Legal Battle Resumes Over Changes To Pensions For St. Louis City Firefighters

By RACHEL LIPPMANN

The Missouri Court of Appeals will hear arguments tomorrow on whether the city of St. Louis had the right to make changes to the pension benefits it offers its firefighters.

In lobbying for the changes in 2012, Mayor Francis Slay cited the financial burden pensions were beginning to place on the city. Its budget for fiscal year 2013 included a $31 million contribution to the system, up from $23 million the year before.

That argument persuaded aldermen to increase the amount of money current firefighters had to pay into the system - nine percent as opposed to eight percent, and without a refund at retirement. Firefighters were also no longer able to retire with full benefits before the age of 55.

Union members sued, arguing that the city couldn't make those changes without getting permission from the state General Assembly.

That additional level of approval is needed to make sure that firefighters have enough money to live on when they retire, said Demetris Alfred, the union president.

"We don't get Social Security, so this is huge," he said. "For anybody to come after our pensions, we would have this type of response because it's our livelihood."

Firefighters also argued that the changes violated the constitutional protections given to pensions, but a city judge rejected both those arguments. The union appealed, and that's what will go before the appeals court on Tuesday.

Here's how we got to this point:

St. Louis opted into the Firefighters Retirment System in the 1960s. State law giving cities the right to set up a pension system required municipal officials to get permission from the Missouri General Assembly before making any changes to those pensions.

Between 2001 and 2011, the city’s annual contribution to the FRS increased nearly 600 percent, from $3.4 million in 2001 to $23 million in 2011. Some of that jump was the result of the stock market crash. It was compounded by a 2007 Missouri Supreme Court ruling that forced the city to make the full payments recommended by the pension system’s actuaries, which it did not do in the 2004 and 2005 budgets. 

February 10 2012 – Citing the increasing financial burden, Mayor Francis Slay introduces a plan that changes pension benefits for city of St. Louis firefighters. The new laws made no changes to benefits firefighters had already earned. But going forward:

  1. New hires would have to wait until age 55 to retire with a full pension, rather than simply after 20 years of service.
  2. New hires would get fewer cost-of-living increases when they retired.
  3. New hires would not be eligible for a program that allowed firefighters to draw a pension while still working for the department. The deferred retirement option (DROP) helped keep experienced firefighters on the job.
  4. New hires would pay more into the system and could not get those contributions back.

February 24, 2012 – St. Louis Board of Aldermen president Lewis Reed, who is widely believed to have eyes on the mayor’s office, holds a press conference flanked by dozens of firefighters. He unveils his own plan for pension reform. It would:

  1. Keep all benefits for retired firefighters. Current employees would see minimal changes, mostly to disability benefits.
  2. New hires would get back 25 percent of the contributions they made into the system. Contribution rates would remain at eight percent.
  3. The deferred retirement option would be retained
  4. Pensions would be based on their salary over from the last five years of a firefighter’s career, rather than the last two years.
  5. Pension benefits would vest after 10 years, but new hires would have to serve at least 30 years, or until age 55, to retire with full benefits.
  6. The provision requiring the Missouri General Assembly to approve any pension changes is retained. Sam Dotson, who was Mayor Slay’s director of operations at the time, called this final provision a “non-starter.”

March 2012 - Both sides sit down at the negotiating table and report some progress, but the requirement for state approval remains a sticking point.

April 12, 2012 – The Board of Aldermen approves an ordinance giving Mayor Slay the authority to opt out of the Firefighters Retirement System. The union representing city firefighters threatens to sue, saying that even opting out of the system requires approval by the Missouri General Assembly.

April 27, 2012 – Slay’s benefit changes are again introduced at City Hall.

June 12, 2012 – Trustees for the Firefighters Retirement System file their lawsuit, seeking to stop Mayor Slay from implementing the changes. The case is assigned to Judge Robert Dierker.

July 13, 2012 – The Board of Aldermen approves the pension changes by a vote of 17 to 10. The legislation is supposed to take effect 30 days after it is signed by Mayor Francis Slay, but the parties agree to delay that date because of the court case.  

September 28, 2012 – In a 34-page order, Judge Dierker rules that although the city is within its rights to terminate the current pension plan, the plan as proposed does indeed violate the constitutional protections afforded to pensions because it pays two different levels of benefits from one system. The judge blocks the city from enforcing the measure as written.

Dierker's Sept. 28 order

Aldermen immediately introduce a bill to create two different systems – one for benefits firefighters earned before the reductions, and a second that that will pay benefits after the reductions are approved. The bill is approved on December 14, 2012, by a vote of 18 to 10. Pension trustees again sue, making the same arguments as before - that the city has no right to change pensions without permission from the state. The two court cases are consolidated in front of Judge Dierker.

June 3, 2013 – Judge Dierker rules again that the city is within its authority to terminate its old pension system and start a new one with new contribution requirements. “In the court’s view, there is no authority in Missouri for the proposition that a public employee, once hired, is permanently entitled to pension benefits under plans in place at the time of hire, when the plans themselves do not so specify,” Dierker writes.

Dierker June 2013 ruling

The ruling keeps in place the two-tiered system established by the December 14, 2012 vote:

  1. The old system, known as FRS, funds the benefits for already retired firefighters, as well as the benefits earned by current employees before February 1, 2013.
  2. The new system, called FRP, funds benefits earned by current employees after February 1, 2013 as well as all benefits for new hires.

In addition, new hires cannot draw full benefits until age 55 regardless of years of service. They must contribute 9 percent of their salary, and do not get back their contributions at retirement.

Paul Payne, Mayor Slay’s budget director, said his department has not yet received estimates for how much the city must contribute to the two funds. Estimates during the legislative process put the savings at $50 million over 30 years. In his June, 2013 ruling, Dierker accepted the city’s argument that the pension alterations would save $4 million annually.

Firefighters and the pension trustees appealed Dierker’s ruling. That’s the case in front of the appeals court tomorrow. It will be heard by judges Roy Richter, Clifford Ahrens, and Glenn Norton.

Legal Marketing

The Practice

Since 1996, I have worked closely with the principals/managing partners/department heads of a variety of law firms located throughout the U.S. Much of the specific information about the work and details are confidential, however, I am able to characterize what I did in my role working with the attorneys on the team.

What should be emphasized is that every case has many stories and most of them, can be reworked into examples for public consumption through the news media without breaking confidentiality.

Many of the lawyers I know love to tell stories until the news media is around, then they are suddenly struck dumb. One attorney described it well when he told me that 50 percent of the time lawyers worry about whether the news media will write about them and the other 50 percent of the time is spent worrying about what they will write.

It does not have to be that way. If you understand how the media works and develop professional relationships with them, it can be a mutually beneficial relationship. I am not advocating having drinks with an investigative reporter, rather know that they want a story and you want positive news about you and your firm.  

A public relations firm can save you a lot of time developing those relationships because we already have and they already exist. Public Relations professionals know the media. They know us. You know the law. Between them, a good story that satisfies everyone’s’ needs can be created. We also know what the media needs and when they need it, so you do not have to.

We have successfully arranged interviews/appearances for St. Louis area lawyers in the following media:

  • St. Louis Post-Dispatch – Five Questions
  • St. Louis Business Journal – Settlements/favorable rulings
  • Suburban Journals of Greater St. Louis – Feature article
  • St. Louis Lawyer – BAMSL-related stories
  • Missouri Lawyers Weekly – Various stories
  • Associated Press – Associate Justice Alito appearance at BAMSL
  • Ladue News – Estate Planning & Divorce
  • St. Louis Town & Life Style –Estate Planning
  • KSDK NewsChannel 5 – Estate Planning
  • KWMU – Child Custody
  • KMOX – Bankruptcy
  • Springfield, Joplin, Alton (IL), Columbia – print, radio and television news about Firefighters/Police pension underfunding
  • National trade publications & Web sites reaching client-specific audiences and legal publications,
  • Television stations throughout Missouri and other states.

Media Training

We train attorneys who would or could find themselves in a position to address the media on behalf of the client or the firm. The media training sessions (and subsequent refreshers) focus on the medium, the messages, how to field questions that were beyond the purview of the attorneys’ expertise, how to return to the main message from hostile or off-subject questioning, specific techniques including gesturing, eye contact, “bridging” from the question to another subject, “controlling” an interview, and addressed the question of going “off the record.”

The lead legal counsel or a firm’s managing partner usually serves as the primary spokesman for the client or firm in all media inquiries, unless as mentioned above, a client would serve better given the nature of the interview. In addition to the media training, our role includes participating in media and legal strategy development, as well as message refinement in teleconferences with the client, investors and underwriters if necessary.

We maintain sensitivity to the messages being communicated by attorneys. Sometimes, a statement may be legally correct but offensive to the public when broken into “sound bites” via the news media. We help you navigate the mine fields.

Crisis Communications

During my four years (1996-2000) handling media relations for a company accused of causing a commercial airline disaster in the Florida Everglades, Grandone Media Strategies’ primary responsibility was to protect our client. We had to protect the clientagainst regulators and prosecutors from the FAA, EPA, IG, various other federal, state and local law enforcement agencies and their attorneys in the court of public opinion.

In addition we had to protect them from charges brought by the EPA, FAA, USIG, Miami-Dade emergency services and innumerable other agencies that sought money from the tragedy. It was a dangerous situation, even for those who sat in offices instead of wading through the saw grass at the scene.

During the course of that work, we provided our attorneys, as well as their client with world-class representation and training, developed and rehearsed answers to anticipated hostile questioning, and prepared them for news interviews that we had arranged in advance.  

We found it much more effective to have attorneys trained in how to address the media, rather than employing the cliché “No comment.” In fact, we encourage our clients not to use those words; training them instead to positively state favorable messages that already are filed in the public record. Reporters generally have direct electronic access to filings in a lawsuit either over the internet or at the courthouse.

Prior to any matter going to trial, we provide honest evaluations from the viewpoint of a non-litigant as to what arguments work and what do not. We also create opportunities and estimate risks for our clients, while becoming students of the political climate where the work was taking place. We monitor social media to gauge thoughts and feelings about individuals and matters relating to a case. Of course, we also constantly monitor news coverage, which can be unrelenting. When they made a mistake, we made sure they knew about and did not repeat it. If the mistake is serious enough we take actions to correct it for the record.

Value

In addition to our experience with lawyers, we have spent a great deal of time on relationship building with the news professionals, getting positive story placements with national and local general and trade media, developing talking points and questions for specific interviews and researching (who is the reporter, what is he/she like, what format is the publication/TV/radio station, and what is their focus). We participated in all interviews with the reporter and the spokesman (whether by telephone or in person), taking notes, monitoring information, and subsequently reviewing and critiquing the interview with the spokesman and client following the interview. 

We also bring a unique perspective to any situation, having served as staff in the Illinois legislature for several years and having gone through the process of initiating and passing legislation. We also have been active in both partisan and non-partisan political campaigns 

Grandone Media Strategies can help you think through a business development strategy that can benefit you, your clients and satisfy the needs of the news media. Let us review your current situation and we will provide you with a step-by-step plan of attack to get your message across. 

We would like to discuss our work and how your firm can benefit from the breadth and depth of our experience to help you and your practice succeed beyond expectations.

Measurement

We do not measure success by volume of news stories, rather we look at outcomes. Did the message generate business leads? Did the news story result in comments or a discussion about the topic in social media? Did your Web site experience more traffic, and if so, did that traffic generate new business?  

Those are the outcomes that make public relations valuable. It is very hard to directly track public relations and business outcomes because the effect is cumulative. It is possible, however, to benchmark and track your reputation through research is your budget allows. We strongly recommend conducting benchmark research to determine top-of-mind awareness and reputation, then following that with tracking research throughout the public relations effort to measure its effectiveness.

If you have a client in the line of fire, we hope you will contact us. We can help (618) 692-1892