A.G. Gancarski
In a recent interview with FloridaPolitics.com, Jacksonville City Councilman Matt Schellenberg took issue with former mayor John Delaney’s handling of the pension issue during his time in office.
The real question, Schellenberg said, is that the deal that Delaney authorized “was illegal” and that the former Jacksonville Mayor from 1995 to 2003 “caused the problem.”
“John Delaney is the Teflon John. His administration caused this problem, [because it] didn’t negotiate for Jacksonville,” Schellenberg said.
“We never negotiated hard,” Schellenberg said, a problem unremedied by successors until the current mayor.
Delaney had promised a response for some time. On Tuesday, he delivered.
“I recently read your piece with Matt Schellenberg; a portion of which spoke about the pension issue, blaming me for ‘not negotiating hard for the City.’ The blame for the pension issue has become Greek mythology. And about as accurate,” Delaney asserted.
“Matt’s is a naive and uninformed statement. He and I have never even spoken about it or I could have explained the real history and rebut the myth,” Delaney added, before levying responsibility on Schellenberg, his Council class, and the Council class before his.
“If anything,” Delaney continued, “the failure to act during Matt Schellenberg’s first term in office and during the term before his is more to blame for the ballooning problem. I don’t recall a single action by Schellenberg to solve the problem during his first term, until its closing days. That and sloppy proposals from then Mayor Brown demonstrated a lack of leadership.”
The former mayor then issued a reminder of how much time had elapsed since the deal was passed during his term.
“Matt has decided to blame me and a contract that was passed….15 years ago. I’ve had three grandkids and sent my youngest child to kindergarten since then. My youngest is now a Sophomore in college,” Delaney said.
“The Council always had authority to impose a contract on the Unions and to reduce benefits. In any event,” Delaney continued, “when benefits were finally reduced in 2015, it only reduced the City liability to the pension by about 10%.”
“Whoop-di-do,” Delaney said. “Let’s walk through the history.”
“A mythological overly rich plan negotiated by me (15 years ago!!) was not the problem; a lack of annual funding and the stock market crash was,” Delaney asserted, before going deeper into pension history.
“When I entered office in 1995,” Delaney continued, “the Pension was underfunded. When I left office in 2003, it was funded. And I made contributions every single year toward that effect.”
“Only under Mayor Curry has a legitimate funding proposal come forth. Curry is the third Mayor elected since I left office. The third! Where was Matt five years ago on funding? Has he ever proposed a funding solution prior to Curry’s?”
“By the way,” Delaney continued, “I left office….13 years ago. Thirteen budgets and 26 police and fire union contracts have been negotiated along the way. Matt has been involved with five of those most recent budgets and the 10 most recent union contracts.”
“The plan is not rich compared to other Florida cities, a finding of an extensive Times Union article. No one likes a public pension, but it is the market and nearly universal for uniformed employees such as the military, police and firefighters. To hire a cop or a firefighter in a major city, one needs a pension plan. The business oriented
Chamber of Commerce and the Civic Council concur in that,” Delaney added, noting that the “City Council itself actually added benefits by 2006 over Mayor Peyton’s objection by a veto proof margin.”
It turns out that’s a salient point.
“Paragraphs 31 and 32 of the 2001 pension agreement permit a reduction of benefits if the economy goes into a recession or if there are changed economic circumstances. The City can declare an impasse with the Unions if a contract with changed benefits cannot be agreed upon, and the City Council can impose a contract on the unions,” Delaney said.
“The 2007 Florida real estate collapse, and the 2008 stock market crash certainly qualified as events to reduce benefits under the contract,” Delaney continued, before questioning the mythical “30 year agreement.”
“There is no ‘Thirty Year’ deal. That was a union label to bamboozle city lawyers and stall any reduction. A technique that worked until last year.”
“For some reason,” Delaney continued, “the City failed to utilize these paragraphs, and the City Council failed to declare impasse which they could have done as early as 2007 and certainly by 2008. A benefit reduction could have been imposed as early as 2007 and certainly by 2008.”
“Mayor Peyton negotiated a reduction in benefits in 2011, which the Council rejected as newly elected Mayor Brown indicated he would develop a better deal. Four more years passed, the entirety of Schellenberg’s first term, before any reduction occurred. The last deal was only marginally better than the Peyton proposal, but the delay was not economically the right move. Taking the early Peyton proposal was the better option.”
“City Hall for seven or eight long years did nothing to reduce benefits when it had complete authority. It was during this time period, the last 4 of which constituted Schellenberg’s first term, that the obligations ballooned,” Delaney continued.
“Finally,” Delaney said, “in the dying days of Schellenberg’s and Mayor Brown’s term, after unprecedented pressure from the Chamber of Commerce and the Civic Council, a reduction occurred.”
“And the result….a slight reduction in the overall liability.”
Delaney concludes by noting that the “misdirection of public debate toward benefits obscured the fact that the City had failed to appropriately fund the pension over the previous 12 years. Now, in Schellenberg’s fifth year, Mayor Curry has a solution. One that could have been offered in 2007, or 2008. Or in Schellenberg’s first year if office, if he was so smart!”
Delaney has been very vocal in stemming the tide of revisionist history on the pension crisis. Now, the ball is in Schellenberg’s court to respond.
