Our Views: Fair shake on pensions

When a public official of considerable prominence gets a substantial retirement break in the last hours of a legislative session, it is inevitably a cause of controversy.

The break for Superintendent Mike Edmonson and one other long-serving State Police officer drew fire, including from members of the House and Senate who felt that the provision was not fully explained to them during the rush of the last day of the 2014 session.

Edmonson decided not to take the break, but its path to passage was an abuse. Such provisions ought to go to the House and Senate committees on retirement, so that costs to the retirement systems can be properly assessed.

Troopers put lives on the line for us, and no one is opposed to a fair pension for them — including Mike Edmonson. That requires, though, a public and judicious consideration of the issue by legislators, and that didn’t happen this time.

Edmonson said he’ll refuse the additional money, and we take him at his word, but the Legislature left a mess, and lawmakers and the pension board involved should see if the increase was constitutional and, if not, repeal it.