It is rumored that Ryan Vaughn new about this but failed to tell the other council members on the public safety committee. The former deputies lost their retiree health insurance benefits because the FOP wasn't paying attention and now the stand to lose their pension. During the merger it was sold to everyone that no officers would lose any benefits and now David Reyolds says he has made the decision not to fund it. I guess a class action lawsuit will be forthcoming. What other choice do they have unless the council does the right thing.

Pension plan funds are supposed to be invested in safe places. It is not likely that “the economy” tanked these funds but rather the folks who invested the money. Sure, markets can go up and down, but that is why pension funds aren't invested into penny stocks, unless of course you are ISTA and don't know any better. Adjustment of retiree health insurance benefits probably should be done at all times but pensions should be free from political manipulations even prior to folks retiring.

The sheriff isn't even in charge of pension funds. Damn, Abdul, you're good at throwing stink bombs in the room then leaving.

I could be wrong, but I think these funds are invested through the PERF or some other agency.

Someone please fact check that tidbit and let us know.

As far as I know, none of the elected officials are in charge of their employees' pension investments.

Remember back when Frank Anderson's compensation of $2 million plus was in the news?

I thought the legislature directed that the all Sheriff's salary that exceeded the Prosecutors salary cap was to be directed to Sheriff Departments Pension?

Oh yeah, they grandfathered all existing Sheriffs like Frank Anderson.

With rising income from rising foreclosures and serving fees, he actually got a raise.

Gee, maybe instead of buying motorcycles he has no lawful use for (except as a perk for his cronys), Frank should have put something in the pension fund.

MCSD oversees it own fund. It's not managed by PERF.

Negative. Read the article. The City of Indianapolis, NOT MCSD, failed to make the $3 million contribution to the pension fund for 2009. Those deputies are no longer part of the sheriffs department. They are part of IMPD and city department under the Mayor. The article states 'The city then withheld a $3 million contribution in an effort to balance the budget.' (aka shell game. Is the State Board of Accounts aware of this little oversight) Why? Because the city controller, Reynolds, is waiting for the market to stabilize. When in fact, the “market” (Dow Jones) on March 9 was at 6547 and as of August 27th it is at 9580. Reynolds / the city have actually cost the pension and deputies millions because it failed to invest. That alone is enough for a class action lawsuit for financial mismanagment. And I thought the Mayor supported the police department and its officers.

Once again for those who are slow to catch on…This failure to pay $3 million into the pension fund was a decision by the CITY not the sheriff. Blame Ballard…..

Why can't they just leave us alone and let us do our jobs. First the merger that no one but Barf Peterson and the City county council wanted, then former deputies were taken out of Social Security and had to fight to get back in and now the city isn't going to pay the 3.1 million to fund the MCSD pension. I just want to come to work, do my job and go home to my family.

I was told by one councilor that they will not cross the Sheriff or the Mayor. They are afaid of the political fallout. I was basically told that we former deputies are on our own…

Picked on, please don't re-fight the merger. It was a good thing and it still is. Without it, sheriffs could balloon their runaway budgets even more. COntrol is back where it belongs–with the mayor.

That said, I want the same thing for you: do your job well (most of you do), stay safe, get paid, go home, enjoy your family. Sounds simple.

Any update on the sheriff's deputies who busted into the minister's house without a warrant, Abdul? That case only lacked a last name like Gates and a Harvard setting, to become a national laughing stock.

TA, you wouldn't happen to know more, would you? I e-mailed Abdul, but I haven't read anything on the local news sites, and all the information I know was from the one Twitter update he did on it.

The mayor took back the police department as he should have. I do not understand why the Sheriff wants law enforcement duties along with all of his other duties. He should be happy that those duties are gone. Leave the policing to IMPD and take care of the jail court and sex offenders.

there is no need for marked Sheriff's cars and motorcycles if there aren't any law enforcement duties

Matt–do you mean the minister's house getting entered by the police?

Exactly. Did any news outlet cover it?

Not to my knowledge.

One suspicious thing–Bob Turner is the lawyer, and while he's a good man, he has a tremendous ax to grind with Peterson and the sheriff. I don't know if that is affecting his judgment.

From the facts given on Abdul's radio show, this is, frankly, a worse case of Constitutional rights being violated, than the Gates Harvard case. Police run amuck, if we are to believe the facts currently presented.

To all you MCSD who are getting your pension shortchanged by your elected officials , read this.

ISTA sues former director, financial advisers, brokers
By Jon Murray and Bill Ruthhart
Posted: August 29, 2009
http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?A...

“There were terrible investments and horrible fiscal behavior,” Sullivan said. “There was a drastic violation of the investment policy the trust had in place. There was tremendous gross mismanagement and incompetence in administering this trust.”

To all you MCSD who are getting your pension shortchanged by your elected officials , read this.

ISTA sues former director, financial advisers, brokers
By Jon Murray and Bill Ruthhart
Posted: August 29, 2009
http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?A...

“There were terrible investments and horrible fiscal behavior,” Sullivan said. “There was a drastic violation of the investment policy the trust had in place. There was tremendous gross mismanagement and incompetence in administering this trust.”