for fire and police employees is long overdue. Best, Don Bauder

0

Xray April 13, 2009 @ 9:37 p.m.

Come on Don, it was a cheap shot at best and irrelevant to the removal of Sheffler. Why don't you start making the right decisions for the right reasons. I agree there needs to be oversight but it was not part of your story and just tainted your credibility. The karma train is coming choo choo

0

SurfPuppy619 April 13, 2009 @ 10:41 p.m.

Come on Don, it was a cheap shot at best and irrelevant to the removal of Sheffler.

By Xray

Xray, what are you- some kind of mind reader? Or do you have some super power that lets you read other peoples thoughts?

HOW would YOU know if Sheffler's removal was, or was not, related to his research of Thomson's 100% approval of disabilty for FF's? It very well could have been.

And face the music buddy, everything that happens in gov is political. The politics run deep and they run wide. So your comment that it is irrelevant is pure nonsense-it could very well have been the reason/s for his removal. Fact is, you don't know. Only KFC Sanders knows the true reason/s.

You don't know the reasons, you're just

0

Don Bauder April 14, 2009 @ 6:38 a.m.

Response to post #21: The lady doth protest too much. I suspect that my call for an investigation of early disability retirements has aroused City employees, who are now battling Sanders's attempt to give them a 6% pay/benefits haircut. Best, Don Bauder

0

Don Bauder April 14, 2009 @ 6:52 a.m.

Response to post #22: It appears to me that there has been some controversy on the board regarding these early disability retirements. Let's dig into them, if true. Best, Don Bauder

0

SurfPuppy619 April 14, 2009 @ 11:10 a.m.

It appears to me that there has been some controversy on the board regarding these early disability retirements. Let's dig into them, if true. Best, Don Bauder

By dbauder

Don, I know nothing about the SDFD disability retirements except from what I have read here.

But, I do know this, bogus disability "retirements" are a huge problem for gov employees nationwide, particularly FF's. Mass has probably one of the bigggest fraud disabilty scams going in their FD.

Our very own CHP has been busted on this issue and it is still under investigation, because a whopping 80% of CHP's upper management went out on "disability" retirements (Chief's disease) in their final 2 years of service.

When you have the highest levels of law enforcement officials engaging in an outright fraud then the system just cannot survive.

Google CHP disability fraud and see what pops up.

Here, I'll do it for you;

http://www.google.com/search?q=CHP+disability+fraud&rls=com.microsoft:*&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&startIndex=&startPage=1

0

SurfPuppy619 April 14, 2009 @ 11:14 a.m.

"The CHP turned over 21 suspicious cases to Calpers. This after the CHP's fraud task force investigated possible abuse of disability retirement, specifically among its highest ranking officers.

Most startling of all, 80 percent of assistant chiefs retired on disability. Almost as many deputy chiefs did the same. Sixty-eight percent of assistant CHP commissioners were disabled when they retired. Investigators found that the CHP had the highest rate of disability retirements in state government. "

http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/story?section=news/local&id=4792870

Disability fraud in gov-particularly FD/PD, is a big problem.

That's why when you brought this up yesterday I knew there was a good chance it had legs.

0

JustWondering April 14, 2009 @ 12:25 p.m.

In the City of San Diego, we have some checks in place to protect the taxpayers....

All non-service age eligible disability retirement recipients (age 50 for safety members or 55 for general members) must file an annual affidavit in order to remain eligible for continued payment of disability retirement benefits. (SDMC section 24.0509.) In addition, all non-service age eligible disability retirement recipients are subject to medical re-examination. If a re-examining physician and the Board, after hearing, conclude that the recipient is no longer disabled, he or she will be ordered to return to work and the benefits terminated. (SDMC section 24.0510.)

0

Don Bauder April 14, 2009 @ 1:53 p.m.

Response to post #25: Yes, fraudulent early disability retirements have been a major U.S. cancer for a long time. To assume it doesn't exist in San Diego is delusional. Best, Don Bauder

0

Don Bauder April 14, 2009 @ 2:08 p.m.

Response to post #27: One of the most infamous cases occurred in New York City several decades ago. Every year, there is a stairway race to the top of the Empire State Building. In this particular case, it was won by a fellow who was -- you guessed it -- either a firefighter or policeman who had retired on disability. Best, Don Bauder

0

Don Bauder April 14, 2009 @ 2:11 p.m.

Response to post #27: Such a system could help ameliorate fraud -- that is, as long as the doctors aren't in on the game. Best, Don Bauder

0

JF April 14, 2009 @ 6:56 p.m.

In this particular case, it was won by a fellow who was -- you guessed it -- either a firefighter or policeman who had retired on disability.

So what.

Perhaps the individual was a cop who lost his shooting hand after 9/11.

Again, you're painting with a wide brush and providing no facts to back up your claims. How about posting a link so we know at least some of the facts?

Fraudulent claims exist in the private sector just as much or more than in the public sector. I recall bringing an individual to the hospital for a work comp injury. There was a bit of a ruckus as there was already another individual in the same ER with the same name and SSN. Weird.

0

JustWondering April 14, 2009 @ 8:58 p.m.

For clarification... the doctors in question are hired by SDCERS and paid by SDCERS. If there is any bias, it would be in SDCERS favor. Which is fine with me. As I stated earlier...to me disabilty means unable to work, period. Otherwise find a job and contribute to our culture in a possitive way.

0

SurfPuppy619 April 14, 2009 @ 11:03 p.m.

Fraudulent claims exist in the private sector just as much or more than in the public sector.

By JF

No they don't.

80% of the private sector does not go out on disability like the upper management of the CHP does. Not even close JF.

0

Don Bauder April 15, 2009 @ 7:22 a.m.

Response to post #31: You are correct that fraudulent claims show up in the private sector, too. Best, Don Bauder

0

Don Bauder April 15, 2009 @ 7:24 a.m.

Response to post #32: It depends what you mean by "in SDCERS's favor." Which way does the bias lean? Best, Don Bauder

0

Don Bauder April 15, 2009 @ 7:26 a.m.

Response to post #33: I noticed that JF has returned. Welcome! You have missed some sizzling invective. Best, Don Bauder

0

Don Bauder April 15, 2009 @ 7:27 a.m.

Response to post #34: Workers' comp abuses are worth investigating. Best, Don Bauder

0

JF April 15, 2009 @ 7:47 a.m.

You lost me at "welfare queen", Johnny.

Note that I didn't say fraudulent retirements are the same, I said fraudulent claims.

Why don't you look up rates of disability retirements for other government agencies, Johnny? You'll find that our rate is nowhere near that of the CHP.

Don, it would seem that I haven't missed anything. No one here has changed their stance or rhetoric a bit. I've had better things to do than try to convert a priest to Buddhism.

0

SurfPuppy619 April 15, 2009 @ 8:10 a.m.

You lost me at "welfare queen",

????

I made no such statement.

BTW-in case you missed it, the Clowncil IMPOSED new contracts on the SDPD and the other hold out union. Glad JF's union got smart and took the deal.

Finally, som backbone from Sanders and the Clowncil.

0

Don Bauder April 15, 2009 @ 8:38 a.m.

Response to post #39: You have never called SurfPuppy a priest before. Best, Don Bauder

0

Don Bauder April 15, 2009 @ 8:39 a.m.

Response to post #40: The council's move was indeed a surprise. Best, Don Bauder

0

JF April 15, 2009 @ 10:45 a.m.

It wasn't so much that we "took the deal". We proposed the deal. The negotiators agreed to it. Then the mayor turned it down so he could say he went to impasse. Later he agreed to it. I'm not sure what, if any, changes were made.

Oh, and who said I called Johnny a priest? I was speaking generally. I suppose I could switch the conversation to a discussion on the morality of priests....

0

Don Bauder April 15, 2009 @ 12:07 p.m.

Response to post #43: Actually, your metaphor, changing a priest into a Buddhist, wasn't such a good one, since there are so many Buddhist priests. Best, Don Bauder

0

SurfPuppy619 April 15, 2009 @ 12:08 p.m.

The council's move was indeed a surprise. Best, Don Bauder

The vote was 8 - zip. Very surprising. I knew Marti wwas going to work out (I endorsed her in my posts)-even though everyone said she would be a rubber stamp for the public unions.

I was shocked the City Clowncil all backed Sanders-that tells me the Clowncil is waking up to the public union abuses and times may be changing.

JF, SDFD took a haircut-not much of one, but still a haircut- I think in these troubling times you should be thankful.

GM is going file BK, and when they do the PBGC will take over the pension fund. The biggest pension, if that happens, for a 50 year old will be $18K per year (compared to 90% of a cops pay-$95K per year in Sanders case), and if you wait until age 65 the max is $54K.

Interesting times we are in.

That is an issue all public employees need to think about.

0

JustWondering April 15, 2009 @ 2:57 p.m.

Guess no one is immune:

Atlanta-based law firm McKenna, Long & Aldridge, which has a San Diego office, announced today that it will drop salaries for new associates by $20,000, another example of how this recession is hitting industries previously thought of as recession proof.

What do new associates make these days.. in 1985 Rogers & Wells San Diego Office began us at $85K to starting associates practicing environmental law..

0

JustWondering April 15, 2009 @ 3:03 p.m.

Regarding the council vote...word is tremendous pressure was applied to maintain a "unified" front. For what it's worth, a fly on the wall says it was done to share any potential political repercussions..... my question is when you cannot legally strike and withhold labor what reprecussion are you worried about.

0

Don Bauder April 15, 2009 @ 3:18 p.m.

Response to post #45: Maybe the 8-0 vote resulted from public pressure; San Diegans are realizing what a great deal City employees have -- inordinately high salaries and retirements. As to GM: yes, I think BK is coming, and after GM files, PBGC will be technically insolvent, too. Best, Don Bauder

0

Don Bauder April 15, 2009 @ 3:29 p.m.

Response to post #46: Lawyers with big firms have been overpaid for decades. I can't feel sorry for any that are taking a haircut. Best, Don Bauder

0

Don Bauder April 15, 2009 @ 3:31 p.m.

Response to post #47: The council has seldom been worried about maintaining a unified front. You may be right, but I don't know why unity would have been so important in this case. Best, Don Bauder

0

JustWondering April 15, 2009 @ 3:44 p.m.

You've stated in the past the unions are all powerful... instead of having just a few targets ...all 8 are now responsible... I suspect the ones who would have voted to impose the deals no matter what are relieved not to suffer the retribution by themselves.

0

SurfPuppy619 April 15, 2009 @ 4:53 p.m.

in 1985 Rogers & Wells San Diego Office began us at $85K to starting associates practicing environmental law..

By JustWondering

..........."us"..............Hhmmm.

BigLaw was starting newly graduated 2008 lawyers at $160K, and virtually all of them are going to try to lower that number.

Many BigLaw firms have either gone under (2-3 firms) or are not bringing on new grads (all of them)-waiting several months, even a year, seeing what is going to happen with the economy.

I know the bankruptcy practice for BigLaw was booming when the tech bubble burst, don't know how they are doing today.

0

SurfPuppy619 April 15, 2009 @ 4:58 p.m.

my question is when you cannot legally strike and withhold labor what reprecussion are you worried about.

By JustWondering

Oh..............I don't know what kind of reprecussion could happen.......maybe the millions of dollars that these public unions collect in dues and then funnel to politicians might dry up and go to an opponent.

So I guess if you don't consider millions of dollars in PAC money a problem then JW is correct.

BTW JW-how do you get all this inside info you speak of????

0

andrews563 April 15, 2009 @ 7:55 p.m.

The Thompson FF bias commentary was consistent with the theme of the article. Safety members who expect 'special' consideration from their fellows. Carry a badge, and you'll not have to worry about a speeding ticket. In this case, it extends to; appoint your own people to the board, and they'll carry your water. Sanders is an old cop, and follows this principle.

For that matter, Mark Sullivan, the police member of the board, did much the same thing (voting to grant disability pensions to unqualified police applicants) with more finesse. The study would have exposed that behavior as well.

Disability pension hearings are based upon testimony of medical professionals, little if any weight is given to anecdotal commentary from biased board members.

0

Don Bauder April 16, 2009 @ 10:11 a.m.

Response to post #51; Union members wailed all day long at the hearing, but in the end the unions did act responsibly, generally. Best, Don Bauder

0

Don Bauder April 16, 2009 @ 10:14 a.m.

Response to post #52: Yes, JW's use of the word "us" was most interesting. Perhaps he started out wanting to spend his career setting fires (as a lawyer) rather than putting out fires (as a firefighter). Best, Don Bauder

0

Don Bauder April 16, 2009 @ 10:17 a.m.

Response to post #53: I can't criticize labor for its lobbying -- collecting money from members and passing it on to politicians. It is a fraction of what big business spends bribing pols. Best, Don Bauder

0

Don Bauder April 16, 2009 @ 10:20 a.m.

Response to post #54: It is my understanding that the police representative on SDCERS is just as easy on police disability retirements as the fire representative is on fire disability retirements. Best, Don Bauder

0

SurfPuppy619 April 16, 2009 @ 11:42 a.m.

Who needs a disability reirement when you can get a FF or cop pension at age 50????

This particular pension (below), with COLA's, will be worth about $12-$14 million dollars-whihc is like winning the CA lottery-except the lotterty on average pays 75% less;

Daniel Borenstein: 'Spiking' of public pensions is costing taxpayers

Updated: 04/12/2009 08:45:30 AM PDT

PETER NOWICKI, the chief of the Moraga Orinda Fire District, knows how to play the retirement system. That's why he was able to convert a $185,000 annual salary into a $241,000 yearly pension.

The losers are taxpayers and employees of the fire district who are left to help finance the outrageous payments. They should insist that elected officials put a stop to similar deals. And other public agencies, including Contra Costa County, should take note. Pension spiking is widespread and should be ended.

http://www.contracostatimes.com/danielborenstein/ci_12127833?nclick_check=1

0

Don Bauder April 16, 2009 @ 2:51 p.m.

Response to post #59: Remember when bureaucrats were called "public servants?" They supposedly sacrificed financially for the good of their country, state, or municipality. And to get job security. Now they have security AND fat pay and perks. Best, Don Bauder

0

andrews563 April 16, 2009 @ 10:33 p.m.

Response to 59:

50% of the pension amount is TAX-FREE.

0

Don Bauder April 17, 2009 @ 6:44 a.m.

Response to post #61: Let's hear from SurfPuppy on this one. Best, Don Bauder

0

SurfPuppy619 April 17, 2009 @ 10:44 p.m.

Response to 59:

50% of the pension amount is TAX-FREE.

By andrews563

Let's hear from SurfPuppy on this one. Best, Don Bauder

By dbauder

The only way you can get a tax free pension is if you are retired on a disability, that is not the case with the Orinda Fire Chief.

0

Don Bauder April 18, 2009 @ 7:24 a.m.

Response to post #63: I knew you would come through. Anybody disagree? Best, Don Bauder

0

Sign in to comment

Join our
newsletter list

Enter to win $25 at Broken Yolk Cafe

Each newsletter subscription
means another chance to win!

Close