Benson, Pierce Critical Of Move
posted October 22, 2007
Mayor Ron Littlefield said Monday he has decided to put former City Councilwoman Marti Rutherford back on the city payroll for a three-day period so she can qualify for retirement medical benefits.
He said she is covered under the city plan through the end of the month, but she needs to be on the payroll on her 62nd birthday (Nov. 3) in order to qualify.
Mayor Littlefield said he understands the move "may not meet with universal approval," but he said "it is simply the right thing to do." He said, "I stand ready to accept the fallout."
The fallout started quickly as City Councilman Jack Benson said he was "sort of shocked" by the action. He said the council had taken action to remove Ms. Rutherford because it was found she was living out of her district. He said it was found she was not eligible to serve for the past several years and "to put her back on compounds the problem."
Councilman Leamon Pierce said he is disappointed by the mayor's action, and he said he will ask at a council meeting on Tuesday if the council has any legal recourse to stop it.
Ms. Rutherford sent an Oct. 16 letter to Mayor Littlefield that said, "This is to confirm that effective as of Sunday, November 4, 2007, I will be resigning as City Councilperson representing District 6 for the City of Chattanooga."
Mayor Littlefield said Ms. Rutherford began serving as a council member in 1993 and is fully vested in the city retirement program, but fell just short on meeting the medical benefits criteria.
He said similar actions to benefit longtime employees "have been done before" and will likely be done again.
Mayor Littlefield said when the Rutherford issue came up he and others tried to work behind the scenes to handle it with a minimum of confrontation. But he said "matters accelerated quickly."
Meanwhile, Councilman Manny Rico told the Pachyderm Club on Monday that he is not in favor trying to pursue back pay from Ms. Rutherford or charge her for city expenses on the investigation and upcoming election to replace her.
He said he believes there are "other agendas" in seeking that and the motive "is not for the city's benefit."
Here is the full text of the Littlefield memorandum to the City Council:
I do not wish for you to be caught unaware of my intended action regarding Ms. Rutherford’s benefits.
First of all, let me say that as this issue began to unfold a few weeks ago, there were a number of individuals – myself included – who attempted to work between the various interests to try and resolve things with a minimum of confrontation. Unfortunately, matters accelerated and the desire to minimize conflict and confusion became more problematic.
In deference to the Council’s resolution, her pay as a member of the City Council ended on the date of her announced intention to resign and the subsequent council action. Accordingly, she has not been “on the payroll” of the city since that time.
The only question remaining is in regard to her post employment benefits.
It is not a question of her retirement. Ms. Rutherford has paid into the city retirement plan since her election in 1993 and is fully vested and qualified to receive benefits pursuant to her salary and years of service.
It is not a question of her current coverage under the city’s group insurance plan. Because of the nature of insurance, her premium has been paid and coverage appropriately and legally extends until the end of October. However, in order to continue coverage as a retired person under the city program, the insurance needs to be in effect on her 62nd birthday – November 3, 2007.
Even then, it is not a question of giving her any sort of a “free” benefit. She will be required to pay the premiums just like anyone else. It has to do with inclusion in the group and it is simply a question of three days.
Accordingly, I am making an administrative decision in this case to transfer and classify Ms. Rutherford as a city employee for a short period of time to cover the three day gap until her birthday. It is not unusual in government or private enterprise to take such action to protect an employee or official who has served for years only to fall just short of a critical anniversary. We have done it before and I am quite confident that we shall do it again. In all of the 40 or so years of my career, I cannot recall a similar case causing such consternation over a 3 day gap.
We should remember that all that we do is not about us – it is about others and the public in particular. While to some it might seem politically expedient to continue to debate this issue, that is not what the people elected us to do - and we should try and deal with such diversions in an expeditious and statesman like manner.
Over the years, Councilwoman Rutherford and I have often disagreed – sometimes publicly and passionately. Still, even individuals who sometimes make us mad or disappoint us deserve fair treatment. We should follow the golden rule – treat others as we would wish to be treated.
I realize that this action might not be universally popular, so I stand ready to accept whatever fallout might ensue.
It is simply the right thing to do.
Ron Littlefield
| Dining Out | Business | Movies | Focus | About Us |
| Church | Living Well | Memories | Outdoors | Real Estate | Student Scene | Travel |
