More than half of Atlanta's City Council could be disqualified from voting on a plan to reform the city's pension system.
Nine of 15 voting council members, all elected prior to 2002, are in the city’s defined benefits plan. Voting on a pension reform plan could be a conflict of interest for them, as those council members would be voting on future benefits they would receive.
Pension reform requires a two-thirds vote, which would be impossible if council members under the pension plan are forced to abstain.
“If it is a conflict, we obviously have been breaking it in the past," said Councilman C.T. Martin. "This is the first time I have heard it being a problem.”
Jerry DeLoach, an attorney in the city’s law department, said the issue has not been raised in that office yet. Ginny Looney, the city’s ethics officer, was in training Tuesday and could not be reached.
“If it is true and we can’t vote, (then) I hope someone would give us a legal opinion fast, because there would be no need for us to waste our time in meetings," Martin said.
At noon Wednesday, the city council and members of Mayor Kasim Reed’s administration will hold a pension workshop to brief city workers on the steps the city is taking to reform pensions. On the table now are at least seven options that the city is considering to rein in costs, which annually eat up around 20 percent of the city’s budget.
Over the past decade, Atlanta's pension costs have risen to $125 million annually from $55 million. . At the same time, the unfunded pension liability has grown to $1.5 billion from $321 million, with only 53 percent of it funded.
The city is considering options ranging from reducing cost-of-living adjustments by 1 percent for all city workers to cutting out all city benefits in favor of just Social Security.
“This is very important and we need every reasonable mind as possible,” said Bond. “It would be bad to eliminate people before it gets to the table.”
Martin and Bond, along with nine other council members, fall into the defined benefits plan because they were each elected before their category was switched to a defined contribution plan.
Bond joined the plan when he was initially elected to the council and resumed it when he re-joined the council in 2009.
Shook said the city’s ethics office has made exceptions before when several council members were thought to be in conflict with business before it. He recalled a vote years ago about real estate signage. More than half of the council raised their hands to state they had conflicts with the votes, but the ethics office ruled they could vote in that situation.
“I am not sure what the rules are, to the extent that we make a ruling,” Shook said. “But if you have a situation where everybody is knocked out then the proper thing is to vote,” Shook said.
If the full council ultimately votes on pension changes, it would not be the first time. In 2001, and again in 2005, the Atlanta City Council voted to increase the pension payouts to police officers, firefighters and general employees.
“Many things that we vote on affect us. If we vote to raise water bills that affects me. If we vote to raise property taxes, that affects me,” said council member Felicia Moore. “I don’t see where my voting on the pension is a conflict.”
About the Author
