Another Tuesday and more of the same

The first indication to me that something is in the "works" is when I start getting telephone calls, and when readers throw out comments/questions about a particular point that hasn't been discussed.  The next indication is when I respond to a point and get a knee jerk reaction from someone about the response.

Nothing ticks me off more than a knee jerk reaction, except perhaps a knee jerk reaction based solely on personal opinion rather than fact.  

I noted in a reply yesterday that the comment to the blog was the third time in a brief time span that the issue of retirement benefits for elected officials had been raised.  My reply was to reference the pension reform act of 2009 and how it applied.  To which another commentator response to my reply was "I don't think so".  

Well the act of thinking certainly does involve forming an opinion, and we all have opinions, but opinions neither change fact nor law.

If you haven't figured out what is going on, there seems to be an attempt to turn the B of H race on the believed potential issue of the incumbent to garner retirement benefits if re-elected.  Essentially I view it as an attempt to formulate an argument that you should vote for the challenger because he will work for less.

Unless and until someone can show me otherwise however, I will submit to you that such an argument, as it applies to this special election and retirement benefits is an absolute red herring.  

Section 5 of the pension reform act of 2009 amended chapter 32 of the General Laws by striking paragraphs (o) and (o 1/2) and replacing the same with the following:

(o) The service of a state, county or municipal employee employed or elected in a position receiving compensation of less than $5,000 annually, which service occurs on or after July 1, 2009, shall not constitute creditable service for purposes of this chapter.

Unless you are studying the English language as your third or fourth means of communication, or actually are not smarter than a fifth grader, this provision needs no explanation.  Neither did the digest version of it in my reply to yesterday's comment.

Section 25 of the pension reform act of 2009 provides that:

Section 5 of this act shall take effect July 1, 2009; provided, however, that creditable service shall be granted for the service of any state, county or municipal employee serving in a paid position earning less than $5,000 after July 1, 2009, if such service is subject to a specified term as a result of an election, appointment or contract and the election, appointment or contract occurred or was executed prior to July 1, 2009, and if the service is otherwise eligible for creditable service under chapter 32 of the General Laws; and provided further, that such creditable service shall be granted until the expiration of the term, appointment or contract or July 1, 2012, whichever first occurs.

This provision should be pretty clear also.

So what's it all about?  It is about the fact that if the incumbent gets re-elected, that fact will do absolutely nothing to determine whether he is entitled to a "retirement" because: the salary of a B of H member is well under the $5,000.00 annually; and, the election will occur after July 1, 2012.

Three more years as an elected member does not add three more years of creditable service.  

Before anyone else decides to take a shot without aiming, read the law.  Better yet try to understand it.

Anticipating some of the potential attempts of opinion, best cite your facts if you imply a factual basis if you want the comment published.

Want to offer an opinion, knock your socks off.  Want to tell me you read the law differently, again knock your socks off.  It exists, the text is easily found, and we are all entitled to those wonderful opinions.  It is what it is though and opinions cannot not change that fact.

On another note, while taking apart another opinion appearing elsewhere today would be as easy as taking a hot knife to a stick of butter, the only thing I am going to say about it concerns inserting a "termination for convenience clause" in requests for bids suggesting the same should have been in the actual contract.

This is one of those simply mind boggling statements that should have you questioning the entire content of any piece.

Ignoring the ever popular art of "cherry picking" of provisions in isolation, and using the building a home and hiring a home contractor vs. a general contractor analogy that popped up at a public meeting recently, think about this: Do you think either contractor worth his or her salt would sign a contract to build you a house or do a large scale project with a "termination for convenience clause" in it?

You absolutely put such clauses in bid solicitations.  You should so you have the ability to reject the bids. You need the ability to deal with circumstances that can arise during the solicitation and bid process, or if the bids submitted don't meet you desired expectations.

But trying to put something like that into contracts involving any type of investment by the other side? 

Try going to a car dealer you want to lease a car from, or a loan company, or anyone you want a contract with requiring effort and expenditure on their part and ask them to insert such a clause in the contract you will sign. Again, try putting that into a construction contract.

If you manage to do it, I can guaranty one thing.  The clause if used would constitute a two time experience for the other side.  The first and last time they ever sign a contract with such a clause. 

I am not a big fan of the turbine contract. I am not a big fan of the solar contract.  However I am also not a big fan of cherry picking and surreal arguments either.

Enough for today.

Be safe.