Majority of Council DROPs out of sight

WHEN IT comes to DROP, a majority of City Council is sheltering in place, hiding from a discussion of a program that city taxpayers hate.

As I reported a couple of weeks ago, DROP has cost our cash-strapped city about $1.2 billion so far. When DROP - the Deferred Retirement Option Program - was launched in 1999, it was thought to be revenue-neutral. It wasn't.

By 2010, it already had cost the city an extra $258 million, according to a city-authorized Boston College analysis released that year. That figure has only risen since then.

DROP was intended to retain valuable employees by offering them a financial incentive to stay, inducing slackers to leave, and simultaneously providing planners with a reliable retirement schedule.

Designed for city employees, on its way to passage by Council . . . abracadabra, elected officials magically were included.

Even worse, even though enrollment in DROP required an "irrevocable" promise to retire, some elected officials "retired" for as long as it took to grab a pot o' gold, then returned to their jobs.

With the public howling about the cynical abuse, in 2009 the General Assembly banned all future elected officials from DROP. Council followed suit, but grandfathered themselves.

Talk about looking out for you, the taxpayer.

Today, the program keeps rolling along, even though the Pennsylvania Intergovernmental Cooperation Authority (PICA) says it costs the city money.

In November, Council got its largest overhaul in recent years, with five new members joining the (cough, cough) august body. I thought this might be a good time to get everyone on record and perhaps lay the DROP beast to rest.

Fantasies are fun.

On Monday, I emailed all 17 members of Council asking each if he or she would be willing to end DROP, except for police and firefighters, who don't get Social Security. Because current city employees would remain eligible for DROP, ending the gravy train requires the least imaginable level of political courage.

Despite being (in my view) a win-win, no one on Council was willing to drive a stake through its heart, although two came close, among the eight who replied. The nine Profiles in Courage who ducked are all Democrats: Council President Darrell Clarke, Jannie Blackwell, Curtis Jones Jr., Maria Quiñones Sánchez, Cindy Bass, Blondell Reynolds Brown, Helen Gym, Kenyatta Johnson, Derek Green.

Republican At-Large Councilman David Oh said he might sponsor a bill to ban DROP "if the numbers established clearly that it should be introduced and it was not precluded as a condition of employment subject to labor/management negotiations."

He was joined by Democratic At-Large Councilman Allan Domb, who said he would consider writing legislation to end DROP but only after studying "the data surrounding this issue and meetings with the appropriate parties."

On the other hand, "I believe DROP does provide for seasoned employees to transition from the workforce and give the city the time to properly train qualified replacements," said Democrat Bill Greenlee, adding that although he could enroll in DROP, he won't.

I respect the opinion of Greenlee, an at-large councilman, but I disagree - and it's not just me.

Although the Economy League of Greater Philadelphia has not studied DROP specifically, executive director Steven Wray asked, "Is this a necessary benefit for retention of indispensable employees? I don't see evidence that is the case."

City workers have generous pensions in an era when they are crumbling in the private sector. They are entitled to pensions, but why additional sweetener?

Between the launch of DROP in 1999 and Dec. 31, 2015, a total of 10,688 city workers have received $1.2 billion from the program.

Last January, PICA suggested abolishing DROP.

Mayors John Street and Michael Nutter wanted to end DROP, as did Jim Kenney when he was on Council.

"DROP has no value," says David Thornburgh, CEO of the Committee of Seventy civic watchdog group.

Republican 10th District Councilman Brian O'Neill did not say how he would vote on DROP, but said he would not enroll in it.

Democratic Sixth District Councilman Bobby Henon said he wants "a fair pension system that the city can afford," but doesn't want legislation now as unions are in court challenging past changes to DROP.

First District Councilman Mark Squilla also cited the court case. "It is difficult to make a decision about the future of DROP not knowing how the courts will rule," he said.

"My office is currently studying the broad landscape of retirement security in Philadelphia," said Ninth District Councilwoman Cherelle Parker, adding that it would be "premature" to comment before the examination is finished.

Republican At-Large Councilman Al Taubenberger said, "I would support the removal of the DROP option for employees if it was proven to be costing the city and taxpayers the $1.2 billion." That is the number I had reported, citing the Pension Board.

Taubenberger said he's heard different stories from unions and PICA and the Committee of Seventy. He would support Council hearings "debating and discussing who is right and who is wrong on the facts," he told me.

Hearings have been held in the past, but that was then, and this is now. OK, let's reinvent the wheel.

Council could call in all of the stakeholders - from unions to taxpayers - and figure out the costs and benefits of DROP.

And then kill it.

Email: stubyko@phillynews.com

Phone: 215-854-5977

On Twitter: @StuBykofsky

Blog: ph.ly/BykoColumns: ph.ly/StuBykofsky