Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Pension Benefit Dispute topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Dunmore pension board denies retired officer's request for higher disability benefit
Summary
On June 10, 2025, the Dunmore Pension Board voted to deny retired Officer Anthony Garzella’s request for an increased pension benefit, concluding the borough never adopted a 60% benefit during his period of employment and that Act 205 governs funding, not benefit creation.
The Dunmore Pension Board voted June 10 to deny a retired police officer’s request to increase his disability pension, with four members voting in favor of denial and one abstention.
Solicitor Lawrence Durkin summarized the record and legal argument before the vote, telling the board that although Pennsylvania’s Act 600 allows a municipality to adopt a 60 percent pension benefit, Dunmore never implemented a 60 percent benefit during Officer Anthony Garzella’s period of employment. Durkin also said Act 205 ‘‘does not create a pension benefit. It simply dictates funding.’’ The solicitor recommended the board decide based on the borough records and prior proceedings.
Durkin reviewed the timeline in the record: an August 5, 2024 letter from Attorney Dominick questioning whether Garzella should receive a 60 percent pension, Durkin’s February 7 response placing the issue on the March agenda, Attorney Dominick’s further June 9 letter, and the March meeting discussion. Durkin said borough payroll and pension records show Garzella’s date of hire as a full-time officer as January 1, 2005, meaning his vesting period began later and he would not automatically fall under earlier collective bargaining agreements that referenced higher disability percentages.
Board member Gene Mentz asked whether any documentation was provided to show Garzella was employed or vested between 1992 and 1997; Durkin said he had seen none contradicting the borough’s records. Durkin explained that whether an officer is ‘‘grandfathered’’ into an older, higher benefit depends on the date the officer vested, not simply on an earlier hire date or a prior CBA.
Greg Wolff moved to deny Garzella’s request; Janet Brier seconded. On the voice vote, Brier, Wolff, Mark Burton and Greg Kamla voted "Aye." Mentz recorded an abstention. Durkin said he will prepare written notice of the board’s action to Attorney Dominick; he also advised that Garzella has the right to seek review in county court if he disagrees with the board’s decision.
The denial resolves the board’s current obligation on the pending request; any further legal challenge would be resolved in court.
