Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Pensions topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Scranton council approves business administrator as pension plans’ chief administrative officer amid dispute over retired firefighter seat

2406491 · February 26, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

City Council voted to appoint the city’s business administrator as the chief administrative officer for the police, fire and nonuniform municipal pension plans to address a municipal pension audit finding; council members and union leaders pressed the administration to fill a long-vacant retired-firefighter seat on the pension board.

Scranton City Council on a roll-call vote adopted Resolution 179-2025 to designate the city’s business administrator as the chief administrative officer for the police, fire and nonuniform municipal pension plans, a change the administration says will resolve an audit finding in the municipal pension audit.

Council members and union representatives said the vote matters because auditors had flagged the absence of an administrative designee on pension oversight, and placing the business administrator on the board would eliminate that finding and bring the city into compliance. “This legislation came to us as a result of an audit finding in the Municipal Pension audit,” a council member said during discussion, adding that correcting the appointment would avoid an audit finding and the risk of losing funds.

Union leaders and several council members pressed the administration to also fill a separate, longstanding vacancy: a retired Scranton firefighter seat on the pension board that, they said, has been empty for about three years. Alan Lucas, president of IFF Local 60 (the Scranton firefighters union), told the council he and union members had requested a meeting with administration officials about backfilling and have not received a response. “As of right now the city still has not seated Tommy Morgan,” Lucas said during public comment.

Council debate emphasized two separate legal and operational points: (1) the administration asked the council to approve the business administrator as the chief administrative officer for the pension plans to satisfy an audit requirement; and (2) the city code includes mandatory procedures for appointing a retiree to that pension board seat, which some council members said have not been followed. Solicitor Tom Gilbride told the council the code’s language is mandatory — “must” — and that the mayor is required by the code to appoint a retiree member when the union supplies names for that vacancy.

Councilmember discussion noted the tension between correcting an audit finding now and the unresolved retired-firefighter vacancy. One council member said the audit finding and solicitor guidance persuaded them to support the resolution tonight; another said they remained concerned the administration had not properly seated the retiree and asked the solicitor to review the legal steps needed to ensure compliance.

Roll call on item 7d (Resolution 179-2025) recorded unanimous yes votes from members present and the chair declared the item legally and lawfully adopted.

What’s next: Council and union leaders asked the administration for documentation of actions taken to fill the retiree vacancy and for confirmation that the business administrator’s role on the pension boards will be limited to what the auditors require. The council asked the solicitor and administration to provide clear procedural steps and timelines for seating the retired firefighter member, and public commenters said they expect the city to act promptly to end the three‑year vacancy.

Votes at a glance: Resolution 179-2025 — appoint business administrator as chief administrative officer for police, fire and nonuniform pension plans; outcome: approved (roll-call: Mr. King: yes; Mr. Shuster: yes; Dr. Rothchild: yes; Mr. McAndrew: yes; Mr. Smearle: yes).