Board of Aldermen 12-11-2018 Page 17
unlimited. But when they retired, they wouldn’t get 100% of their unused time, they would only get 20%
of their unused time; which the City was perfectly capable of doing. The employees at that time could
have, well they did, they accepted that change or they could have decided that they no longer wanted
to work for the City because they didn’t think that the 20% was fair, they could’ve left.
These employees stayed but there was an inequity that was created because when this was done
instead of in 2001 saying this is the policy now from 2001 forward, they went back and said if you
started working for the City before 1995 you could stay under the old policy, you could accumulate 720
hours and when you retired you cash it out at 100%. But if you were hired after 1995, then this new
policy applied to you. So the inequity or perceived inequity occurred when the City went back
retroactively for those 6 years and in some sense took away the earned sick leave time that these
employees had earned, thinking that they could cash it out at 100%.
This inequity was brought forth and a proposal, people appeared before the committee and brought this
out and the committee came up with a solution which was the original resolution that was sponsored by
you Madam Chairman and the Chairman of the Committee, June Caron which said that ok for those
employees who were hired prior to 2001, after 1995 and prior to 2001, they could keep their whatever
sick leave that they had earned they could keep that and when they retired, they could 100% of that.
But then from 2001 forward, whatever sick leave time they could then accumulate an unlimited amount
of sick leave time, but when they retired they could only get 20% of that sick leave time, unused sick
leave time that they had earned since 2001 which seemed to me to be a fair resolution. It cures the
inequity, it gives back these people what they had earned up until 2001 and that’s a fair resolution that |
could support.
But this amendment that you are considering tonight, says that in addition that those people who were
hired prior to 2001, between 1995 and 2001, we are now giving them the choice that they could stay
under that old policy, that 720 day policy, so that they could accumulate 720 hours of sick leave and
then cash that out at 100% when they retire. So we are, | think, creating a new inequity because they
are being treated differently than the rest of the City employees who were hired after 2001. Sol am
going to vote against this amendment and if that succeeds and the original resolution, then when we
consider the original resolution, | would vote for that, because | think that’s a fair resolution of this
inequity that occurred 17 years ago.
Alderman Klee
Thank you Alderman Jette for the lengthy explanation and | don’t mean that in a negative way, it was
very detailed and thank you. | am a sponsor of the original bill and when the amendment came out |
was very much against it, mostly because | felt that the first one did exactly what we wanted to do. |
don’t know if | necessarily agree with you that it now creates another inequity, because these people
were hired in 1995 under certain terms. They felt that they would get the 720 at 100%. | look at it as it
is $170,000.00. | received a lot of phone calls and e-mails and so on telling me, don’t vote for it.
My plan was to vote for the original bill. | am having a difficult time with this new portion of the bill but
I’ve also learned in going through the Performing Arts, that sometimes we make a mistake and
sometimes we have to fix our mistakes. If this going to fix that mistake, | think we should own it and |
think we should step up and do it. | think | probably will be voting for either amendment whichever way
it goes through.
Alderman O’Brien
Thank you Madam President. First | would like to say that | really truly appreciate the work the
Committee did, the Chair and Vice Chair, but | am having some trouble with this and part of it is my
experience being up at the State Legislature. Part of the problem with the pension plan up there was
400 State Legislators, they came in and adjusted and changed it and everything else and now to the
tune of $2 million dollars that the City of Nashua has to pay annually to make up on the budget.
