In a move that undercut the city’s effort to get tough on the embattled ex-narcotics cop, the city pension board granted Lt. Billy White retirement retroactive to March 15, which was before the city fired him. “I can’t believe he just did that!” said the city’s Emmet Hibson, Jr. (pictured at right), storming out of the room.
White retained the right to retire with an annual pension of $91,000 after 39 years of service to the police department. The Police and Fire Retirement Board voted at a meeting Thursday morning to grant White disability retirement retroactive to March 15, the day he formally agreed to step down after being arrested in a theft and bribery scandal. Setting the retirement date to March 15 “outraged” the city, undercutting attempts to get tough in the wake of the scandal.
The fate of Det. Justen Kasperzyk, the other cop arrested in the scandal, has yet to be determined: Kasperzyk, who served only 12 years on the force and so can’t qualify for “age annuity” retirement, has applied for a $41,000 annual disability retirement based on claims of back problems. His request was tabled pending further medical info.
(Click here to read a potboiler 57-page FBI affidavit about the bribery and theft case against Kasperzyk and White. Click here for the latest in a series of articles on the scandal.)
Sgt. James Kelly, who has not been named in the scandal, was also granted retirement at the meeting at 200 Orange St.
Shushed
An otherwise routine meeting erupted as the topic turned to White. At the heart of the debate: Exactly when does retirement take effect? Can the city intercede by firing someone with a pending request before the retirement board?
White and Kasperzyk were both fired last week by the Police Commission. In effort to “get tough” in the wake of the scandal, the city had hoped that by firing the cops before the pension board met, it could strip away some benefits and leave them with the scarlet letter of termination. The move did not go exactly as planned.
As the topic turned to White (who was not present), Hibson, the director of labor relations for the city, tried to speak up on the city’s position. He claims disability retirement takes effect only the day the pension board verifies medical proof and votes on the matter. By Hibson’s logic, White had already been fired before the meeting, and therefore should not qualify for benefits retroactive to March 15.
Hibson tried to speak up, but some board trustees, who said retirement benefits shouldn’t be disrupted by termination, didn’t want his input.
“You’re not on the agenda,” said Jim Kottage, who chairs the fund. Trustees Rick Epstein and Bishop Theodore Brooks argued to allow Hibson to say his piece. “If we’re going to make an informed decision, then let’s be informed,” reasoned Brooks.
Hibson was hushed up by a 3 – 2 vote. He slipped a note to Brooks and Epstein instead.
“Anyone Got Lighter Fluid?”
Brooks and Epstein came down on the city’s side: Only the Police Commission has the power to hire or fire, they argued. Setting his retirement date to March 15 would effectively undo the April 4 termination.
A legal opinion from the pension board’s counsel, Carolyn W. Kone of Brenner, Saltzman & Wallman, contradicted their claim. Kone cited a legal opinion written in 1989, when a city employee was fired. “The fact that she was formerly terminated didn’t matter — she was still entitled to her pension,” said Kone. Termination and eligibility for retirement are two separate issues, she said.
Frank Lombardi (pictured at right, with Kottage at left), vice president of the police union, Local 530, cited Kone’s advice and fought for the rights of his member earn the pension he’d spent years working for. He moved to grant White not just age annuity, but disability retirement, which is desirable for tax purposes, retroactive to March 15.
Commissioners first voted to grant White age annuity — retirement he’s entitled to for having served 39 years on the force. (Epstein, whose firm has written insurance for White, abstained from the votes on White.) One man — Brooks — objected.
Then the commissioners approved his disability retirement, with Brooks and Wendy Mongillo objecting, for a 3 – 2‑1 vote.
Vote tallied, Hibson jumped up from his seat.
“Tell Joe Pettola he’s fired!” yelled Hibson to the police union rep. He was referring to a city detective who submitted retirement papers briefly, then changed his mind and went back to work before the pension board met. Pettola’s retirement never took effect, proving, by Hibson’s logic, that retirement takes effect only when the board meets, not retroactively.
“Are you going to terminate Detective Pettola?” asked Lombardi. “Is that a threat? I guess my pension is under threat too?” he called out, as Hibson left and reentered the room. By Lombardi’s reckoning, Hibson’s stance was a flat-out denial of benefits required by the police union contract, which contains no “bad boy” clause indicating otherwise.
“Anyone got lighter fluid? I’ll burn the contract!” Lombardi called to Hibson.
After the scene settled down, Kone, the counsel, said the Pettola incident is different because it concerns the granting of rights, not the removal of rights. Submitting for retirement is a “right, rather than a requirement. If you say, OK, I don’t want to be eligible, that’s OK.”
Epstein, speaking as chair of the Police Commission, objected to the retirement date set at Thursday’s vote. “We’re disappointed,” he said, “and we feel that the Police Commission is the ultimate hiring and firing board.”
The city issued a press release professing “outrage.” Said Mayor John DeStefano: “We have real issues with the effective date and also the city’s right to terminate. That’s the crux of the disagreement. We think the pension board has acted inconsistently with its own rules.”
This sounds like sneaky union stuff. Did the city really negotiate a contract with the union that protects officers who knowingly and negligently break the law while on the job? What is that all about?
Sure, the threat of criminal prosecution should act as a deterrent, but since this was all about greed, maybe the threat of not receiving pension or disability payments would be an even better deterrent for these sorts of things. What is going to prevent this from happening again?