In his most direct and blistering appeal yet, Atlanta Mayor Kasim Reed warned the City Council that if it did not agree on changes to the city's pension system immediately, it would have to answer to angry voters when services are cut and city workers are laid off.
A clearly agitated Reed said he has grown tired of waiting on the council to make a decision on the measures he has proposed to reduce the city's $1.5 billion unfunded pension liability. He is also frustrated that the council is considering pushing a decision on changes back to Sept. 30. He prefers a June 30 deadline, which would coincide with passing the city budget.
“Enough is enough. It would be a huge mistake not to deal with pension reform right now, before June 30,” Reed said Wednesday afternoon at a hastily called news conference. “The council needs to vote up or down so we can end this and not end up firing people. Critical services are now being placed at risk.”
Some council members responded to Reed's pressure by saying they will not be hurried into a decision.
Since his election, Reed has worked on overhauling the pension system, which consumes about 20 percent of the city's budget. On Wednesday, Reed offered a plan that was a bit different than the options he had been promoting.
The modified plan would freeze the city’s current defined benefit plans and offer a 6 percent benefit defined contribution plan to employees moving forward. All employees currently in a defined benefit plan would receive a 125 percent match, as would all future sworn Atlanta Police Department and Atlanta Fire Rescue Department employees.
The timing of Reed’s news conference was not lost on anyone.
He held it at the exact time City Council President Ceasar Mitchell was holding a special council session to debate a pension time line.
Councilman C.T. Martin said he is not ready to vote and will not be intimidated by Reed’s “temper tantrum.”
"This is too important in the lives of the citizens to rush this," Martin said.
Mitchell has tried to delay a vote on the pension, at least until the council is comfortable with all the changes and the numbers. On several occasions, he has attempted to get the council to firmly commit to a June 30 decision or push it back.
“I respect the mayor, but as a council, we still have to decide what our role is,” he said. “It is unfortunate that this has been couched that the council is not trying to make a decision on this. Any financial issues the mayor is talking about will not be caused by the council taking its time.”
Nine of 16 council members attended Mitchell's work session. Some appeared ready to vote.
“There are advantages to getting it done now, and I am for getting it done,” Councilman Howard Shook said. “We have all known we had this looming problem for years.”
“I feel like we have heard from everybody," Councilman Alex Wan said, "and if there was another answer, something else would have plopped on the table.”
There have been at least seven council work sessions to go over Reed's pension proposals. There have also been several meetings with segments of city employees -- most of them heated -- to try to explain the process, which originally included two options on how city workers would be compensated in their retirement plans going forward.
“We have heard the pros and cons,” Finance Committee Chairwoman Yolanda Adrean said. “I don’t want to get hung up with super analysis of the mayor’s plan and the options. And with all due respect, I don’t want either one of them.”
Adrean is proposing a yet-to-be-written substitute resolution that the council would create that addresses pensions.
Reed said that while he does not currently have the 10 votes he needs to bring about pension changes, he thinks he has a majority of the council on his side.
“If the council decided they want to vote against my plan, the city is going to know why,” he said. “I have paid massive political cost for this. I have been threatened in every single way that you can threaten a normal person without going to jail."
About the Author
