Timilty, Bowles back Burgess pension bill
BY JIM HAND SUN CHRONICLE STAFF
Tuesday, November 3, 2009 2:20 AM EST
A legislative committee heard from two area lawmakers Monday who urged approval of a bill increasing the pension for the daughter of Jeffrey Burgess, a city water department employee killed on the job.
The Joint Committee on Public Service is expected to vote on the bill in about three weeks.
The sponsors of the bill, state Sen. James Timilty and state Rep. Bill Bowles, both spoke in favor of the home-rule petition, which would give the girl annual payments equal to 100 percent of his salary until she is 23 years old.
Timilty, D-Walpole, said he believes the improvement in the pension is appropriate considering Burgess died while working for the city. He also said there is a precedent for raising the pension.
"I thought it was important because the 2-year-old daughter whose father died while working for the city deserved the 100 pecent," he said.
Bowles, D-Attleboro, also testified before the committee, saying the city council was solidly behind the measure and the cost is not prohibitive.
"Several weeks ago, we had a tragic event occur in Attleboro. An employee, Jeffrey Burgess, of the water department, was performing routine maintenance on South Main Street, and was struck by a car and killed," Bowles testified. "Obviously, it has devastated our community, and he leaves behind a 2-year-old daughter.
"The city council, on a vote of 8 to 1, voted to increase the pension payments to the daughter until she reaches the age of 23, based on the employee's full salary, rather than the 66.7 percent called for by state law.
"The same thing was done for two other city employees who died in a tragic gas explosion several years ago. A financial analysis was done, and the city concluded that the annual cost was minimal," he told the committee. Timilty said he expects the measure to come to the House and Senate floor quickly and be approved before the end of the year.
View Comments » 9 comment(s)
« Hide Comments
ricknkim wrote on Nov 3, 2009 7:45 PM:
casino1 wrote on Nov 3, 2009 5:12 PM:
macdog wrote on Nov 3, 2009 2:46 PM:
ricknkim wrote on Nov 3, 2009 12:25 PM:
jeepXJ wrote on Nov 3, 2009 12:11 PM:
common_sense wrote on Nov 3, 2009 10:03 AM:
kevin h. wrote on Nov 3, 2009 8:30 AM:
Why is it always that government workers are considered "BETTER" than the public. I highly doubt this type of giveaway would come from a private employer.
These politicians LOVE to SPEND and givaway others money!
IT IS SICKENING!!!!!!!! "
ucbruin wrote on Nov 3, 2009 7:51 AM:
while on an errand for the City or at his/her desk would the City now be responsible for any surviving children? What if the death were due in part or fully to negligence on the part of the employee? I did not know that employment with the City was guaranteed for life. "
harry hindsight wrote on Nov 3, 2009 7:05 AM:
Shouldn't the insurance of the driver that killed Burgess be paying this or will she get sued so that this little girl will get monies.
Does this release the city from any potential court action from a neglegance lawsuit brought on by Burgess's surviors? "