Douglass Responds to Kelleher’s Letter to the Editor

To the Editor:
Mr. Kelleher’s characterization of the circumstances surrounding my resignation could not be more inaccurate. At no time, did anyone seek to break any pension laws. The law in question, Chapter 78 P.L. 2011 (which became effective in June, 2011), placed an additional requirement on me to continue to hold office after I was elected and my term had begun. As such, this law as it applies to me, is an unconstitutional “ex post facto” law. Normally, when laws are enacted that impose a restriction on rights after they have become vested, such persons or property are excepted out or “grandfathered.” This is so that any such law will withstand any constitutional challenges.
In approximately 120 pages of complicated legislation concerning pensions and benefits, only one line addresses the repeal of a law that previously allowed persons who retire to maintain their elected position. There is no mention of how it would affect persons who were already holding office. Accordingly, the law was open for interpretation on the issue. The Township Solicitor sought to get that interpretation from the Director of Pensions and Benefits and/or the Attorney General. Although Pensions and Benefits took the position that no exception should be made, it is my opinion that the decision could eventually be overturned. This process, however, can be very drawn out and I decided that it was in the best interest of my family and the voters to resign. I am not attempting to “fool” anyone. I have the right to retire and collect my pension. Up until June, 2011 there was a statute that specifically allowed me to retire, collect my pension and continue to serve my elected office.
My wife and I had planned the date for my retirement long ago and I had counseled with Pensions and Benefits, more than once, along the way with no indication that there would be a problem. The new law simply requires that I be separated from my employment for 30 days. After which, I have a right to seek elected office and collect my pension.
Since the law only requires that my separation from employment be for 30 days, I became eligible to run in November to complete the term I was elected to and began to serve, in 2011. This is not the way I wanted it, but Pensions and Benefits made it clear that if I wanted to retire and continue to serve as councilman this was the only way. If Ward 3 wants me to finish my term, they the voters, will decide in November.
As far as the Township Solicitor’s role in this matter, he simply was defending Lower Township Ward 3 voters’ decision to elect me and have me serve the term to which I was elected. I am quite sure that Mr. Sandman would do the same for Mr. Kelleher’s cousin, Mr. Erik Simonsen, if he were elected to office and found himself in a similar position.
Additional note: If my opponents Eric Simonsen and Thomas Will had been in my shoes they also would have had an issue with Pension & Benefits if they were considering retiring as both of them are in the State of NJ Pension system. One being in NJ Teachers Pension and one in the same Pension system I was in Public Employees Pension System.