It's nice to see city leaders finally seeking public input on the mayoral retirement benefit ordinance, but they're a little late.
Citizens would have been better served if the question-and-answer session had been three years ago, rather than during tonight's Finance and Purchasing Committee meeting. While it may allow folks to grandstand a little, the public hearing probably won't accomplish much.
In 2011, and even part of 2012, there was an authentic reason for a public discussion, but now any change in the ordinance would have no impact for at least a decade, if ever.
Former Mayor Barrett Harrison, the only beneficiary of the ordinance thus far, will be grandfathered in even if the Council chooses to change the age limit back to 60. Mayor James Sanders wouldn't be affected either, because by the time he potentially meets the 10 years in office requirement, he will be older than 60. And he would have to win two more terms to qualify; should he not be re-elected, the next mayor would have to win three terms to qualify.
To me, the age limit has no bearing for the foreseeable future, even for potential candidates. If receiving retirement pay at 60 instead of 55 is a deal-breaker, he or she probably shouldn't run. That's a pretty good sign they are motivated by self gain, rather than serving the public.
Another reason given for the public hearing is to clear up any misconceptions about the ordinance, which only changed the age limit, not the required number of years in office.
In a nutshell, the 2008 ordinance lowered the mayoral retirement age from 60 to 55, allowing Harrison to begin drawing his retirement pay five years earlier than he would have without the measure. It was a gift from the 2008 Council to Harrison.
In office for 12 years with his final being 2010, Harrison has been collecting retirement benefits since he turned 55 with his first check issued Sept. 4, 2012. He's being paid $2,926.98 monthly, receiving $55,612.62 (before taxes) thus far, according to city records.
With Council action before August 2012, could the city have saved that additional $175,000 or so Harrison gets by receiving it five years early? That's a legal question, I suppose.
But one thing is for certain, city leaders never tried.
They turned a deaf ear to calls to raise the age limit back to 60 before Harrison turned 55.
To my memory, there was no real discussion around the Council table or in any committee meeting on changing the ordinance.
Certainly, there was no public hearing back then.
To be fair, only three of the current Council members were in office in 2011 and 2012 -- John Musgraves, Stan Parks and Missy Langston -- and they were fairly new council members at the time.
Notably, Councilman R.L. Jones and Sanders, a Blytheville councilman in 2008, were part of the unanimous decision to lower the age.
I don't remember much discussion over changing the age limit at the time either, other than Harrison expressing his gratitude over the move.
It's also worth noting Harrison had enough confidence from voters to win three terms, in pretty convincing fashion, albeit against weak competition in the final two elections.
Serving 12 years earned him the right to receive retirement benefits, according to state law. There's no disputing that. But in my opinion, he shouldn't have been able to draw the approximately $35,000 per year until he reached 60.
It's too late to change that now.
Local politicians might be able to score some political points with the public hearing, but they won't accomplish much by changing the ordinance now.
mbrasfield@blythevillecourier.com