I believe it is fair for an employee would worked part time for 3-5 years and full time for over 20 to get full benefits. I do not think it is fair for an employee who worked 10 years part time and ten year full time to get full time benefits.
If there is a cut-off, I believe the part-time years should not be more than 20% of total employment. Anything over 20% of part time should get part time benefits.

I agree completely with RCarter's position. I fit into this "hybrid" category, having initially been a career part time employee. By the time I retire I will have many more full time years than part time years and think, under those circumstances, a pension based on the total number of years is appropriate. Perhaps a designated maximum percentage of part time years is appropriate. I do believe getting full credit for 20 years when only 3 were full time is abuse of the system, but if it were the reverse and 3 of 20 years were part time, full credit is appropriate.

I feel the same as Ellen and Robert.

With only 18 employees falling under this category, it appears that these workers' pensions are in the hands of the majority. The City wants to save money but to effect those members with the smallest voice is really unfair. In addition, some current pt employees considering full time will really have to contemplate if working full time will benefit them in the long run. Currently, it is only the last three years of working that determines the amount of pension. Perhaps this needs to change to the last 5 or 10 years. A full time person moving into a substantially higher salary position the last 3 years of employment is in the same position as the pt employee. This proposal should not just effect part timers. I would suggest that current employees not be effected and that a provision be put in place for new hires (similar to the 2 tiered system). I don't agree with the proposal.