I too, voted against that second amendment. I second your resolution. If Mulgrew really means what he says, he would sign an amicus to our lawsuit. He would lobby to have 1096 passed by the Council. That would be genuine support.
I don’t understand why everyone at the Retirees Meeting allowed Mulgrew to railroad it. When he illegally extended the time why didn’t everyone walk out or have him removed. Why allow him to illegally propose a Resolution and have it voted on. You only reinforced the fact that rules don’t apply to MM.
Here is a legitimate question, Didn’t the UFT push to change the administrative code so that all retirees had choice and the City Council voted it down? Is there different language in this bill to change the Administrative code?
So that all retirees had the choice of paying an extra 2400 per person, or 4800 per couple, per year, to start, to retain the care they were led to expect free of charge all their careers? Absolutely. And no matter how low their pensions were, UFT paraprofessionals and DC37 employees making very little would have that option. Yes they did and thanks a lot.
I too, voted against that second amendment. I second your resolution. If Mulgrew really means what he says, he would sign an amicus to our lawsuit. He would lobby to have 1096 passed by the Council. That would be genuine support.
It would, and it would be a nice change. Let's make it happen!
Great reso! Hope it gets the support from the opposition and maybe even some Unity members on Tuesday.
Let’s pass it!
Let's!
I don’t understand why everyone at the Retirees Meeting allowed Mulgrew to railroad it. When he illegally extended the time why didn’t everyone walk out or have him removed. Why allow him to illegally propose a Resolution and have it voted on. You only reinforced the fact that rules don’t apply to MM.
This was not a retiree meeting. It was the Delegate Assembly.
Here is a legitimate question, Didn’t the UFT push to change the administrative code so that all retirees had choice and the City Council voted it down? Is there different language in this bill to change the Administrative code?
So that all retirees had the choice of paying an extra 2400 per person, or 4800 per couple, per year, to start, to retain the care they were led to expect free of charge all their careers? Absolutely. And no matter how low their pensions were, UFT paraprofessionals and DC37 employees making very little would have that option. Yes they did and thanks a lot.
Thank you for clarifying.