"Who is responsible for this? How do they justify it?"

We, the voters are responsible for this because we continue to re-elect city council members who allow this and other things like it to go on within city hall.

To clean-up city hall we have to first clean up the city council. Do one and we get the other.

If we continue to re-elect people who refuse to address these issues, people who don't want to rock the boat, people who we know have been doing this for years and years, and people who refuse to publicly state their position on these issues then we have got to recognize that nothing is ever going to change.

People can write letters to the editor, people can publicly complain during the open mike before the city council, people can write incessantly on forums and blogs and none of it will do one thing to change anything until we all start to "get it" and start to vote intelligently and responsibly.

Sadly, voters for city and local officers in Naperville are mostly a pretty apathetic bunch. An extremely low per cent turn out to vote and as a consequence those who do get elected do not really represent a fair cross section of the population. Those who do get out and vote are electing representatives who are running the city to their liking.

Those who don't vote either don't know, don't care, or things aren't yet bad enough for them to take voting seriously. And until we can get more people to exercise their constitutional right we will continue to allow less than ideal candidates to get elected.

Glad you like the analogy. It is a good fit for guys like him.

Here is another one, courtesy of the USAF. Years ago women who served in the USAF were referred to as WAF's... Womens Air Force. Male service members who got stuck doing jobs that were typically assigned to WAF's were referred to as titless WAF's.

Well, maybe we need more titless WAF's instead of paying perfectly productive people to "retire" at such a young age. Granted, there may be certain aspects of doing some police and fire jobs that become difficult to do after a certain age. However, that does not rule out all aspects of all positions.

There are still plenty of other positions in both departments that could be filled by existing police and fire personnel when they reach a certain age instead of hiring other people and then we end up with two retirements instead of one.

Let's also not forget that the city has some pretty lucrative education benefits for city employees and with the way both police and fire shifts are structured it is really easy for both police and fire to take advantage of getting additional degrees or advanced degrees at the taxpayer expense while they are counting down the days to an early retirement... all with the goal of getting another job or starting another career that they prepared for while earning a salary and pension as a city employee.

And let's not forget all of the sweetheart overtime deals they collect while city employees nor the fact that a lot of them are working all kinds of part time and even full time jobs while on the city payroll... even though some are not supposed to work other jobs without permission.

In some cases the supervisors know full well what is going on, but the good old boy, wink, wink lets them get away with it. Then there are other examples that a lot of people don't know about, but it is fairly common for a lot of firefighters to be working two full time jobs! Yep, they work 24 on and 48 off and instead of resting the 48 off they go and get another job in another city and collect another full time salary and benefits and YES, another pension.

The only thing they have to do is keep their noses clean and their shift assignments in synch and they can do this all the way up until they collect retirement from both cities and collect two pensions and then still get another full time job. And those who aren't holding a second job with another fire department most are doing something else on their days off in terms of full time, part time work, i.e. anyone who lives in Naperville gets a flyer on their door at least twice a year from "fireman sealcoaters".

I've often wondered how much workers comp abuse goes on among all of these city employees who get hurt working these other jobs during their "time off" who turn around and claim they got injured while working for the city? I'm willing to bet a significant portion of our workers comp cost may fall into this category. I've also heard some workers get away with collecting workers comp from two cities at the same time because neither city knows the other city is also employing the same worker and there is no central clearing house that flags the fact that a worker is already off on workers comp somewhere else. When that goes on it really isn't an abuse or reform issue. Something like that should be treated like criminal fraud and prosecuted to the full extent of the law. But then again, who guards the centurians? Don't expect an investigation any time soon when it comes to protecting your brother in blue.

Part of the inequities with the existing retirement system is that new police and fire can start work at a defined minimum age and can theoretically hired up to a defined maximum age, or anywhere in between. This creates a gray area where someone who starts at the absolute youngest age can retire significantly earlier than someone else who starts at the absolute maximum age.

So while we may not want people of a certain age performing certain aspects of some of the police and fire positions after a certain age there clearly exists a gray area where we are already allowing some people to retire too young because other people are still performing the same job for years past when the youngest are able to retire which only further demonstrates that those who set up the existing rules were either in collaboration with those who continue to exploit such an imbalanced system or they weren't terribly brilliant people who should never have been entrusted with setting up such work rules in the first place.

For example, if you have to be 21 to be hired as a police officer and have to put in 20 years to retire that puts you into retirement around 41. On the other hand the maximum age to be hired as a police officer is something like 35. So 35 plus 20 puts another person doing the same exact job up until they are 55. That is a 14 year difference in additional retirement paid to some just because they were hired at a younger age, not because they are no longer "fit" to still perform the work. And it pretty much illustrates how weak the argument is that certain jobs can't be performed after a certain age. Apparently the job can be fully performed by those who still have the carrot of a city pension hanging in front of them.

Clearly one of the retirement reforms that is needed is to set a minimum age that has to be met first, followed by a second qualifier of minimum years of service. This is not unfair and it is not unequal. In the above example someone would still be working and collecting a full city salary and benefits for 14 additional year and we all know city salaries and benefits are a very good deal.

The truth is these city workers aren't interested in working a day past the absolute first day they can collect and if you talk to absolutely any of them you will discover every single one of them is counting down the years, months, weeks, and days until they "retire" and start collecting. And they will all shrug their shoulders and say "hey I didn't set the rules, I'm just following they system" and at the same time we all know their UNION worked real hard to set up this system that they claim to have had no hand in creating.

And the jerks we elected and trusted to look out for our best interests as citizens and taxpayers sold us all down the river. Some were liars and crooks, some were just inept, and others have had a conflict of interest. It is time we only elect representatives who will promise to reform the entire mess of public pensions, public salaries, public benefits, public work rules, etc, and live up to their election promises.

Oh he's collecting, count on it. It's a Police Pension, so he is eligible for that at ????50???. In truth, given the fact that it is common knowledge that the man has no skills or abilities, it is the City that should be embarrassed to be bilking us, the taxpayers, for this and the many other chair fillers who are making hundreds of thousands of dollars. Who is responsible for this? How do they justify it?

Love the analogy, it has always been one of my favorites. Don't know if its accurate or not as I don't deal with him.

My question is does anyone know if he is actually collecting the pension. I know he retired, but if he didn't have sufficient age when he retired he would of had to defer the pension until he was in his 60's. Then he will be getting a very nice check from two pension systems, but right now the only check he is getting may be from his salary as a current city employee.

It would be difficult to combine all of the pension systems. One, I don't want a 60 plus year old firefighter or police officer on the street. Statistically very expensive because of illness and workers comp claims. On the other hand, I don't think a city attorney should be retiring at 50 when they have a lot of productive years left at the job they are doing. Secondly, the financial health of the various pension funds across the state goes from flat broke today to only broke in 50 or 60 years if things don't change. I wouldn't want to add the burden of a bad pension fund to the healthy ones the city is paying into.

Everyone knows he is as useless as tits on a boar hog. The only reason he has this job is because he can't get a job anywhere else. It seems the only place in America where lower middle management positions like his still exist are in the government sector. Clearly government human resources isn't performing very well either.

However, despite him being a bumbling fool the problem is more about the reform that is needed in public employee pensions.

A person is either retired or they are working. If a person in the private sector is working they generally either can't collect social security or there is a limitation on how much they can earn before their social security is drastically reduced. It should be no different for public employees.

A retirement is intended to be a way to fund years when a person is no longer capable of work. A retirement is not supposed to be a something one collects and then continues to work full time.

All public employees regardless of what branch of local or state government should pay into and receive benefits from the same retirement system which should be responsible for ending double and triple dipping. (There is a related problem with double and triple dipping with retired federal employees too that would have to be dealt with.)

If a "retired" person continues to work they should not be receiving a pension and should continue to pay into the pension plan. Part of the problem is that people are allowed to retire at too young of an age and are allowed to collect benefits they don't need. Part of the solution is to raise the age and years of service required to retire and to raise the age when benefits may be collected.

This can result in a some gray years where a person may or may not be working either voluntarily or involuntarily. Simple solution is if they are working and making over "X" dollars their pension gets suspended. If they are not working then they get to collect it. One or the other, not both, not all three.

Just yesterday there was a report on community college professors who are really raking it in... pulling out 10 times what they paid in in about 3 to 5 years. I'm not sure how the people we entrusted to oversee this stuff ended up giving away the farm which is costing us all dearly so a select few can personally benefit, but it sickens me and it is time we all demand lasting and meaningful pension reform.

That was a joke at the City Council meeting wasn't it! Have you ever seen such a bumbled explanation of a decision? Would have been simpler to just tell the truth .... the Beer Bar is going to bring a LOT of money to the table, so these folks made an exception to the rules that apply to everyone else. It's not a new concept for them, just more blatant than usual.

So true about the Assistant City Manager. Most people who were employed over their heads these days are getting unemployment checks, but apparently at the City they are simply promoted several levels beyond their level of incompetence. Can I get a refund on my next tax bill? I don't mind paying for the services I receive, but paying for some guy to fill a chair isn't on my priority list.

He's not smart enough to know what he's doing. He doesn't actively do anything. The City Manager has worked to reduce pensions, which is what the Council told him to do. Marshall just sits back and collects his cash.

Here's a test. Ever see a memo from Bob, that Bob actually wrote, on a City Council Agenda? No, it's never happened. Look on the City's website. The guy can't add up a column of numbers. He can, however, add his police pension to his city salary and come up with a quarter of a million dollars a year he bilks from the taxpayers.

Some people are born lucky.

"It's only a moral failing when you draw it while the City you work for actively campaigns to reduce Pensions."

Well, it's a possible conflict of interest if he is involved in the campaign to reduce pensions; otherwise, I don't think it's necessarily a moral failing.

It's only a moral failing when you draw it while the City you work for actively campaigns to reduce Pensions. How can someone like Marshall look himself in the mirror while taking a Police pension, making $150,000 in current salary, and earning another excessive pension? AND to sit back and watch people who actually contribute to the organization be let go, live with wage freeze's and benefit cuts is self serving and exemplifies what is wrong with local government in general, and Naperville in particular. Any reasonable person would be ashamed, especially so given the fact that he contributes absolutely nothing of value to the organization or the taxpayers.

Bob Marshall received his masters From DePaul. And, no, I have never spoken to him and don't really have an opinion as to his abilities and other qualifications, except to say that the fact that he is drawing a police pension should not automatically disqualify him from other government employment, even if it means he'll eventually get a second pension.

That's not to say I think pension double-dipping should be allowed. But as for as long as it is allowed, I don't think it's a moral failing for people to receive two pensions.

-JQP

From WHERE? Have you ever spoken to the man? Must have been one of those mail order degree's. Not worth $1.50, much less $150,000 plus TWO public pensions.

Assistant City Manager Bob Marshall has a masters in Public Administration.

And do not forget our investment in the GM (Government Motors) Volt which is seeing sluggish sales at best while I will say was probably the most expensive exhibit at the Chicago Auto Show in January. But I will have a tough choice on Thursday. Do I watch this unaccomplished President kick the can down the road in his speech to Congress or do I gear up to watch men kick the football around the field? Hmmm. Obama will have perhaps tax credits for new hires, not the answer. He wants to create a governement funded infrastructure bank (which will go bankrupt of course) not the answer. Additional unemployment benefit extensions. Not the answer. What he will not say is the wholesale reduction of the size and scope of government. Ahh. Now that is a start in the right direction. By the way, can anyone explain why Harvard has a $36BIL endowment fund? I would like to see the Treasury examine all college endowment funds because folks, I think it is time for Harvard and perhaps other universities to start paying their fair share too.

Wow LaC .... how do they justify that? How do they let go of one guy who makes half as much claiming budget issues, yet continue to pay someone (or multiple someone's?) $150,000 a year when they don't have abilities to back that up? Hate to bring up the age old comparison, but in the private sector, people without qualifications don't get salaries like that, they don't have jobs, not in this economy or any other. Even if you completely ignore the pension issues, which are HUGE in a case like this (how many others might there be?), the salary alone is offensive to me as a taxpayer. Does he have a PHD in Urban studies or Political science or something?

Maybe the Sun, or another publication/interested party could FOIA this, and find out what qualifications the top 20 wage earners are paid, with bonus, pension, and all other compensation included. It would be interesting to see what we are getting (or not getting) for our tax dollars.

He's still there with a $100k pension and $150k job. However, I don't think that the city can do anything about it. They are pension laws. He'll be there forever. He doesn't qualify for any other jobs-even the one he has.

No.

Funny. I heard it was named Obama's Fault. But I like Bush's better. :)

The Sun is doing everything it can to stay afloat. The 3-5 year outlook for community newspapers isn't very good. Naperville may end up sooner than we think getting used to not having a local newspaper.

The Sun doesn't have enough money or people to dig into anything. Even when the Sun had better resources in past years it never demonstrated much interest in reporting on local government corruption. The main focus has always been a bias towards presenting Naperville as some kind of Mayberry more than what it really is once the surface is scratched.

The council can talk and discuss all it wants. It has to take action because the people have voted. Forget not this should already be in place but the city being the lumbering bureaucracy it is went to court to get an extension on implementing it.

If the council tries to pull a fast one they know they will get sued by a bunch of different groups. And any ringleaders within the city council will stand the wrath of the voters.

If one goes and looks back over time there is a huge concentration of city council members coming from a clustered area surrounding downtown. Established good old boy network if there ever was one! Just watch them try to create a bunch of wards like slides of pie that radiate out from the center of downtown to do their best to still keep this lopsided control and over representation. And of course then there are the 3 at large representatives on top of that which city council forced down everyones throat as part of the deal to get wards and as a partial way for some of them to cling to their seats... for a while. Thank god for term limits even though those were too broadly written and again the existing city council wrote it with their own self serving interest in mind ahead of the interest of the citizens at large. Maybe most people will see it for what it really was... a desperate attempt to cling to power for a few more years... and turn all of them out to pasture.

And in a couple of year let's have another vote and revisit term limits and knock it back to two terms with no distinction between serving as mayor or a city council member... just two terms on the council regardless. While we are revisiting things in a couple of years let's take another vote on wards and get rid of the three at large council members. If that means keeping eight alderman and making each ward smaller that would be ok, but I think I'd really like to keep it at just 5 alderman and cut down on the bulk of city government. Let's see a reduction of 3 aldermen would be a 37.5% reduction. Now if only we could get a 37.5% reduction in every city department that would be an accomplishment!

For every argument fools like Bill Mego can come up with against going to a ward system there are at least a half dozen positives that are in the absolute best interest of citizens and voters. I've often wondered if Bill was raised without a mother because he wants to live in the ultimate nanny state where the government makes all of his decisions and tells him how to live his life. No thanks! I already have one mother and she raised me to make my own decisions for myself.

BTW, can anyone imagine how really, really screwed up our state and federal government would be if all of the legislatures were elected "at large"? Having local representation is a basic tenant of American government and that definitely includes drilling it down to municipal government as well. Sorry, not all Naperville neighborhoods are the same and have the same issues or concerns.

Of course the business community doesn't like wards but they don't get any symphony from most voters since the courts have basically given businesses free reign to buy off all of the corrupt elected officials by filling their campaigns full of corporate cash.

What is really a shame is that most Americans have never experienced a town hall meeting form of local government and a town hall meeting is still the absolute best design of local government because there are no city council members or alderman or anything else and the power is held by the people. In Illinois, a township government is as close to this as we get. But, like all things in government we CAN change that.

I don't pretend to know why Mego says or does anything. I'm not certain he knows, either.

T.B.

It would be funny if it wasn't so sad. They claim so many people have been asking if they can change it? How many exactly? MORE than have expressed concern over Smart Grid? Council isn't willing to look at that, and aren't asking for a confirmation vote on that project. Then again, they never allowed any of us to vote for that in the first place, so lets not pretend that this is about consideration for what the residents want. The residents who VOTE, already said what they want on this - but since it isn't to these council members advantage, they want to find a legal way to step around the public vote.

Remember the names of those who are jumping on this bandwagon, and make sure they are the FIRST to go when the next local election rolls around. That is the only way we ever have City Management who are more interested in doing the right thing for the City than they are in serving their own personal interests. .

That would make for a good comparison... a book that goes back in history and looks at all of the campaign promises made to the people and then compares it to what the president actually did in office. How many issues were outright lies, how many flip-flops, etc.

One term vs two term track records could be compared.

Democrat vs Republican track records could be compared.

It would really be interesting to see who was the most ethical in this rregard, who had the best track record, and which party fared the best as well.

Sadly, I'm not sure either party, while one will end up being better than the other, did terribly well in an overall percentage.

It would also be interesting to go back and track which presidents openly ignored the Constitution because that is an important aspect that many don't know about. My vote would be for Teddy Roosevelt on that alone. If good old Teddy was trying to pull what he got away with today he would have been impeached, thrown out of office, and maybe even done some jail time.

Yes, DF will be running in 2012. He is going to give a backhand to the debt crisis and fix America. DF in 2012.

Paul Ryan from Wisconsin.

The question is will the Democrats continue to leave a sinking ship and try to get Hillary to run as a candidate?

Such as?

Mr. AP, your voter age numbers include the illegal aliens.

And a non voter carries several dimensions. One is abdicating their responsibilty and allowing others to set the course. Another is empowering the special interests.

There have been times I have not voted, I view that as none of the above. An interesting concept could enter our elections if a candidate would need 50% plus 1 of the registered voteres (or some percentage such as 80%). Then offices would not be filled unless a majority acted to do so.

The other issue is the lack of clarity in politics. The most damning aspect of this deficit issue: the unsustainable increase in spending. It appears that the stiumulus money was added to the base budget AND that amount increases by 8% per year. With 0 inflation, low population growth, etc. Why this concept is not more clear and in the debate is beyond me. THIS IS CLEARLY A SPENDING PROBLEM, NOT A SHORTAGE OF REVENUE.

And McCain should have lost in Arizona, what a spineless person. They should send him over to Lieberman's side of the aisle.