Hard-fought retirement ordinance off the books

OLD BRIDGE — It’s gone.

After months of battle at meetings and contentious talk on the campaign trail, the Township Council voted unanimously to repeal the controversial ordinance that allowed township employees to retire with benefits after 15 years of service with Old Bridge and 10 with another public entity.

Councilman Bob Volkert, a Democrat, did not participate in the vote.

With the change, employees under age 62 will now need 25 years of service with the township to retire with benefits. Those 62 and older can still qualify to retire with 15 years of service, according to the ordinance.

Republican council members, in control of the council for the first time in more than a decade, said they were proud to repeal the ordinance, noting that doing so was a fulfillment of one of their major campaign promises.

“The people voted this way based on promises,” said Republican Councilwoman Lucille Panos. “Promises made, promises kept. That’s the new way in Old Bridge.”

The retirement ordinance, approved in a 5-4 vote along party lines last May, became a major campaign issue during last year’s election. Democrats claimed that the change to 15 years would help save the township money and avoid layoffs by eliminating high-level salaries from the payroll. Republicans charged it would cost the township millions of dollars that it simply can’t afford.

The ordinance is still the subject of a lawsuit, filed in July by Old Bridge Republican Chairwoman Anita Greenberg and contending that Volkert should not have voted to approve the ordinance due to an alleged conflict of interest. Greenberg said the lawsuit was filed as a stay to keep “the township from falling apart financially.”

Old Bridge special counsel Mark Rosselli said that all the Township Council members have been dismissed on the lawsuit by the court and the only names remaining on it are Greenberg as plaintiff and the township of Old Bridge as the defendant. He expected the court to dismiss the lawsuit as moot with the rescinding of the ordinance.

Council President Brian Cahill, a Republican, said that he was happy the ordinance was off the books, stating that there was no study done to prove it would save the township money. He called it a “bad piece of legislation.”

“This was done for all the wrong reasons,” Cahill said. “If this thing really did what it was supposed to do, which is basically save money, we all would have voted for it. It did not.”

Councilman G. Kevin Calogera, a Democrat, said that because the residents were clear that they didn’t want employees to be able to retire with 15 years and 10 with another agency, the council should also consider rescinding the part that allows those age 62 and over to retire with only 15 years of service.

“I don’t understand the lack of continuity in thinking about rescinding one part of the ordinance to achieve something and not rescinding the other part,” Calogera said. “I think we should run true throughout the entire ordinance.”