The School Board should not be authorized to vote itself any pay, or benefits increases! This smacks of the California rip-off by elected officials. The voters MUST be given the option to consider such an action and if deemed appropriate, then the voters will say "YES" or "NO". This could be easily added to the upcoming election agenda as a proposition for voter consideration.
If voted for approval by constituents, such benefits must be granted only as current or new School-Board Officials are elected or re-elected. This should not be a retroactive benefit applying to current or previous board members. Additionally, it must not be a lifetime retirement compensation package...go with a 401K match of some reasonable proportion. Remember, no such promise was made to current or previous Board Members . Is it unfair to categorize those who "SLIPPED" this on the agenda for a fast-vote being out for personal gain? In my opinion, there are some very "self-serving" board members! I am not saying the retirement issue is a bad consideration...it is bad in the manner in which it has been presented and voted. More than one elected official is being impacted by such decisions and it appears others could be impacted!! Was the County or City elected officials benefits voted on by constituents?
Grant will pay for more than 20 Chattanooga police officers
So who pays after the 3 years are up?
School board pension re-vote set for Tuesday
The School Board should not be authorized to vote itself any pay, or benefits increases! This smacks of the California rip-off by elected officials. The voters MUST be given the option to consider such an action and if deemed appropriate, then the voters will say "YES" or "NO". This could be easily added to the upcoming election agenda as a proposition for voter consideration.
If voted for approval by constituents, such benefits must be granted only as current or new School-Board Officials are elected or re-elected. This should not be a retroactive benefit applying to current or previous board members. Additionally, it must not be a lifetime retirement compensation package...go with a 401K match of some reasonable proportion. Remember, no such promise was made to current or previous Board Members . Is it unfair to categorize those who "SLIPPED" this on the agenda for a fast-vote being out for personal gain? In my opinion, there are some very "self-serving" board members! I am not saying the retirement issue is a bad consideration...it is bad in the manner in which it has been presented and voted. More than one elected official is being impacted by such decisions and it appears others could be impacted!! Was the County or City elected officials benefits voted on by constituents?