Put the public first

A special commission trying to fix the state’s pension-forfeiture law — which applies to public employees who commit job-related crimes — seems to be tipping the scale in favor of those workers who abuse the public trust. That really wasn’t the point of this exercise.

Last year the state’s highest court restored the pension and health benefits of a police officer who had been convicted of a job-related crime, concluding that yanking his lifetime pension amounted to an excessive fine. The officer had been convicted of a misdemeanor (for cyber-snooping on other officers’ Civil Service test scores).

The ruling made legal sense — clarifying that a pension forfeiture is, under the law, a fine, and may not be out of proportion to the underlying offense.

But in attempting to address that new reality, the Special Commission on Pension Forfeiture overreaches.

Under the current “all-or-nothing” law, if a member of a public employee retirement plan is convicted of “a criminal offense involving violation of the laws applicable to his office or position,” that member’s pension is forfeited. It’s what happened to Sal DiMasi. Tom Finneran, too.

But the commission wants to permit even those employees who have been convicted of a serious job-related crime to draw a “minimum allowance” from the pension fund, provided the employee has worked for the state for 10 years.

We’re not talking about huge sums — under the minimum allowance an affected employee with a $100,000 salary would get $15,000 in retirement benefits.

But the amount hardly matters. It’s the idea that an individual could embezzle public funds or accept bribes — and

still be entitled to lifetime benefits — that rankles.

The commission also wants to empower retirement boards to determine how much of an offending employee’s pension should be sacrificed, under a tiered system that would consider the nature and circumstances of the crime. That would appear to open a political Pandora’s box.

If lawmakers take up the commission’s recommendations, they should scrap the minimum allowance provision. Conviction of a job-related felony should always be accompanied by pension forfeiture.

If they need more “wiggle room” for lesser crimes, they might consider that partial forfeiture system for those who are convicted of job-related misdemeanors.

But actions have consequences, and the pension-forfeiture law should reflect that.