Retired police officer’s controversial appointment to Columbus Council takes another turn
The controversial and delayed appointment of retired police officer Byron Hickey to the Columbus Council was poised to take a step toward completion Thursday. Instead, it’s still delayed — with a bit more controversy.
The Columbus Consolidated Government’s pension board gathered Thursday in a called meeting to consider a proposed amendment that would resolve conflicting parts of local law, preventing Hickey from completing the swearing-in process.
The city charter considers councilors to be part-time employees, and they are paid like it, earning around $22,000 per year. But they have the option to participate in the city’s health insurance plan, and about 8% of their pay automatically goes in the city’s pension plan because the plan considers councilors to be full-time employees.
Nobody mentioned that conflict when, in a 6-3 vote May 28, the council appointed Hickey to succeed the late Jerry “Pops” Barnes and fill the remaining two years of the four-year term. Barnes, who died April 14 at age 80 from an undisclosed illness, was the District 1 representative on the 10-member council for 17 years.
A week after he was appointed, and the same day the city’s probate court judge swore him into office, Hickey received an email from CCG human resources director Reather Hollowell informing him that his city pension would be suspended while he served on the council because the city’s pension ordinance considers councilors as full-time employees, despite the charter treating councilors as part-time employees.
That’s why Hickey’s other half of the swearing-in process, the one that was supposed to be conducted by a superior court judge at the June 4 council meeting, was indefinitely postponed. But nobody would explain why at that point.
At Tuesday’s council meeting, two of Barnes’ children vehemently criticized the six councilors who voted to appoint Hickey. They refuted the narrative that Barnes was mentoring Hickey to be his successor.
Fast forward to Thursday, when an attempted solution was delayed.
After about 40 minutes of discussion, the consensus of the pension board was to not vote on the proposed amendment and to not make a recommendation to the council.
The added controversy came when pension board members asked why the proposed amendment narrowly was written to carve out an exception for only retired city employees who are appointed or are elected to the council, rather than any public office.
City Manager Isaiah Hugley, a pension board member, noted he received the proposed amendment only 54 minutes before Thursday’s called meeting was scheduled to start.
“This is being done hurriedly,” he said. “… I’m not comfortable voting on this matter today.”
Pension board member Dusty Wilson asked why the amendment provides an exception for only appointed or elected councilors and not all public officials.
“We’re trying to make the appropriate changes going forward, where anybody in this city would have the opportunity to serve without their pension being suspended,” replied Councilor Glenn Davis of District 2, who requested the pension plan amendment.
Hugley wasn’t satisfied.
“It’s not an equal or level playing field,” he said. “Quite frankly, it’s not equal treatment. … Leave it to the elected officials, the city council, to vote on this matter.”
Mayor Skip Henderson, who chairs the pension board, agreed with Hugley.
“That’s where I think we’re seeing this belong, in the political arena, discussing whether or not it’s what we want to do with the pension for our government,” Henderson said. “… Let the council handle it.”
Wilson added, “If you’re going to amend the plan, amend it for all elected officials, not just councilors. I agree that there’s very good people out there who have a lot of experience and would like to raise their hand and become part of the council or another elected position.”
This story was originally published June 13, 2024 at 3:07 PM.
