Police Chief Roderick Porter, a contract employee serving a five-year term with service maxed at 10 years, cannot also collect his pension concurrently from regular service that ended in 2022, based on a state statute amended about two years ago.
CT Post reporter Brian provides more details:
Police Chief Roderick Porter, a retired Bridgeport police captain who in late 2022 was rehired as the city’s top cop, can no longer collect his pension while employed following a state inquiry prompted by an anonymous whistleblower complaint.
But despite halting Porter’s pension payments, comments from state and city officials also indicate Porter did nothing wrong and simply got caught up in a confusing series of changes to Connecticut’s retirement rules.
John Herrington, director of the state comptroller’s retirement services division, notified Porter of the decision in an Aug. 7 letter that agency recently provided to the Connecticut Post. Herrington explained that an October 2022 amendment to a state statute which allowed the chief to collect his pension despite his having returned to lead the force was found to violate federal law.
Herrington went on to elaborate that Porter’s situation was an error, not a scandal.
Full story here
Here it is Speedy. While you had much to say about this pension thing, You didn’t address my question regarding you question to Lennie
“Lennie, how many bodies so far are on Chief Disorder’s belt? How many multiple victims incidents? Put this on our Facebook page Chief Disorder.’
“…thoughts and prayers go out to the victims, their families, and friends.” What fucking bullshit!
Robert Teixeira says:
August 17, 2024 at 9:44 pm
Speedy, are you asking in comparison to other chiefs?
No, we can not be concerned with what is happening in other cities or town. My primary concern is my home town of Bridgeport.
Speedy, I am not talking about other cities, I am talking about other Port chiefs.
RT, drop it already! I got a bigger THIEF to fry.
Paging the Honorable retired Judge Carmen Lopez:
Dear Judge Lopez:
I take this time to beg your input in this matter regarding recent development in regards to Bridgeport Police Chief Roderick Porter having received pension payments after being rehired by the City of Bridgeport. I ask that you please consider giving the people of Bridgeport and the State of Connecticut a legal opinion. Be aware and pay attention to the amendment to CMERS statute and the time-line between the date of amendment sponsorship and the Chief selection process. I will be calling you in the morning.
“Herrington went on to elaborate that Porter’s situation was an error, not a scandal.”
I’ll let Carmen Lopez be the Judge of that.
Why would Herrington raise the word “scandal?” Remember the Freudian slip by Representative Steve Stafstrom when he endorsed Councilmen Burn weeks ago?
Above is another Freudian slip by Herrington–It’s a scandal.
I read the news article when it first appeared then went away, out of town. Facts are important as always. But if memory serves me, Chief Porter served his years before retiring and was due a retirement benefit, yes? And thought it was not a major fact of the article, he apparently had contributions from the City as well as from his pocket to fund the defined benefit pension from CMERS? So what is the problem? Perhaps that he is not eligible to use the new income to create additional monthly benefits for the future? Possibly true.
But didn’t the article indicate that he did not sign up for contributions currently, and that may be a reason for the confusion?
Changing laws and their effect on individuals is something to consider at all times. But calling one case, a “scandal” likely is an overstatement. Did Chief Porter make a choice that he was offered knowing the community sense of “double dipping”? Or was he asked to select a plan that was fair to all, and fit his financial circumstances? I look for Judge Lopez’s thoughts on the matter. Time will tell.
JML, time is telling. Are you listening?
Let’s do some numbers. Thief Porter has been collecting his pension for 21 months since November 2022. Say he gets $7,000 a month × 21 =$147,000
That’s approximately what he MUST return/reimburse to the MERF.
Listen you old fool. I retired 14 months ago and the rules policy and procedures in regards to my pension benefits were clearly explained. This is true for all CMERS retirees including THIEF Porter. He committed Pension Fraud. Notice that the ruling states that he can no longer received or collect his pension. He came back around November 9, 2022 and collected his pension up until he was served notice. Chief Thief Porter MUST return all Pension money he took since November 2022.
This thing about he electing not to contribute to his pension is bull-shit. He got to pocket any potential sharing obligation on top of receiving his pension, as he couldn’t contribute towards a pension he was already collecting.
ARE YOU UNDERSTANDING ANY OF THIS SO FAR?
year, provided [that] any member reemployed for a period of more than
0
Reply
Joel Gonzalez says:
August 18, 2024 at 3:30 am
HB5451 File No. 583
HB5451 / File No. 583 4
80 ninety working days in one calendar year shall reimburse the Municipal
81 Employees’ Retirement Fund for retirement income payments received
Now here’s what caught my attention. For a while I and another OIB poster had questioned how is it that Chief Thief Porter gets a pass on the CMERS 20 hours, 90 days rule post retirement hiring. I smelled RAT!
On March 2022, way before Joe Ganim’s selection of Chief THIEF Porter in November 2022, the Connecticu Legislature quietly pushed an amendment to the CMERS 20 hours, 90 day rule. The change was tailored for law enforcement personnel and BOE Superintendent as a cover.
The paper trail and the time line shows that JOE GANIM had already made up his mind as to who was going to be the Police Chief before March 2022. This revelation came about when Brian lockhart FOI the anonymous complaint and the Comptroller had little choice but to release the ruling. This revelation puts the National Police Chief process into question and God knows MANY of us had our suspicion and questions. The fact that the powers that be believed that an Amendment to CMERS rules was necessary speaks for its violation.
DO YOU UNDERSTAND ?