The Boston Globe, which teed up a story on its front-page yesterday on the generous, early pensions being granted to ex-lawmakers who choose to leave office, suggested it has uncovered the latest outrage in series of pension abuses that have fueled rising public anger at state government. Gov. Deval Patrick declared that the pension perk seized on by former legislators is the sort of “insider maneuvering” that “must end” and says he wants the benefits granted to 10 ex-pols rescinded. And Treasurer Tim Cahill, whose office oversees the state retirement board, implied it is an improper gaming of pension laws.
But it is hardly the scoop that the paper claims, and earlier reporting on the issue provided plenty of material for state leaders to target any reform-minded ire toward had they wanted to get out in front of the issue.
“The Globe discovered the pension enhancements during a review of retirement benefits of former lawmakers, part of an ongoing series by the newspaper,” reporter Sean Murphy wrote in Sunday’s piece. But CommonWealth magazine discovered and reported extensively on this very abuse of state pension law back in 2002 and again in 2004. Indeed, the 2002 story caused such a splash that the Globe followed-up with a story the next day (full contents available only via paid archives) crediting CommonWealth with uncovering the abuse and highlighting the main findings of the CommonWealth story. Earlier this year, when the pension issue resurfaced on Beacon Hill, we pointed back to those stories and added some current context here, here, here, and here.
The issue centers on a crazy clause within a highly questionable overall provision of state pension law. The law allows state workers with at least 20 years of service to begin collecting generous pension payments before age 55 if they have been fired or their position was eliminated. The apparent rationale was to soften the blow to public employees who get broomed to make way for patronage appointments when a new administration gains power. But CommonWealth‘s 2002 reporting raised questions about the legitimacy of hundreds of so-called termination pensions granted since 1990. The story also zeroed in on a particularly odious provision designed specifically for legislators, granting an early pension to any lawmaker who “fails of nomination or re-election.”
It was eyebrow-raising enough that legislators who might still be in their early 40s could begin collecting a generous state pension because they were voted out of office. But as the Globe reported on Sunday, the language has also been used to cash in on early pensions by lawmakers who opted on their own to leave office. In 2002, CommonWealth spotlighted four pols, former state representatives Francis Mara, Angelo Marotta, and Richard Voke, and former state senator Paul Harold, who had done just that. Two years later, CommonWealth reported on two new members of the quit-and-collect club, former reps Paul Caron and Chris Hodgkins. Yesterday’s Globe story listed five of the six lawmakers CommonWealth previously identified (Harold died in 2002) and added five new names to the list.
Recent months have seen a flurry of reports on pension perks of questionable legitimacy or public policy value. Against the backdrop of the imploding state budget and mounting citizen anger, state leaders have declared pension reform to be a priority. Until now, however, the response of state leaders to reports of pension abuse has largely been to ignore the problem if at all possible.
In 2002, then-state treasurer Shannon O’Brien vowed to do something about the issues raised by CommonWealth. Her spokesman said at the time that the office’s “initial interpretation of the law would not allow” early pensions to be granted to lawmakers who opt to leave office, and O’Brien told CommonWealth she would call for a special commission to consider a complete overhaul of the termination pension law. “Everything is on the table,” she said. However, no commission was ever formed.
In 2004, Cahill, who succeeded her in the treasurer’s office, vowed to take up the issue and said he had formed a “working group” to review the entire pension system, including so-called termination pensions. As for the particular perk claimed by departing lawmakers, Cahill told CommonWealth, “Quitting or leaving is not being terminated.” He acknowledged that tackling an obscure pension provision that benefits lawmakers would not make him popular on Beacon Hill, but claimed to be undeterred. “We’re not going to accept that this is the way things are done because that’s the way they’ve always been done,” he said at the time. But accepting the status quo is exactly what Cahill has done, offering no proposals to reform the termination pensions.
For his part, Patrick said in a follow-up Globe story today that he wants to rescind the pensions granted to the 10 former legislators. “It’s exactly the kind of special favors, gamesmanship, and insider maneuvering that the public is fed up with,” Patrick told the Globe. To his credit, in March, Patrick called for elimination of termination pensions altogether for lawmakers and all new government hires. But he never previously raised the idea of rescinding pensions for ex-lawmakers who left office on their own, despite the detailed CommonWealth reports questioning their propriety as well as another Globe story only four months ago reporting on 14 former lawmakers who were collecting early pensions after either losing elections or opting to leave office.
