Ron Larson/Jerry Taylor Conversation
- By Jerry Taylor
- Published 01/5/2010
- Stuff
From Ron Larson:
I recently read the RFFOW Newsletter for December. In it was a comment by Warbrouck about perhaps proposing legislation to increase benefits for LEOFF 1 & 2 disabled retirees allowing them to attend college tuition free. Note that he was asking for input from RFFOW members.
Now that's a noble thought, but in these tough economic times it seems that opening our pension might allow for the legislators to look at our funds for other uses. I'm also hard pressed to believe that trying to squeeze more blood out of the legislative turnip is likely to occur.
I'm also wondering if Warbrouck's legislative proposals are done with the joint approval of all organizations that represent LEOFF 1 retirees? You know my thoughts on the need for a Coalition, but can one group, regardless of whether it represents fire, sheriffs, police, port police, or any other group, open our pension without consent of the other bodies and pension members?
What is your opinion on this matter?
Ron
And the reply from Jerry Taylor:
Hi Ron,
I think you are reading something into Dick's comments in the RFFOW newsletter. He did not state he was considering proposing such legislation. He said he had received requests for such legislation-I assume from RFFOW members. It seems reasonable to ask his members if this is a benefit they would like to request rather than to simply ignore or propose it. That is sort of what representing your members means, i.e. seeking an understanding of the desires of the membership and then supporting that request. Obviously such a proposal would be subject to debate within the RFFOW and I am certain that Dick would weigh in with his thoughts on the advisability and timing of such a request in that process.
Here is what he actually said:
"We have had two requests for bills to be drafted and introduced. One would allow a retired law enforcement officer or firefighter who retired on a disability to attend a state college, university, or community college without paying tuition. This would be similar to the existing statute for dependents and would include both LEOFF 1 and LEOFF 2 members.
The other would be for the removal of any fees for all firefighters, active or retired, who register at a state park and who can be called upon for assistance in an emergency. If you are interested in either of these two proposals, please let us know."
Since you are a member of the RFFOW I would think that it would be a good thing for you to address your concerns to that organization so that it can get a clear understanding of the will of the membership and then instruct their representative as to the appropriate action.
In your second paragraph you discuss your concerns about such an action by the RFFOW. Again, I think those concerns are reasonable items for discussion within the RFFOW.
You also mention the term "opening our pension". Surely you must know that the term is simply "Coalition speak" for doing nothing. The fact is that 41.26 has been "opened" at almost every session since its inception.
Actually "open" is not a correct term. The correct term is that legislation has been proposed in the form of a bill submitted by a legislator. By taking the position that any support of any proposed amendment to RCW 41.26 is "opening" the law and excessively dangerous of producing a bad result, the Coalition can justify the fact that they have seldom supported and never sought the proposal of any legislation. In my judgment it is a myopic view that ignores the fact that legislation to amend 41.26 is proposed in almost every session. Over the years, that has left the Coalition in the unfortunate position of opposing legislation that actually provided real benefits and improvements to LEOFF 1 members.
Finally, you ask, "… can one group, regardless of whether it represents fire, sheriffs, police, port police, or any other group, open our pension without consent of the other bodies and pension members?"
Actually no group can "open" our pension.
A legislator has to submit a bill that would change the pension. Groups cannot submit bills.
Of course they can ask a legislator to propose a particular piece of legislation and if they can convince the legislator that would be a good thing, he/she might submit such a bill.
In the second part of your question you ask if such a request can be made "without the consent of other bodies and pension members". The short answer is yes they can. They represent their members and if that is what their members want, they can certainly make the request. How would you manage the consent? Would the Coalition be willing to give the RFFOW or the RSPOA veto power over their actions? I hardly think so. Since we don't have a complete listing of all pension members it is not possible to poll them.
There is an even more important underlying point. The RFFOW represents their members. That means the members tell their board what they want and if the board does not follow their instructions they can elect a different board. The ultimate say as to what the RFFOW does rests with their membership. Their board, officers and lobbyist simply represent their views.
Contrast that to the Coalition where the bulk of the board is not elected by anyone and the rest are subject to the acceptance by the entire board. Not only do they not represent anyone, there are no members to remove them if they disagree with their policies.
They claim they represent all LEOFF 1 members but that representation has a caveat. That is, we know best so you must agree with our positions. If you disagree-too bad.
Ron, you are a member of the RFFOW. You can express your views to your board. If you don't like the way they lead your organization you can garner the membership to remove them from office. You cannot do that with the Coalition. You are not a member, you have no vote and, consequently, you have no representation.
As a practical matter the way government works is that interest groups finds a sponsor to propose legislation to meet the needs of the particular interest groups. Over the years the RFFOW has made numerous proposals for changes they believe will help their membership.
Sometimes they are successful in getting such a proposal passed into legislation. In fact, the RFFOW has been successful in a number of important areas. Other organizations that actually represent their membership generally take one of three courses relative to such legislative proposals. If they agree, they join in support.
If they disagree but see no harm to their membership, they stand aside. If they think the legislation works to the detriment of their membership, they oppose the bill.
Thank you for your note and comments. At LEOFF1.Net, our sole goal is to provide information to all LEOFF 1 members. We want to stimulate discussion on LEOFF 1 issues.
In the case of the proposals discussed in the RFFOW newsletter, LEOFF1.Net has no position. If such a proposal is put forward, we would look at the bill publish an editorial comment on our thoughts relative to a advisability of such an action.
At this time we simply do not know any details and, according the RFFOW newsletter, they are simply seeking membership comment on the concept. Hence, there is nothing to consider, nothing to comment upon.
Jerry Taylor
I recently read the RFFOW Newsletter for December. In it was a comment by Warbrouck about perhaps proposing legislation to increase benefits for LEOFF 1 & 2 disabled retirees allowing them to attend college tuition free. Note that he was asking for input from RFFOW members.
Now that's a noble thought, but in these tough economic times it seems that opening our pension might allow for the legislators to look at our funds for other uses. I'm also hard pressed to believe that trying to squeeze more blood out of the legislative turnip is likely to occur.
I'm also wondering if Warbrouck's legislative proposals are done with the joint approval of all organizations that represent LEOFF 1 retirees? You know my thoughts on the need for a Coalition, but can one group, regardless of whether it represents fire, sheriffs, police, port police, or any other group, open our pension without consent of the other bodies and pension members?
What is your opinion on this matter?
Ron
And the reply from Jerry Taylor:
Hi Ron,
I think you are reading something into Dick's comments in the RFFOW newsletter. He did not state he was considering proposing such legislation. He said he had received requests for such legislation-I assume from RFFOW members. It seems reasonable to ask his members if this is a benefit they would like to request rather than to simply ignore or propose it. That is sort of what representing your members means, i.e. seeking an understanding of the desires of the membership and then supporting that request. Obviously such a proposal would be subject to debate within the RFFOW and I am certain that Dick would weigh in with his thoughts on the advisability and timing of such a request in that process.
Here is what he actually said:
"We have had two requests for bills to be drafted and introduced. One would allow a retired law enforcement officer or firefighter who retired on a disability to attend a state college, university, or community college without paying tuition. This would be similar to the existing statute for dependents and would include both LEOFF 1 and LEOFF 2 members.
The other would be for the removal of any fees for all firefighters, active or retired, who register at a state park and who can be called upon for assistance in an emergency. If you are interested in either of these two proposals, please let us know."
Since you are a member of the RFFOW I would think that it would be a good thing for you to address your concerns to that organization so that it can get a clear understanding of the will of the membership and then instruct their representative as to the appropriate action.
In your second paragraph you discuss your concerns about such an action by the RFFOW. Again, I think those concerns are reasonable items for discussion within the RFFOW.
You also mention the term "opening our pension". Surely you must know that the term is simply "Coalition speak" for doing nothing. The fact is that 41.26 has been "opened" at almost every session since its inception.
Actually "open" is not a correct term. The correct term is that legislation has been proposed in the form of a bill submitted by a legislator. By taking the position that any support of any proposed amendment to RCW 41.26 is "opening" the law and excessively dangerous of producing a bad result, the Coalition can justify the fact that they have seldom supported and never sought the proposal of any legislation. In my judgment it is a myopic view that ignores the fact that legislation to amend 41.26 is proposed in almost every session. Over the years, that has left the Coalition in the unfortunate position of opposing legislation that actually provided real benefits and improvements to LEOFF 1 members.
Finally, you ask, "… can one group, regardless of whether it represents fire, sheriffs, police, port police, or any other group, open our pension without consent of the other bodies and pension members?"
Actually no group can "open" our pension.
A legislator has to submit a bill that would change the pension. Groups cannot submit bills.
Of course they can ask a legislator to propose a particular piece of legislation and if they can convince the legislator that would be a good thing, he/she might submit such a bill.
In the second part of your question you ask if such a request can be made "without the consent of other bodies and pension members". The short answer is yes they can. They represent their members and if that is what their members want, they can certainly make the request. How would you manage the consent? Would the Coalition be willing to give the RFFOW or the RSPOA veto power over their actions? I hardly think so. Since we don't have a complete listing of all pension members it is not possible to poll them.
There is an even more important underlying point. The RFFOW represents their members. That means the members tell their board what they want and if the board does not follow their instructions they can elect a different board. The ultimate say as to what the RFFOW does rests with their membership. Their board, officers and lobbyist simply represent their views.
Contrast that to the Coalition where the bulk of the board is not elected by anyone and the rest are subject to the acceptance by the entire board. Not only do they not represent anyone, there are no members to remove them if they disagree with their policies.
They claim they represent all LEOFF 1 members but that representation has a caveat. That is, we know best so you must agree with our positions. If you disagree-too bad.
Ron, you are a member of the RFFOW. You can express your views to your board. If you don't like the way they lead your organization you can garner the membership to remove them from office. You cannot do that with the Coalition. You are not a member, you have no vote and, consequently, you have no representation.
As a practical matter the way government works is that interest groups finds a sponsor to propose legislation to meet the needs of the particular interest groups. Over the years the RFFOW has made numerous proposals for changes they believe will help their membership.
Sometimes they are successful in getting such a proposal passed into legislation. In fact, the RFFOW has been successful in a number of important areas. Other organizations that actually represent their membership generally take one of three courses relative to such legislative proposals. If they agree, they join in support.
If they disagree but see no harm to their membership, they stand aside. If they think the legislation works to the detriment of their membership, they oppose the bill.
Thank you for your note and comments. At LEOFF1.Net, our sole goal is to provide information to all LEOFF 1 members. We want to stimulate discussion on LEOFF 1 issues.
In the case of the proposals discussed in the RFFOW newsletter, LEOFF1.Net has no position. If such a proposal is put forward, we would look at the bill publish an editorial comment on our thoughts relative to a advisability of such an action.
At this time we simply do not know any details and, according the RFFOW newsletter, they are simply seeking membership comment on the concept. Hence, there is nothing to consider, nothing to comment upon.
Jerry Taylor
