When a corrupt public official goes to prison, it defies common sense to reward him with a government pension for holding the job that he abused. Such a situation robs taxpayers twice: once when they pay the salary of a dishonest official who uses his job to break the law and again when they pay for his retirement.

Yet the General Assembly has for two years refused to pass a bill that would revoke the pensions of state and municipal officials who are convicted or plead no contest to taking bribes or engaging in other corrupt practices. The legislature’s reluctance is difficult to comprehend. The state has endured spectacular, and shameful, examples of malfeasance among government officials in the last several years. Yet these same officials can depend on publicly financed retirements.

Former Gov. John Rowland, who served nearly a year in prison for corruption, will be eligible to collect a state pension of $50,000 annually in five years, when he turns 55. Former Mayor Joseph Ganim of Bridgeport, who brazenly shook down businesses bidding for municipal contracts, will nonetheless be eligible for a city pension after he leaves prison.

Lawmakers have discussed repealing the pensions of past offenders, but such a measure would be complicated and subject to many legal challenges. The least they could do is to prevent corrupt officials in the future from collecting a public pension.

In January, lawmakers vowed to write a bill that would set a clear standard of behavior for public officials from now on. But with three weeks to go in the session, Senate Bill 1183 is still a work in progress. It needs to be toughened, and Senator Gayle Slossberg, Democrat of Milford, has promised a new draft worthy of public support. That’s good, because the bill approved earlier in committee left it to judges’ discretion to revoke pensions of corrupt politicians or leave them intact. Such leeway renders the bill almost meaningless and puts judges under unnecessary political pressure.

Senator Slossberg proposes wording that would ensure that future high-level officials will lose their pensions if they are convicted of corruption, while allowing judges discretion in cases involving lower-level workers. “It is so much worse when the governor violates public trust than the worker who inadvertently brings home a box of pencils,” Senator Slossberg said.

She is right. But as they struggle for balance, lawmakers should remember how hard it is in Connecticut to prosecute public officials of such crimes. The chief state’s attorney has weak powers to investigate public corruption. The recent high-profile cases came about because federal prosecutors, to their credit, vigorously enforced the law. It is highly unlikely that the feds would swoop down on a secretary who swiped a box of pencils.

While they are toughening that bill, lawmakers should pass House Bill 6242, which would give municipalities power to recall mayors or selectmen who hold four-year terms of office. Only five municipalities in the state have the power to recall their elected officials, and Bridgeport is not among them. That is why Mayor Ganim continued in office for nearly 14 months after he was indicted on 24 counts of racketeering, bribery and extortion, finally resigning a few weeks after his conviction. The potential of more such embarrassments will continue unless the General Assembly acts.

Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/20/opinion/nyregionopinions/CT-pensions.html

Incoming search terms:

• john rowland pension
• Money and Jail
• jail money
• money in jail
• money jail
• jail and money
• money handcuffs
• money handcuff
• handcuffs with money
• money or jail