Housing, Transit Retirees Press for VSF Coverage;

Housing, Transit Retirees Press for VSF Coverage


A group of retired Housing and Transit Police officers who say they've been wrongfully denied additional pension benefits are pressing the City Council to approve a bill that would grant them the funds - but fear that time is running out for the measure to be acted on this year.

ANDREW LANZA: 'They deserve equal treatment.'

The Variable Supplements Fund (VSF) was created in 1970 after the city agreed to give uniformed members of the Police and Fire departments a pension supplement retroactive to October 1968 in return for the right to invest their pension funds in the stock market.

To circumvent state laws forbidding any reduction in pension funds, (and because the city did not want to commit to paying the benefits indefinitely), the funds were defined as "non-pension'' - with payments directly tied to stock-market profits exceeding a set level.

Now Pays $12,000 Annually

The city and the affected unions later agreed beginning in 1988 to change the VSFs into "Defined Benefit" plans which have grown to provide eligible retirees an extra benefit of $12,000 a year.

JOSEPH L. BALZANO: A sense of urgency.

Union representatives of both the Transit and Housing officers, who at the time the VSFs were implemented were not included because they were not members of the Police Pension Fund, later got the city to extend the VSF benefits to their members who had retired after June 30, 1987. Prior to the merger of the Transit and Housing Police Departments into the NYPD in 1995, officers from those forces belonged to the New York City Employees' Retirement System.

Transit and Housing cops who retired between Oct. 1, 1968 and June 30, 1987 were excluded from the VSF, however, and have waged a thus-far futile campaign to be made eligible.

"All we want is parity," said Joseph L. Balzano, the legislative director for the Retired New York City Housing and Transit Officers. A Housing Police Officer from 1954 until his retirement in 1977, Mr. Balzano and his colleagues continue to lobby state and city lawmakers for coverage.

Former State Sen. John J. Marchi sponsored such a bill in 2003 and again in 2005, but neither was approved by the City Council, which must approve a home-rule message before Albany can act on matters concerning city workers and retirees.

His successor in Staten Island's 24th District, Andrew J. Lanza, re-introduced the bill in March 2007. "These officers who worked in transit and housing should be treated no differently than [those receiving benefits]," said Senator Lanza in a June 4 phone interview. "They stand by us every day, keeping us safe, and it's just as important that we support them and stand by them in return. We're hoping the City Council steps up and delivers a home rule that allows us to eliminate the unfair way these officers are being treated by the system."

Press Quinn to Act

He wrote to Council Speaker Christine C. Quinn urging her to approve a home-rule message last year.

Ms. Quinn, responding to a letter from another retired officer in November 2007, wrote, "We expect to reach a final decision in the spring when we have a clearer, more complete picture of the city's outlook for the coming fiscal year."

In February, Senator Lanza again asked Speaker Quinn to act on the bill before the legislative session ends June 23.

The cost of the bill has caused another problem. Because of recent conflict-of-interest issues regarding notes written for the Legislature by an actuary who had been employed by numerous unions, all notes that involve pension benefits are being re-evaluated by the state.

Senator Lanza's communications coordinator said June 3 that he is looking for a way to speed up that process with regard to the VSF bill. Fiscal notes for the bill have ranged from approximately $15 million annually in 2004 to $12 million in 2007 and $10 million in 2008.

A Dwindling Group

Mr. Balzano said, "They're trying to figure out the cost, but it's diminishing as we're dying." According to figures from NYCERS, as of January 2004 the bill would have applied to 1,107 officers. As of May 19, the number had dropped to 940. "We're losing about 40 people a year," said Mr. Balzano bitterly. "That's a lot of savings for [the city]."

A spokeswoman for Ms. Quinn in mid-spring stated, "The home rule message will be considered and evaluated by staff during the review process. We are at the beginning stages of the review process of home rule messages, and as the review continues we will know more about what will happen in the spring."

As this newspaper went to press June 9, there has been no further reply from Ms. Quinn's office.

"If this bill does not reach the Governor's desk this year we will reintroduce the legislation next year ... it is and will continue to be a priority for us," said Mr. Lanza's spokeswoman."

But for Mr. Balzano and others, next year is not soon enough. "I'm 78 years old," he said. "I can't keep doing this forever."