This Was Never About Fixing the Incentive Plan. Let’s stop pretending.
The so-called “update” from the TFD “Incentive Committee” does not describe progress toward restoring what firefighters lost. It describes a process designed to avoid that discussion entirely.
The survey did not ask firefighters whether they want their pension back. That omission is not accidental. It is the entire point.
A Survey Built to Limit the Outcome
Firefighters were given two choices:
- Five-year payouts under the current plan
- Annual payouts under the same plan
That is not reform. That is a forced choice between two versions of failure.
When you restrict the question, you control the answer. And when you control the answer, you get to claim “member support” for whatever outcome the City already prefers.
Of course annual payouts polled higher. That tells us nothing about retention, retirement security, or why firefighters are leaving. It only tells us that people would rather get what little remains sooner instead of later.
That is not a vote of confidence. That is a warning sign.
The Pension Was Removed, And Never Put on the Table
The old incentive plan worked because it functioned like a pension:
- Long-term accumulation
- Real retirement value
- A reason to stay beyond early service years
That is what was taken away. At no point were firefighters asked:
- Should the pension-style structure be restored?
- Should retirement benefits be paid monthly at retirement?
- Should the City undo the change that caused the collapse in retention?
Those questions were excluded.
You cannot claim to represent firefighter preferences while refusing to ask the most important one.
“Draft a Plan” Means “Stay Inside the Box We Built”
The City has now asked the Incentive Committee to draft a revised plan. That sounds empowering, until you understand the reality. The City:
- Defines the legal framework
- Decides what is “allowed”
- Determines feasibility
- Reserves veto power
Firefighters are being asked to design a solution inside the very constraints that broke the system.
That is not negotiation.
That is participation theater.
Council Will Be Shown the Answers, Not the Missing Question
We are told City Council will receive the survey results. What they will not receive is evidence that firefighters rejected this sham of a negotiation, because they were never allowed to vote on it. They will not receive the written freeform responses to the survey because the private individual that created the survey will never allow anyone to see those results.
Silence will be treated as consent.
Absence will be treated as agreement.
And a carefully framed survey will be used to justify keeping the current structure.
This is how decisions get locked in while everyone is told they were “heard.”
Annual Payouts Will Not Stop the Collapse
Let’s be blunt. A $7,500 annual payout becomes roughly $5,000 after taxes.
That is not a retirement benefit.
That is not a retention tool.
That is not why people stay.
Changing the payout frequency does not change the math.
It does not replace the pension.
It does not stop departures.
It does not attract new firefighters.
We already know the outcome:
- Dozens have left
- Many more are on the fence
- Leadership is openly acknowledging the volunteer department may end
Calling annual payouts a “success” does not make them one.
This Process Guarantees the Same Result
If this continues as framed, the result is predetermined:
- The plan stays
- The payouts get re-timed
- The City declares collaboration
- And the department continues to shrink
This is not a failure of effort by individuals. It is a failure of honesty by the process.
Firefighters were promised a retirement incentive. It was taken away. And now they are being asked to vote on how best to accept less.
That is not progress. That is managed decline.
Say It Clearly, Or Accept the Outcome
This is the moment where clarity matters more than comfort.
If firefighters want their pension back, that must be said plainly.
If leadership believes annual payouts are enough, they should say that plainly too.
But pretending this process is about restoration when it is not helps no one.
History will not care how “encouraging” the meetings felt. It will only record what was lost, and who was willing to say so out loud.
What Firefighters Should Demand… Now
If firefighters want a real solution, the next step is not another draft built inside the City’s rules. It is a reset of the conversation. At a minimum, firefighters should demand:
- A new survey that asks the actual question
- Do members support restoring a pension-style incentive plan?
- Do members support monthly retirement payouts?
- Do members support returning to the structure that existed prior to the 2023 change?
- That any proposal presented to the City include a pension-style option
- Not just payout timing changes. Not cosmetic revisions. An actual alternative.
- That City Council be told explicitly what firefighters were not asked
Silence cannot continue to be used as implied consent.
That retention outcomes, not survey optics, define success. Any plan that fails to stop departures is not a success, regardless of how it is framed.
Firefighters did not volunteer to be managed out of existence.
If the goal is to save the department, then restoring the incentive that kept it alive must be on the table, openly, honestly, and without pre-conditions.
###
The E-mail
“The meeting was productive, encouraging and thoughtful”
A meeting can be cordial and still produce a bad outcome. What matters is not tone, it is substance.
No progress was made toward restoring a pension-style incentive. That is the central issue, and it remains untouched.
“The survey was secure, valid, and credible”
Security and anonymity do not matter if the survey avoided the most important question.
A well-designed survey can still be incomplete. Credible data answering the wrong question is still the wrong data.
“Members prefer annual payouts”
That result was guaranteed by the framing. When the only options are:
- Get paid every 5 years
- get paid every year,
the outcome says nothing about what members actually want long-term.
It does not measure retention.
It does not measure retirement security.
It does not measure whether firefighters want the pension restored.
“The City is open to exploring annual payouts”
Annual payouts do not solve the problem firefighters are leaving over. Changing when a small benefit is paid does not replace:
- long-term accumulation
- meaningful retirement income
- a reason to stay beyond early service years
Exploring annual payouts is not the same as exploring restoration.
“The Committee will draft a new plan”
This is the most concerning part of the update. Firefighters are being asked to draft a plan inside the same City-defined constraints that eliminated the pension in the first place. These 6 people that self-appointed themselves to a committee is no more legitimate than any random group of firefighters that deems themselves a committee. We are not organized. We are not a bargaining unit. These 6 people do not represent every firefighter.
If pension-style incentives are off the table before drafting begins, then the outcome is already decided.
“Council will receive the survey results”
Council will receive answers, but not the question firefighters were never allowed to answer.
They will not see:
- a vote rejecting pensions
- a vote preferring stipends
- a vote endorsing the current framework
They will see silence, and silence will be interpreted as agreement.
Bottom Line
This process does not lead back to what worked. It leads to rebranding what already failed.
Firefighters were promised a retirement incentive. It was removed. And now the discussion is about how best to live without it.
That is not progress.
The E-mail:
The TFD Incentive Committee is pleased to provide an update to our members regarding our meeting Wednesday night with Chief Hullinger, City Manager Frank Nastasi, and Deputy City Manager Bob Bruner. In short, the meeting was productive, encouraging and thoughtful, and it points to a path where the City wishes to work collaboratively with us to make plan revisions that support what our members indicated they want in the survey. Once again, we are grateful for the incredible number of responses, which absolutely helped establish the direction we wish to pursue immediately.
We covered the following primary points during the meeting:
We had a general discussion about the survey, which all participants had the opportunity to review in advance, including the security and validity of the responses. Each member received a unique but anonymous link from the survey provider, ensuring the integrity of the data. This helps ensure your voices are taken seriously, as the data is verifiable and credible.
We reviewed the three primary messages derived from the survey and shared in the prior email:
There has been a significant decline in overall member satisfaction following the Incentive Plan change.
Members feel the current payout schedule encourages separation rather than retention.
A majority of members prefer a plan that provides annual payouts.
We requested a plan structure based on annual payments. This request was not rejected, and the City is open to exploring this option.
The City asked the Incentive Committee to draft and prepare a new proposed structure, including associated values. This is the number one deliverable from the meeting and will be provided to the City in advance of our next meeting.
The Incentive Committee wanted to ensure that City Council has the opportunity to review the survey results. It was agreed that the survey should be sent directly to Council, and the Incentive Committee will be doing so shortly to ensure all of Troy’s city leadership is aligned as we move forward with requests based on your feedback.
As a result, the Incentive Committee has work ahead to discuss and generate a revised plan draft. This is not a new discussion for us, as we have already been evaluating various structures in advance of this meeting. Our next step is to formalize the proposal and present it to the City via email. Given the importance of this effort, we will begin immediately.
Out of respect for other planned City deliverables and mandated activities that must occur in January for City staff, we tentatively scheduled our next meeting with the City for January 28, 2026. This timeline will allow adequate time to prepare the new plan draft, present it, and give the City an opportunity to assess feasibility prior to our next meeting.
If you have any questions in the meantime, please reach out to your station’s Incentive Committee representative.
Best regards,
TFD Incentive Committee