In an effort to ease some of the fears and dispel some of the rumors that have been running rampant the last several weeks, the HPOU had asked Mayor Bill White to meet with HPD employees.

In an effort to ease some of the fears and dispel some of the rumors that have been running rampant the last several weeks, the HPOU had asked Mayor Bill White to meet with HPD employees. That meeting occurred on March 17^th, at 2:00pm on the 22^nd floor of 1200 Travis.

These are my impressions of Mayor White’s comments and please take into account that I am paraphrasing.

Mayor White made three points and then opened the floor up for questions. The points are as follows;

• The Police Pension appears to be in good shape with acceptable levels of money coming in as compared to money going out, but will run an actuary to make sure because he doesn’t want any more unexpected surprises.

• He (the mayor) is committed to the contractual obligations and assured that we will get the pay raise. He believes that he has the finances worked out but that it will be tight and expects everyone to be prepared to keep productivity up and continue to do a good job during these lean times.

• He wants to make sure that no similar negative trends exist or develop that cause the police and fire pension systems to be in the same kind of fiscal situation that the municipal system has found itself in.

The following are a list of questions and answers that I believe to be pertinent to the situation and issues at hand and may clear up some of the confusion. (These are not Mayor Whites Q&A but my own)

17. Is my pension secure?

1. Yes, it is secured thru state statute and can only be changed in the legislature.

17. Has it always been like this?

1. Yes, since the inception of the pension system in 1947.

17. Can the city just arbitrarily make any changes in our system?

1. No

17. Why do we have to have this opt out election?

1. The only way the Mayor can address the problems associated with the municipal pension system is to pass this opt-out election and sit down with the municipal system trustees and work out some sort of agreement to address both the short term and long-range issues. The police pension system is not the issue here and we have no reason to believe it will be.

17. Is there another issue regarding pension funding?

1. Yes, according to the state pension guarantee law the pension funds need to be fully funded.

17. What does fully funded mean?

A.  I t means that the fund has to be 100% funded which will require the city to spend  massive amounts of monies into the municipal system. If that is an accurate read on the law and the opt out election fails we will have that municipal pension issue spill into our world whether we like it or not.

17. What is the HPOU’s position on the pension opt out election?

1. The HPOU did not take a position on the Guaranteed Pension special election in September 2003 and we believe that we should stay neutral on this particular election also.

17. Why?

1. We didn’t like the language that was eventually produced in the legislature that placed the burden of fiscal and under funding responsibility that had previously been the city’s full responsibility and is now shared equally between the pension system and the city.

17. How will the pension opt out affect us at HPOPS?

1. It won’t – it merely puts full fiscal responsibility for any pension under funding back into the city’s lap as it had been prior to the election back in September.

17. Are there other issues that concern the HPOU from a union and membership perspective?

1. Yes, this issue may very well be one of the most divisive we have had in a number of years, pitting younger members of the department against the most senior people in terms of who should pay for this so called “pension guarantee”.

17. What is the issue?

1. Because of the “pension guarantee” fifty/fifty or “jointly shared” split between the city and the pension system that came about with the Special Election last September, younger officers could very well be liable for increased employee contributions into the system with no additional benefit increases.

17. Why is that an issue for the HPOU?

A.  As union we represent all officers from the first year officer to the most senior person on the department and are concerned that the cost to the younger officers may well exceed the benefit provided. This is particularly troublesome since we could have prevented harmful legislation in Austin and never deemed this process necessary. In addition, it has brought about unwanted scrutiny to our pension system and us. 

17. Will anything ever change within our pension system?

1. I can’t categorically say that nothing will ever change, however I can tell you that the HPOU will pull out all our resources to insure that what we have today is not reduced or diminished for today’s active as well as retired officers.

17. What is the rift between the HPOU and the HPOPS?

1. From the HPOU perspective it is a matter of how current money is doled out. If money that the city contributes to HPOPS today is buying increased pension benefits for active officers then we would consider that a part of our overall compensation package. However, if it is being used to buy additional increased benefits for those that have been long gone, our position would be to put the money back over on the wages and benefits side.  (This in essence has been the rift)

17. What is the HPOU’s position on retirees? 

1. We are all going to be retired someday and wish them only the best. The HPOU will fight to ensure that the promises and commitments that were made to retirees when they left the HPD are adhered to, but we will not support additional benefit increases to retirees at the expense of today’s active officer. We will use every resource at hand to prevent retirees and officers percentages and COLA’s from being diminished.

17. What is the impact of Exempt time and SOSP on the pension system?

1. Those working exempt pay or SOSP will be contributing that additional employee contribution from those pays into the system for years (remember you had to have a starting point and some were able to take advantage due to timing) before they get to take advantage of it. In addition, the lowering of maximum pays for officers (Training pay to 12 years in Jan of 2005 and reducing the max step pay down to 10 years from the previous 17 years) all results in larger and increased employee contribution for longer periods of time.

17. Can we get hurt in the HPOPS Meet & Confer process?

1. The current HPOPS M&C agreement will not allow any person to be impacted negatively without their permission. Adverse impact can only be achieved in the legislative process that would begin January of 2005. And then there would also be the delay until September 2005 when new laws go into effect if there were anything negative to happen in Austin.

17. What should we do?

A.  Right now we need to sit back and observe what is going on in the world around us. There has been no indication that we are the targets here, but there are obviously huge problems that have to be addressed with the Municipal system or they may end up bleeding over into our world. 

These are complicated issues and certainly more complicated then these simple answers can provide, because there is so much more detail and history involved. There are a variety of dynamics that are whirling about that deal with compensation issues, other city employees, officers within municipal plans as opposed to HPOPS, voter and public opinion, as well as a relationship with a Mayor that had an overwhelming mandate by voters to straighten up the city finances and operations.

Now is not the time for us to be politically naive. We need to keep our powder dry and let the picture become a little clearer in order to avoid letting panic set in and make bad choices that can impact us negatively for the next six years.

As I am completing the Q&A for this article there are two petitions being passed around by individuals. The first petition is asking the Board of Directors to hold a special membership meeting in regards to forcing the HPOU Board of Directors to fight the pension opt out election. The second petition is a recall petition to remove me from office if I don’t call a special membership meeting over the issue. 

There is no question that I will follow the procedures outlined as per the HPOU Constitution & By-Laws and will always act in the overall best interest of all police officers.  As the chief executive officer of the HPOU I have the obligation to consider the interests of all members and as previously stated, the so-called Prop 15 guarantee is an extremely divisive issue due to the fact that allowing the outrageous executive benefits of the municipal pension plan to go unchecked, will impact our ability to gain additional pay raises in our next round of negotiations. Our decisions have always been based upon the interests of the entire membership and have always been beneficial for all officers. If the leadership of the HPOU had bowed to special interest groups and deviated from making the right and politically smart decisions that has been our history, we would not have made the gains that we are all currently enjoying. 

In the meantime we will continue to do what we do best, which is to strengthen and develop our relationship with this Mayor and city council in order to protect officers’ interests and improve our working environment with this administration.

News Archives