Tasco was one of six Council members to enroll in the city's controversial Deferred Retirement Option Plan, better known as DROP. She did not immediately return a request for comment.

Plan participants trade a lower lifetime pension for a large one-time lump sum payment, but they are supposed to retire when they get that check.

Several elected officials, however, exercised a right approved by two city solicitors to run for election, retire for a day, collect their DROP payments, and return to work.

Tasco was one of six Council members to do that. But DROP enrollment became such a political liability that participation in the plan played a role in the decisions of four other Council members - Frank DiCicco, Donna Reed Miller, Jack Kelly and President Anna Verna - not to run again. Councilman Frank Rizzo lost his reelection bid in part because he was enrolled in DROP.

Taco may have paid a price, too. She was widely expected to replace Verna as president, but as the DROP controversy grew, Tasco's candidacy for the leadership spot faded. Instead, Councilman Darrell Clarke, who is not enrolled in DROP, will be the next president.

DROP allows participants to pick a retirement date four years in the future. That decision freezes their yearly pension payment and prompts the city to deposit an amount equal to their payment in an interest-bearing account. At some point before the end of the four years, the employee retires and collects the lump-sum check.

When DROP was introduced during the Rendell administration, it was thought that it would cost little or nothing.

But a study by the administration of Mayor Nutter said DROP had cost the city $258 million over 10 years. A later study paid for by Council put the pricetage at $100 million over 10 year.



Retire you FARKEN thief

Americans are sick of people like you. F- OFF

Didnt Rick Perry do something similar in Texas this year? Lawmakers using loopholes in laws for financial gain? Unpossible.

So legislators make this possible, but let's blame the people who are taking advantage of the legislators' short-sighted greed.

dugitman: Didnt Rick Perry do something similar in Texas this year? Lawmakers using loopholes in laws for financial gain? Unpossible.

Yes, he has "retired" and got a huge chunk of cash, but he hasn't retired in any sense of the word that I'm aware of.

Humean_Nature: dugitman: Didnt Rick Perry do something similar in Texas this year? Lawmakers using loopholes in laws for financial gain? Unpossible.

Yes, he has "retired" and got a huge chunk of cash, but he hasn't retired in any sense of the word that I'm aware of.


Actually right now Perry's "retirement" is an annual payout of about $92K, in addition to his $150K governor salary, rather than a lump sum. Of course he'll also get a pension when he leaves the governor's office.

Yeah, pretty shiatty system, but am I supposed to believe that subby (and others) wouldn't do the same for half a mil?

That's a tough pill to swallow.

It;s Philly. Let the whole corrupt thing burn down, save Independence Hall and the important historical stuff, and start over.

you know
one solution to this and pension type problems?
make all retirement accounts into self-directed 401k (or non-profit equivalents)

tada

so tired of this crap

Lionel Mandrake: Yeah, pretty shiatty system, but am I supposed to believe that subby (and others) wouldn't do the same for half a mil?

Not enough people will remember this for it to matter. More people will do stuff that normally should get them hounded and/or shunned by the general public because they know that they only have to survive a week or two while the story is in the news cycle.

Me, of course, if I tried it, with my luck, I'd be sent to prison and everybody would hate me forever, never letting me forget about that time I stole everybody's money.

Angry Drunk Bureaucrat: Whoa there Submitter! Don't be lumping Bureaucrats and Politicians together. Let's not say things we can't take back.

Agrees:

Just because it's wrong, doesn't mean it's illegal.

This is a good example of why we need to slash education budgets and teacher benefits some more, obviously.

How are we supposed to be able to retain top talent in these organizations without proper compensation? Don't engage in that nasty class warfare stuff just because you're jealous, Subby. Go occupy something while you sip at your latte and play with an iPad.

/job creationist logic

Council woman is an elected office right, I would say the voters could vote her out but this is Philadelphia and I don't know if they are allowed to do that.

robbiex0r: We used to tar and feather people for this BS>

used to?
sigh
torches and pitchforks!@!!

bravian: cretinbob: Just because it's wrong, doesn't mean it's illegal.

Pretty much this. I have a hard time getting worked up over someone who is just taking advantage of a broken system.

/fix the fark'n system

And maybe - crazy thought, I know - put the blame on those who broke it.

skullkrusher: man, there is literally nothing good about Philly.

Unless you're a city councilperson I suppose

The Mutter is nice Link (new window)
and the museum of art

Flint Ironstag: Angry Drunk Bureaucrat: Flint Ironstag: Unless she gets another huge payment in four years when she retires again then what is the problem?

I think the difference is that the Councilwoman helped create (or at least retain) the law that let her get the payout in the first place. Your clerk took advantage of a policy that was not within her control.

But when she retires in four years, or whenever, how much will she get then?

Will the two sums added together come to more than had she not taken anything now but just retired in four years?

Will she actually end up better off? She's getting some money now but will (presumably) a much smaller payoff in four years.
Had she taken nothing now but retired in four years she would have got more because she'd have another four years service.

How much better off is she?

she's obviously better off than she would have been. the study said that paying out pensions in this manner has cost the city an extra 25 million per year. can't you imagine why a lump sum payment that draws farking interest from the city and given to her when she hasn't even retired might cost more than a yearly stipend after she actually does retire?

bravian: spongeboob: Council woman is an elected office right, I would say the voters could vote her out but this is Philadelphia and I don't know if they are allowed to do that.

Answer: term limits

/no politician should be in the same position for more than 10 years (or 2 terms for a senator) - that just breeds corruption
//cue some fark'r who will post the President Bartlett quote in 3...2...


Term limits would have to come from somwhere, the voters who keep reelcting people so good luck getting them on board, and what politician is going to go against his own best interest and push them forward. Did any of these folks resign after being elected in 1994, most of them were for term limits as I remember Link (new window)

webthing01: Councilman Frank Rizzo

Still there's a Frank Rizzo in that town?

skullkrusher: spongeboob: skullkrusher: man, there is literally nothing good about Philly.

Unless you're a city councilperson I suppose

The Mutter is nice Link (new window)
and the museum of art

I am not fond of their sports teams so everything else becomes poopie by association...and the inlaws live there


They have sports teams? The Steelers are the only football team in Pennsylvania and Pittsburg did have a baseball team at one time.