34 South Main St., Attleboro, MA - Directions - (508) 222-7000
Home News Sports Features classifieds milestones services photos tvlistings cars jobs realestate subscribe
News

Timilty, Bowles back Burgess pension bill




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.

 


*Member ID:
*Password:
  Forgot Your Password?
 
View Comments » 9 comment(s) « Hide Comments

ricknkim wrote on Nov 3, 2009 7:45 PM:

" I blame the council and my vote reflected such. I also blame Bowles and Timilty whom both support it which is apparent through their testimony. They all LOVE to throw around OPM like the true politicians they are. I'm all for helping those in need financially, the current law/guidelines do just that for the young girl. This action is complete crap on the shoulders of the taxpayer . . . . AGAIN! I think the councilors failed to show leadership and courage just because a bunch of city employees came to the council meeting in their uniforms. The councilors opted to shy away from looking like the bad guy and instead opted to take the easy route with taxpayer money . . . Blais did a grand job of adding pressure to his peers on the council. Good man, wrong stance. "

casino1 wrote on Nov 3, 2009 5:12 PM:

" Don't blame Bowles & Timilty, blame the idiots on the Attleboro City Council who propsed this, especially Blair. The SDtate Reps are charged with carrying forward the wishes of the ppl of Attleboro. I suggest getting off your duffs today & voting for anyone who is NOT an incumbant on the City Council "

macdog wrote on Nov 3, 2009 2:46 PM:

" why not let the people vote on it ? "

ricknkim wrote on Nov 3, 2009 12:25 PM:

" So easy to back this and other spending when it is other people's money. As I've said before, sympathy for the victim but I in no way approve of this tax-payer funded life insurance spending. If Bowles and Timilty (and mayor/council) don't get it at a time of the worst economic climate in decades, imagine how they will choose to spend OUR money when tax revenues come back . . . . grow a backbone, do the RIGHT thing, don't get bullied by city workers in uniform. "

jeepXJ wrote on Nov 3, 2009 12:11 PM:

" Get rid of pensions!! "

common_sense wrote on Nov 3, 2009 10:03 AM:

" They are making it precedent, so now raise the contributions the employees make to the pension OR find the savings through cost reductions so we don't have to fill Burgess's position such as estimating every other water bill etc. (do we really need to pay someone to drive around getting meter readings every qtr? - and can we except a qtr estimate if it saves money? I know I can. This just becomes an unfunded liability on the pension unless Blias, Bowles and comapany come up with a way to pay for it, owe I forget raise taxes, duh! "

kevin h. wrote on Nov 3, 2009 8:30 AM:

" This is bogus and Timilty and Bowles should be booted from office at the polls!
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:

" Reading the comments regarding the tragic death of a City employee, I get the impression that most contributors are and feel very sorry for the death of a young father and his surviving daughter yet don't believe that the City should be held responsible for the child's financial needs. Would this precedent apply to all City employees who die while on the job? Accidental or natural causes? If an employee dies
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:

" The funds for this provision would come from where, city or state?
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? "