Lynn vets’ benefit debate rages on

LYNN – The debate over whether the Lynn Retirement Board will accept Part 2 of Chapter 157, which would disperse retroactive pay to disabled veterans, continues to rage on.A slew of letters poured in to the Item over the past month from concerned veterans seeking an answer to the long-standing question – will the city ever approve the reimbursement?In response, Mayor Edward J. Clancy Jr. repeatedly stressed that the city physically does not have the funds available to retroactively pay the veterans.”We just can’t afford it,” he said. “If the legislature passed this and they think it’s worthy, why can’t they pay for it then, because we can’t.”After a War Veterans Benefit Act was passed after World War II, $15 was added for each year of employment to the pensions of retired state and city employees, with a $300 cap if they were veterans of a foreign war.War veterans who retired from public service reportedly received the pension, but those who retired on a disability pension did not.In 2005, the state legislature attempted to resolve the issue and passed Chapter 157, and in the process they gave local communities the power to decide if they wanted to accept both Part 1 and Part 2.Since then, roughly 85 percent of communities have accepted both parts while Lynn has only accepted Part 1.While Part 1 affords the benefit to veterans on disability pensions until their death, Part 2 would bring the disabled retirees up to speed with the other veterans by reimbursing them for the years since their retirement.That one-time reimbursement is estimated to cost roughly $400,000.Then in 2006, the state passed Chapter 161, making the war veterans benefit mandatory for all disabled retired school teachers who are war veterans, but not mandatory for other city and state employees.Michael Mirks, chairman of the Lynn Retirement Board, said two of the elected board members, Gordon “Buzzy” Barton and Rich Biagiotti, have argued forcibly to have Part 2 accepted, but the other members, John Pace, Joseph Driscoll, and Mirks have voted against the issue.”This decision lies solely with the Retirement Board, and has absolutely nothing to do with the mayor, City Council or the Veterans Services Department,” he said. “The mayor doesn’t have any influence on this board and does not have a vote.”Mirks said while the board certainly does not want to hurt retirees, it would be fiscally irresponsible to approve the reimbursement.In addition, Mirks said he wanted to clarify that while the disabled veterans in fact served the country, they did not become disabled during duty, but instead while working for the city of Lynn.”It would be great if we had $400,000 to pay people, but there are no free lunches here and the money would all have to come out of the system somewhere,” he said. “We did just approve a cost of living increase for 3 percent that will be reflected in the veterans’ pension checks.”Roughly $200 million currently resides in the revenues of the Retirement Fund, but Gary Brenner, executive director of the board, said a large portion of the money is tied up in assets and goes toward the monthly pension payments of nearly $2.2 million every month.”The city appropriates $1.5 million a month, and then we still have to cover about $700,000,” he said. “So it sounds like we have a lot of money, but we don’t.”Michael Sweeney, Veterans Service director said several people have approached him on the issue, and that he spoke to the Lynn Retirement Board in an attempt to get an answer.”People thought that I hid on the issue, but I went to the Retirement Board to get an answer and they said they haven’t voted on it because there isn’t any money available,” he said. “I relayed that message to people, but I’m not sure they liked the answer.”Sweeney said he resents the anti-veteran picture that has been painted regarding the Lynn veterans office and said the comments are both “untrue and unfair.””I support anything that puts money in the pockets of veterans, but whe