I seem to be getting some grief for a sentence in my post about Peter Q. Davis’ resignation from the city’s pension board.

Here was my context in that post (emphasis added):

The Pension Reform Committee in 2004 recommended that the pension board always plan on paying down shortfalls like this over a much shorter period. The committee recommended 15 years and residents approved a change to the City Charter that supposedly made that law.

On the one hand, the pension board has refused to accept that it is beholden to this law. But on the other, it has apparently embraced the theory behind it and may be moving toward forcing the city to pay down its pension debt over 15 years.

A couple of people have interpreted that sentence that the board “refused to accept that it is beholden” to this law as me saying that the board is beholden to the law.

No, I meant it only as a contextual statement of fact: The board, as a matter of fact, does not accept that it is beholden to this law. That’s all. I’m not saying it should accept it or that it is wrong not to. I’m just saying the board doesn’t accept it.

I’m perfectly aware that the board (perhaps correctly) believes that it has legal reason not to feel a legal obligation to the Charter amendment.

SCOTT LEWIS

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.