Jerry Berry Resigns
Wow! I sure do like you Titan5...and in my opinion, you have so many of the facts so right!
Well after serving a job for 30 years and still at a young age of 52 with great credentials ( alot more than we have, hahaha), he desires every cent he gets for retiring. Good on him. He still has a long time before he needs to retire. He has made a success of his life in such an early stage and I am sure his parents are very proud of him. He did it , made it, now he moves on. Again, good on him. Smart move on his part!! (and I mean it)
Originally Posted by All Ages Music Concerts
He worked for thirty years at a job. So did I work at my job for thirty years before retiring. I was very good at my job and was and excellent employee. I did not get a buy out when I retired all I got was a pension that I had to pay into out of my wages.
Mr. Berry is also just an employee so what makes you think that he should get treated any better than the other employees at city hall that retire?
He did a job and did most of it well and was well paid for his services. There is no reason that he should get large sums of money for retiring other than it is in his contract. How much money over and above a pension do you expect to get when you retire?
The fact that lawyers appear to be involved in the retirement settlement tells me that there is a lot more to his retirement than is being or ever will be told.
He should leave the city with whatever his contract stipulates and not a cent more. After all it is still tax payers money that is being paid out to him.
I'm sure they were. His mother died in January, 2006, followed by his father's death in January, 2007. His mother was a long-time teacher in Nanaimo, his father, a long-time school principal. He also lost his brother, Cst. Scott Berry, RCMP, a few years earlier, killed on duty in Alberta trying to help the victim of a motor vehicle accident, when Scott Berry came in contact with a downed power line and was electrocuted.
Originally Posted by All Ages Music Concerts
I'll tell you what I got after over thirty years with one employer--$100. Except I didn't take it. I could have taken a gift that might have been equivalent in value (I don't know because I never saw it, but everyone gets basically the same gift.) When I filled out my retirement papers I asked if I could somehow have cash donated back to my employer, and so they donated $100 in my name to the school district scholarship fund. A lot of teachers do that.
Originally Posted by yorway
I worked for 36 years, for my pension, and no severance, but, then I was union, and Mr. Berry negotiated his own contract, and the severance package or how he is entitled to a severance package, so the problem here is who accepted Mr. Berry's contract. Mr. Berry could have a clause in his contract, that states, that if and when he feels that he is no longer needed or wanted, at his job the city will pay ?????. Or Mr. Berry could have in his contract, if questioned on his integrity, or any other questionable, actions of his job, he will resign and the city will pay ???????. Give him credit, he knew how to right his own contract, and our city council, led by a so called LAWYER, ( does anyone know what kind of law practice, was his expertise), were sucked in like blind sheep.
And more than likely there are those clauses for payout! If contracts were going to go under review for new negotiations one would believe his existing one was far more superior! One way to get out!
Originally Posted by oldtimer
Last edited by All Ages Music Concerts; 10-02-2009 at 06:48 PM.
resign vs. firing confusion
I think some are getting confused. Mr. Berry is not getting fired, he has offered to resign if he gets a suitable buyout. If he had not offered to resign we would be on the hook for his salary for the next 10 years (barring being fired for cause). The cost to employ Mr. Berry for the next 10 years (assuming retirement at 65) would be no less than $3.5million.
Unless Mr. Berry was found negligent of some crazy issue we would not be able to fire him with cause, so all we could do is terminate his employment without cause (we just want rid of him), so based on the minimum senior management terms of employment agreement we would have to pay him one months salary for every year worked. Apparently Mr. Berry has worked for the City for some 30 years, 22 as management. So assuming we just use the 22 years in management we would have to pay him a minimum of $418,000@22 years or $570,000@30 years if we wanted to be rid of Mr. Berry and fired him without cause.
This is where the negotiation fits in; firing him without cause vs his offering to leave. Mr Berry would likely prefer not to be listed as terminated even though it provides the highest severance nor does he want to simply quit and walk away from secure employment. So where is the middle ground? Because unless we have "legal" cause to terminate his employment he could stay for another 10 years or so at a minimum cost of $3.5 million.
So, if we wish to reduce our costs within the City of Nanaimo, instead of paying Mr. Berry $3.5 million over the next 10 years, he steps down and we pay him $570,000 saving the City $2.83 million which we could use to reduce the proposed increases in future budgets. Sounds simple to me. Goodbye Mr. Berry and thanks for your assistance.
Now the only problem I see is, do we have to pay Mr. Henning more money to step up from deputy city manager to city manager? Will we have to pay someone more money to become the new deputy? Someone HAS to be deputy in case of absence for any reason including holidays or sickness.