To the editor:
Two weeks ago, The Item ran a lengthy article about the Swampscott Select Board’s vote to deny the town’s retirees an additional 2% cost-of-living adjustment, the decision of which was discretionary to each local government.
There are 102 local public retirement systems (as well as the Massachusetts State Employees’ Retirement System and the Massachusetts Teachers’ Retirement System, both of which are controlled by the Legislature, which makes 104).
I found it interesting that with a lot of fiscal hand-wringing, the board’s consensus was that Swampscott just couldn’t afford the extra 2% for its retirees.
This was not so for 73 other local communities who stepped up to ease the financial burden that their retirees face. Among those that voted to grant the 2% were eight county-wide systems and, in our area, Andover, Beverly, Gloucester, Lynn, Marblehead, Revere, Salem, and Saugus.
For the record, I am the retirees’ representative on the Public Employee Committee, which negotiates with the town for health-insurance coverage and contribution rates for both active and retired employees.
Sincerely,
Neil Rossman
Peabody
