Double Dipping - Is it Wrong?

[Scott]

No I am not talking about taking a bite out of a potato chip and then placing it back in the dip germs and all. I am referring to government employees retiring and then returning to the city or county with a new (or sometimes the same) job. Richard Lucero came up in another thread. Being a city employee I actually like the program. For those of you not familiar with it, a retiree can now be hired even after they retire. They must sit out 90 days and ARE NOT eligible to earn credit towards a second retirement. This is being done quite a bit in the law enforcement field. The Sheriff's Office has hired NUMEROUS employees to go to work in court security, etc. One of the nice things about the program is the availability of competent, trained employees. The Sheriff likes to hire these qualified people that he does ot have to send to the police academy in Santa Fe to be certified (just so they can leave and go elsewhere for more pay after this community pays all the money to have them trained). These individuals are generally more settled and don't feel the need to leave Roswell after their training is complete to go to a city with more night life like the younger folk. The employees actually get paid pretty well. They don't pay 16% into PERA so that is a 16% raise right there, plus they get the health care which can save them upwards to $750 a month (sometimes much less).

Now before someone gets on here and states that they are taking up all the good jobs let me say this. As far as Law Enforcement goes, we have been hiring at the Police Department since I started working there 12 years ago. We have never been fully staffed. We are always looking for people and we are always short handed. It is difficult to stay fully staffed. I welcome the double dippers. They are usually very stable and reliable.

What are your thought on this? Are the people with an IN at city hall being given the best treatment while others suffer?

[Daisy]

I thought it was wrong, because those people are drawing retirement while still working and receiving a paycheck from the same place. That doesn't seem quite right to me.

I do see your point about the Police Dept. - they are always understaffed. But why retire and then rehire, which is double dipping. It just seems wrong to me. It's milking a flawed system for all that it's worth (also called greed) - in my opinion, of course. :smk3:

[kralspaces]

Call me greedy then. Oh! someone already has. I don't see anything wrong with hiring qualified people to do the job, regardless of their age or where previous employment. Ask our own Neil about age in the police department. If someone has a skill, then hire him/her. I would be the first to scream 'foul' if the City paid for some incompetent lazy jerk or bimbo.

[Daisy]

I would be the first to scream 'foul' if the City paid for some incompetent lazy jerk or bimbo.

Well, maybe you ought to start screamin'..............:smk2:

[kralspaces]

I have been. Everyone down at City Hall knows me. Do they know you? Maybe you need to take your issues posted on the forum down to City Hall also. There are some really good and competent people in City Hall. Their hands are tied many times by budget constraints. My latest issues with the City had to do with housing inspections. The City actually supported my position.

Speaking of street repairs in another thread, I requested that the alley behind my new place be re-graded to move the rain water toward the street and it was completed within a week. My new neighbors love me for that because they were living with it for years. However, I have had some difficulty getting a new dumpster but was promised one by Monday after 3 tries. I believe the citizens just have to be more persistent to get things done. Anyway, it works for me. The City does seemed to grease the squeaky wheel so they will go away – for awhile anyway.

[Alfdom]

The practice is not wrong or illegal. If the Management makes a good choice, it is not an issue. The City Manager runs the City how the Council tells him. I do not fault him for keeping his job. The majority of the few that voted are happy with the Council.

Most of the citizens of Roswell do not care to know what the Council does and will not care any more in the future. This post will not change anything. If, by some miracle, someone uses the information on this site to affect a change, there is little chance it will not be changed back by the people who like things the way they are.

[tedster01]

I thought it was wrong, because those people are drawing retirement while still working and receiving a paycheck from the same place. That doesn't seem quite right to me.

I do see your point about the Police Dept. - they are always understaffed. But why retire and then rehire, which is double dipping. It just seems wrong to me. It's milking a flawed system for all that it's worth (also called greed) - in my opinion, of course. :smk3:

Daisy - "those people" have paid into that retirement for 20 to 25 years. It's their money. If they retire from the city and go to work at Wal-Mart as a greeter - they still recieve a paycheck AND their retirement. What difference does it make where their money comes from? City/City - City/Wal-mart.

[Daisy]

Hmmm.........good points, tedster, and Scott and all the rest of you. Thanks for your input. Y'all have changed my thinking on this a bit.

Here's my thinking - anyone can retire when they've reached the retirement age. And many find jobs other places after retirement. But is it right for a person who works for the city (run with tax payer dollars) to retire and then turn around and be rehired? Other companies don't allow you to retire and then turn around and rehire you. Yes, you pay into that retirement plan, but so does your employer, in most cases. Then again, the city isn't paying any more to rehire a retiree than it would to hire someone else. (are they?)

Hmm......maybe it isn't wrong, but something about it doesn't sit well with me and I don't know what it is......

[Shizzle]

In principle, it is a good practice. Yes it is their money and if they are eligible then by all means. They also take the risk of it being lost since New Mexico is heavily invested in the stock market. It could go away one day, so by all means, draw when you can.

You have people with experience filling the ranks instead of a wet behind the ears rookie. Somebody has to get hired to fill the void. As I understand it, they usually don't carry over senority so the pay would be on par with a rookie. Nothing wrong with that.

[Billy Wood]

Here are the temp emp as of March 2008. Most if not all of the high pay rate per hr. are to retires that have been rehired through temp companies. There has been more retires added this year.

Just something to think about.

[Shizzle]

I stand corrected regarding the pay rates. Thanks.

[Daisy]

In principle, it is a good practice.

If that's true, why don't all companies do it - it just seems fishy and unethical to me.

[tedster01]

Guys,

Here are a few websites that rehire retirees. It is becoming a very common practice with city, county, state and colleges.


http://www.hrm.msstate.edu/employment/rehire_retiree.html

http://www.washington.edu/admin/hr/roles/mgr/hire/retiree/index.html

http://shr.ucsc.edu/shr-procedures/rehire-retiree/index.htm
http://www.today.ucla.edu/portal/ut/080919_rehiring_retirees.aspx

[Daisy]

Thanks for the info, tedster. It's still smelly to me, but I could be wrong. I was wrong before............once, long ago. ;)

[postmaster]

Hi everyone, my first time for adding my 2 cents:meh: I used to think there was something wrong with double-dipping, but I stopped thinking that way years ago. When a person retires from the first job and draws a retirement, there is nothing wrong with still wanting to be productive and earn extras for some travel, etc. I retired from the postal service after 31 years and think that when the postal service hires temporary ermployees during the holidays, they would be money and experience ahead if they could hire retired employees for the 6-8 weeks involved. With needing the help for such a short period, I would rather hire those who know their way around from day one. Anyway, makes sense to me!

[Daisy]

Hi, postmaster - thanks for speaking up (or typing up) on this topic!!

I'm beginning to think that it's not wrong - UNLESS you retire and then are rehired BY THE SAME COMPANY. That still seems underhanded to me and I still can't explain why.....:pinch:

[postmaster]

Hi Daisy!

Well, I guess the way I now view that is this: if you spend 25 or 30 years with a company then retire, you will most likely draw anywhere from 46-58 % of your base pay( am basing this on the Postal Service retirement system). Retired employees have a lot to offer in knowledge and experience. I think retirees would make great (most of them) part time employees, giving full time jobs to those just starting out in their careers. I honestly do not think there is anything wrong with it, but enjoy reading others' points of view. As the postal service retirement system has a cap on the amount you can draw in retirement, if an employee stays past that point, they in a sense are working for nothing more towards retirement. It makes retirement, then getting another job make more sense. Military retirees can retire after 20 years yet are still young (37).....guess that's why a lot of them came to work at the postal service. Anyway, my point being, if a person works for 30 years, they have fulfilled the requirement to retire, I say they should be able to get another job if they want to. I think it's good business practices for the companies to want to rehire experienced employees as well, although I would rather see others have the same opportunity to have a career with the company.

[Daisy]

Very well put, postmaster. So, am I the only one who thinks there's something sneaky about retiring and then being rehired by the SAME COMPANY? Are there times when it shouldn't be done and times when it's okay?

Y'all have given me a lot to think about.........my head hurts...........:pinch:

[tedster01]

Daisy,

Let's say that you own a business. You have a fantastic employee that has worked for you for 20 years - knows your business like the back of his/her hand - has put money away in the retirement plan that you have offered. That employee retires and enjoys retirement for a couple of months and then walks through your door and says. "I'm really getting bored with this retirement thing. Do you think that I could come back to work for you?" Would you say "No, that seems underhanded to me!"

I don't think that you would hesitate for a second to rehire that person considering how much easier it would make your life, how much you trusted them and the productivity benefits that you would get from that employee.

[Daisy]

I can't imagine getting bored with retirement, but okay. That's another good point in favor of double dipping, tedster.

It still is gnawing at the back of my mind that something is wrong with this practice! I just can't get a grip on it - I'm doing several different things right now. Maybe it's because some abuse it, but, heck, SOMEONE abuses every practice. I'll think on it some more.....

[postmaster]

Hi Daisy,

I don't think there is a right or wrong to a company rehiring a retiree. As for being sneaky or underhanded, I don't see it that way. Think of it this way, if you owned a company and one of your employees worked for you for 30 years, decided to retire, then in 3-6 months came and asked you for a job..if that employee had been dependable and skilled, would you hire him/her back? I would because I would know the type of employee I was getting. Once an employee has earned the retirement the company offered, it really shouldn't make any difference to the company if the ex-employee wants to continue working. 60 is the new 40, people are living longer and are healthier.....I really don't know anyone who wouldn't rather have 2 paychecks instead of one.....:no3:

[Billy Wood]

Here is my take on this subject. I agree there are a lot of positive reasons to rehire retires most has been posted. Here is the down side.

1) There are many good qualified people looking for a career where they can move up in that career. When the city practice this type of employment these qualified people go else where for a good career knowing they have a chance to move up and become part of management.

2) For some of the current city employees seeing when their supervisor retire they do not get a chance to move up because a city retired person is hired for that position.

3) The city of Roswell is a government not a private business. Being a government it is my understanding any open position should be advertised to the public.

I was talking with someone just the other day he told me he fired one of his employees and two days later that person was working for the city of Roswell.

[postmaster]

Roswell...I understand your point, and that is why I stated in an earlier post that this practice does limit opportunities for others. Now you have me curious, how long has the city employeed the practice of rehiring retirees? I imagine that this practice has a much larger impact on a city the size of Roswell as opposed to a metro area where more city, state, county jobs are available. I know the federal govt does this to a small extent and for no longer than 6 months. The returning fed employee is offered a contract and is not considered on the rolls, thus, the vacated position is available for someone else. I imagine this practice causes some animosity in the workplace yet it must be a legal practice. This is an interesting subject.

[Daisy]

3) The city of Roswell is a government not a private business. Being a government it is my understanding any open position should be advertised to the public.

Thanks, Roswell, I think that's my main problem with this - a city government should not be doing it, because (in my opinion) that's a place where the same people should not be in charge over and over again. It doesn't allow for new, younger people to become involved - the older ones just keep getting recycled. Do the taxpayers foot the double dipping bill for these recycled employees?

Private businesses can (and should) be allowed to do whatever they want, but a government should be different. Government people are supposed to be working for the people, who should have some say in these practices.

I think that was the nagging little bug in my mind - government double dipping vs. private business double dipping. There's a difference there....

[Scott]

This came up in the Law Enforcement arena as well. In terms of leadership, that is another tangled mess. Let me give you an example. John Wayne Davis was a Detective with te RPD for many, many years. He retired and returned. Some of the younger officers in the department would like to have taken his job as a detective in Criminal Investigations. Now as an administrator at the P.D. you have to choose whether you will "promote" one of these young officers (the department is FULL of young officers to the point the senior patrol Sergeant has somthing like 5 years at the department) or allow Detective Davis to return as a Detective. Davis has more experience in investigating violent crime than the entire rest of the criminal investigation division combined. So what now? Do you allow Davis to come back as a detective and risk upsetting some rookie officer with 1 to 3 years on the force or do you let the rookie have the job? It isn't always a simple as it may appear on paper.

As far as taxpayer stuff. That is interesting as well. You have to remember one thing. The "taxpayer" has to pay for the retirment as well as the replacement regardless of whether or not it is the same person. So to me that argument means little to nothing.

[Daisy]

Davis has more experience in investigating violent crime than the entire rest of the criminal investigation division combined.

Good example, Scott. How do the rookies get the experience if they are never allowed to do the job? I suppose the old experienced ones could help out when needed, except no one would want to do that for free, cuz it's all about money these days. I suppose they could be hired on a part time, as needed basis, but that takes more taxpayer money, too. It's quite a puzzle......

The "taxpayer" has to pay for the retirment as well as the replacement regardless of whether or not it is the same person.

That's true, as well, so it isn't a good argument against double dipping. I suppose the best reason not to do it is to allow the young employees to move up in their field and make a place for themselves like the old guys did.

[Swadlo]

Thanks, Roswell, I think that's my main problem with this - a city government should not be doing it, because (in my opinion

Double dipping is like illegal aliens, it is against the law, no matter how you get around it. I think if a person who retires and then decides to go back to work that is just fine as long as he gives up his retirement check. Paying a person two pay checks is a very good reason the city has not got enough money to hire more policemen. Could that be the problem with the city not having the money needed to hire the number of police to protect a city the size of Roswell? Worth looking into don't ya think.

Do we now decide which laws to honor, and which laws to ignore? You tell me.

Swadlo

[Alfdom]

Double Dipping does not stop some people from moving up. The City can be very good to it's favored employees. People with the right stuff move right up that chain of command or even get hired off the street to a great paying position.

Double dipping does not change the situation.

[Scott]

Double dipping is like illegal aliens, it is against the law, no matter how you get around it. I think if a person who retires and then decides to go back to work that is just fine as long as he gives up his retirement check. Paying a person two pay checks is a very good reason the city has not got enough money to hire more policemen. Could that be the problem with the city not having the money needed to hire the number of police to protect a city the size of Roswell? Worth looking into don't ya think.

Do we now decide which laws to honor, and which laws to ignore? You tell me.

Swadlo

It is illegal? Really? Where did you come up with that?

[postmaster]

Swadlo....you stated that retiring and going back to work is illegal? how so? Also, to answer your question if double dipping is the reason Roswell can't afford more police officers: JMO: if a person retires, goes back to work then that person is taking the vacant position that someone else would fill, right? So it's still one position being paid. As for the retirement, the employee has a lot of money invested in his/her own retirement. Retirement money does not come from funds allocated for 'payroll'........so either way, it's a wash.

[Swadlo]

If a person is drawing his retirement check from the city and a pay check from the city. IE Double Dipping. look around you at the police who retired from the City force and went to work for the county and for the City of Artesia. Some folks need it spelled out for them. The way you guys are describing it. All retired city employees could retire and go back to work for the city and draw TWO PAY CHECKS from the city.
1. A retirement check
2. and a pay check.
No one said that they could not start a second Career, some where else.
Read what is printed.
The way you guys put it Why would the city go through the trouble of hiring the old Fire chief to run the Pecos Trails Transit System Through Man Power instead of just hiring him.
Ask yourself, Who's interest does Henderson look out far, the good ol boys are the people of Roswell.
Then ask for proof.

Swadlo

There is "NO LAW" against starting a second career, just not with the same government entity

[mfish]

If a person retires from the city, and still has talents to offer, then the city certainly has the "right" to re-hire this person as a contract employee.
This seems to be somewhat prevalent in the Roswell city administration. I do not know if it's prevalent in other cities. I suspect the contractors will work for less than what the city can attract a new full-time employee, when you add in benefits, etc.
Does it detract from someone who's currently working ability to rise up within the ranks? Sure. Is it acceptable business practices to do this? Well, I suppose the city can argue they're saving tax dollars with these contract empoyees, as opposed to full-timers, so in their eyes, they can justify the motive.
But the "good ol' boy" system is hard to break when some of the "good ol' boys" won't move on and enjoy their retirement. Some of them probably don't bring a lot to the table except "more of the same," and that in and of itself can be a benefit to those who "run" the city - they know what they're getting when keeping the "reliable" gofers on a string.

[Alfdom]

The City of Roswell does not give retirement checks. The City participates in the Public Employees Retirement Association of NM retirement programs.

I will try to explain it simply:

Joe Sixpack gets hired by the City. He works for about three weeks and then gets a paycheck. Joe is alarmed to find his paycheck is about half what he thought it would be. He asks around and is told about how the city is always behind paying on one week after the work is done.

Joe goes back to work, and two weeks later gets another paycheck. He is again short money, on what he was told he was getting paid. He asks around and finds out there are medical insurance premiums that come out and something called PERA.

Joe learns that the City will take his money and send it to Santa Fe. He may learn the City has to pay about the same amount. Joe is not happy because he needs the money now, not 30 years away. He does not have a choice about the amount taken or how the money is invested.

Joe's buddy Juan worked for the City 4 years. When he quit, Juan had to fill out forms to get his own money back plus some interest on it.

Joe stays on for 30 years and retires. The PERA sends him back his own money at the rate of 70% of the paycheck the city used to give him. The money that was taken from his check over the years, plus the city's contributions plus the interest are far more than what he will draw out, but Joe is a worker not a suave investor.

Joe thinks he will be alright until he found out he has to still pay over $600 if he wants to keep his family health insurance. He then knows he has to get a job at least until his kid gets old enough to buy his own insurance. He ran a street sweeper and worked patching roads so he can not find a job that pays much over minimum. He then sees the City is hiring a laboror. Joe knows he will only pay about 300 a month for his insurance and the pay is better than a greater at Walmart. The only thing stopping him from working for the City is some one told it was illegal.

[Swadlo]

I see the research I did on doubledipping I posted never made it to the site?????????????????????????????????????????????? ???????????///
Swadlo

Here it is I had to move it over from the old data base. (Roswell)
Sorry it took so long. Check it out and make your own conclusions.

Florida
http://www.sptimes.com/2008/03/04/State/Bills_curb_double_dip.shtml#
WV
http://www.theintelligencer.net/page/content.detail/id/515732.html?nav=511
NM
http://thebestinterests.com/
Bankruptcy Law
http://www.bankruptcylawnetwork.com/2008/04/21/means-test-property-tax-arrears-is-double-dipping-allowed-on-lines-43-and-44/
------------------------------------------------
http://www.tax.state.nm.us/d&o/dno2003_08.htm
-----------------------------------------
http://www.talkroswell.com/talk/showthread.php?t=868
---------------------------------------------------
http://www.inmotionmagazine.com/marste4.html
-----------------------------------------
http://search.msn.com/results.aspx?q=new+mexico+state+law+on+double+dipp ing&FORM=AWRE2


Swadlo

[Daisy]

....it is against the law, no matter how you get around it.

I don't suppose it is against the law, since it's apparently done often. I do still think it's unethical - I agree there is nothing wrong with it unless the person is rehired within the same government agency. There is no reason to retire, then rehire, except to draw two paychecks from the same place and that just isn't right! :no3:

[Alfdom]

The public employer in New Mexico does not give out retirement checks. It is not two checks from the same place.

[Daisy]

Yep, I phrased that wrong - I know what I'm trying to say, but not how to say it exactly right. The double dipping worker is drawing money from retirement (which the public employer put in to) and collecting a paycheck from the same public employer. Is that stated right?

Still think it's unethical.....

Still think it's wrong.........

[Alfdom]

The money that paid for the retirement was earned by the worker and taken from the workers paycheck. The City did put some money in the retirement plan. The worker earns the paycheck and the benefits. The city does not give away any thing to the worker. No one seems to have a problem with the money the worker puts into the plan. The plan is a benefit of the job, and one of the reasons the City can retain the workers it does.

If one thinks the City overpays the workers, they can voice their concerns with the City Council. At one time it was illegal in this state to work for a public employer while retired under the PERA. The law changed about six years ago. One could call their state representatives and try to get them to change the law back on the bases that it just feels immoral.

I left the City employment to find better pay. The benefits of working somewhere else are better to me.Working for the City of Roswell is just a resume stain for me. Most employers think City workers are stupid to work for so little.

[Daisy]

Here are some of the city worker jobs I found online - the wages won't make anyone rich, but they aren't all that bad. (at least I don't think so) The Police positions seem pretty low for that kind of dangerous work. (we already knew that - they apparently haven't been filled either) These are mainly maintenance positions - when you think about how much more the higher ups make, on top of their retirement (if they're double dipping), it adds up to some pretty big money.

http://www.roswell-nm.gov/jobs.htm

[kanitnad]

As a retired PERA member I believe there are a number of things wrong with double dipping.

1. No one is so important that they can't be replaced. What did we do before the double dipping was allowed? We hired new people and everything was fine.
2. With unemployment on the rise we stifle new workers getting trained and bringing new ideas to government when we allow retired members to double dip. Imagine if you are one of the people getting laid off this month, wouldn't you want to have the opportunity to get a job. Instead you lose out to someone who is now getting a monthly pension check. I want my kids to have the opportunity I had. I don't want to see them locked out of a goverment job because I would not leave.
3. Current workers can't get promotions. It is happenning all over the state. The majority of double dippers are coming back to their old directors and supervisors positions. It kills morale. Could you imagine working at an entry level job and wage your entire career, because the guy above you has come back to double dip in his old position!
4. Goverment now pays 100% of the double dippers PERA contribution. Better put, the taxpayer is now paying 100%. Regular workers are paying 5% to 16% of their salary toward PERA. Double dippers have this funded for them by taxpayers.
5. If you want to double dip then you run the risk of ruining the 20 and 25 year plans for those that have not retired. ERA is preparing legislation to raise their retirement calculation to 80 instead of 75. This means you have to have age plus years working equalling 80. Someon who is 60 years old must have at least 20 years in ERA. The legislature is looking at raising the retirement years of service because of the double dipping. Why shouldn't they? If everyone wants to keep working, just make the work age requirement longer. What if you can't retire after 20 or 25 years. It could be changed to 30 or 35 years. Do you see how double dipping is going to ruin it for younger workers?
6. Over 90% of all PERA double dippers are back in their high paying jobs. That looks very unethical. There are people in Albuquerque and NM state goverment who are doing their old jobs but now are making $200,000 or $300,000 per year when you add their pension and double dip. This is just wrong. It looks greedy because it is greedy.

PERA is a great retirement. Unfortunatly we the members will ruin it for new members. I hope it gets repealed this legislative session. To many good people are out of work and need jobs. Too many good employees deserve their chance to supervise but are locked out. And we just don't need to spend taxpayer dollars paying for double dipping. My kids deserve the opportunity I had.

[Swadlo]

if there is NOTHING WRONG with double-dipping, then why did the city go through "Man Power" to rehire Sorinson? Just a thought.

Swadlo

[saw]

These all appear to be double dippers hired thru an employment agency:
Richard Lucero Alarm Administrator cost to City $31.03 per hour
Jerry Lonowski Community relations " " " $24.58 per hour
Larry Alsup Data processing director $38.54 per hour
Bob Thompson Management Consultant $48.01 per hour
Mike Jurecek HR investigator $26.32 per hour

I Don't see a Sorensen on my " temporary employee list" but as 12/2/08 the City have on their list of employees a Michael Sorensen and a Paul Sorensen.

There are other double dippers that come from the military and other govermental agencies as well as other departments within the City.

The Council authorized The City Manager to negotiate with Management Associates for collective bargaining services. If you want to get a real run around ask a Councilman why we need to hire an outside firm to negotiate with the Cities employees.

[Swadlo]

Sorensen was hired to run the Pecos Trails Bus lines a while back.

This is why the city is broke. And all the more reason we need to start getting ready and elect us a new city Government. For all practical perposes, John Capps is running this town. If we do nothing, then we had just as well shut up. It is now or never.

Swadlo

[Daisy]

This is just wrong. It looks greedy because it is greedy.

I agree, kanitnad - in fact, I agree with your whole post!! Thanks for stating so well some of the reasons why double dipping is wrong.

if there is NOTHING WRONG with double-dipping, then why did the city go through "Man Power" to rehire Sorinson?

Good question, Swadlo - and the answer is, to cover up the facts BECAUSE DOUBLE DIPPING IS WRONG and they know it.


These all appear to be double dippers hired thru an employment agency:

Thanks for the info, saw - you are definitely our data dude (or dudette)! :smk3: Those five people are certainly making a lot of money on top of their retirement....it just isn't right....in my opinion.....:no3:

[Scott]

As a retired PERA member I believe there are a number of things wrong with double dipping.

1. No one is so important that they can't be replaced. What did we do before the double dipping was allowed? We hired new people and everything was fine.
2. With unemployment on the rise we stifle new workers getting trained and bringing new ideas to government when we allow retired members to double dip. Imagine if you are one of the people getting laid off this month, wouldn't you want to have the opportunity to get a job. Instead you lose out to someone who is now getting a monthly pension check. I want my kids to have the opportunity I had. I don't want to see them locked out of a goverment job because I would not leave.
3. Current workers can't get promotions. It is happenning all over the state. The majority of double dippers are coming back to their old directors and supervisors positions. It kills morale. Could you imagine working at an entry level job and wage your entire career, because the guy above you has come back to double dip in his old position!
4. Goverment now pays 100% of the double dippers PERA contribution. Better put, the taxpayer is now paying 100%. Regular workers are paying 5% to 16% of their salary toward PERA. Double dippers have this funded for them by taxpayers.
5. If you want to double dip then you run the risk of ruining the 20 and 25 year plans for those that have not retired. ERA is preparing legislation to raise their retirement calculation to 80 instead of 75. This means you have to have age plus years working equalling 80. Someon who is 60 years old must have at least 20 years in ERA. The legislature is looking at raising the retirement years of service because of the double dipping. Why shouldn't they? If everyone wants to keep working, just make the work age requirement longer. What if you can't retire after 20 or 25 years. It could be changed to 30 or 35 years. Do you see how double dipping is going to ruin it for younger workers?
6. Over 90% of all PERA double dippers are back in their high paying jobs. That looks very unethical. There are people in Albuquerque and NM state goverment who are doing their old jobs but now are making $200,000 or $300,000 per year when you add their pension and double dip. This is just wrong. It looks greedy because it is greedy.

PERA is a great retirement. Unfortunatly we the members will ruin it for new members. I hope it gets repealed this legislative session. To many good people are out of work and need jobs. Too many good employees deserve their chance to supervise but are locked out. And we just don't need to spend taxpayer dollars paying for double dipping. My kids deserve the opportunity I had.

So how do you suppose we solve the issue of not being able to find qualified personnel to staff the Police Department? Of course with the economy in the toilet we may begin to have more applications than we know what to do with. As far as the local P.D. is concerned we don't have any double dippers in high ranking positions. Not even a Sergeant. Had the Police Department staffed the highr ranks with double dippers the morale would have certainly collapsed. Most administrators that have drove a desk for many years are not interested in returning to the Police Department and working the midnight shift on patrol. That being said, suppose one did? Whould that be wrong? What if they started at the bottom and were forced to work their way up like everyone else?

[kanitnad]

So how do you suppose we solve the issue of not being able to find qualified personnel to staff the Police Department?

Funny you ask that. I am a retired police officer (not Roswell PD). After 20 years of service I found that the manpower problems for police agencies are self imposed. Almost all police departments are disfuntional with their hiring practices. I have seen people get hired for top secret department of energy positions within a one month time period. Yet police departments have created such a red tape mess it can take 6 months or more for someone to get hired as a police cadet! Go figure.

So to directly answer your question, first what did we do before the double dipping? We worked it out. Second, there needs to be a big push to change how police departments hire. They should strictly base everything on a pass/fail system and they should mandate that the process only takes 60 days. This can be easily done. In fact I would privatize all police recruiting and hiring. Trained police officers are the worse people to do recruiting and backgrounds. Police officers are good at keeping the peace, not at recruiting and backgrounds. Problem is the police are a lot like the military. They refuse to be told what to do. They refuse to change how they are.

No double dipping would be a good start at getting our police departments to start thinking. There are plenty of good people who want to be officers, they deserve a chance if they can pass the tests and background. We(the police) are our own worse enemy because we refuse to change. We have the same hiring practices we did 30 years ago. It is time for a change.

[Scott]

I agree with some of your ideas. The hiring process is too long and there is a lot of red tape. Much of which is provided by City Hall. However, all the refining of the testing and recruiting process in the world will not help if we recieve 5 applications for 20 openings. I have personally seen it. Of those 5 people, 2 fail the run, 1 fails the written and the final 2 have serious background issues. This leaves you with another month of advertising, and hoping maybe next month we'll get more than 5.

When faced with a recruiting month with the above numbers, a PERA retiree willing to go to work and fill the position immediately looks pretty darn good(no year long training process to get them through the academy and field training program - just so they can wash out).

On a more positive note, it is my understanding that we have sent out 32 invitations to test this Saturday. 32 increases the chance of sucess by a whole bunch.

[kanitnad]

I was always an advocate that Recruiting and Backgrounds should be contracted out to a private company. Put it in their hands to get qualified applicants who pass the tests. If they get a certain number then give them a bonus for it. When you have cops doing recruiting and backgrounds there is just no incentive for them to go out and really recruit people.

Police have always felt that we don't have to beat the bushes, why heck we are the police and you should come to us. We should learn from the military and aggressively recruit. My daughter gets a call almost every week! I never knew a police recruiter who did that and I always wondered why not.

The whole culture what we want our certified police officers to do needs to be reviewed. Too many of our officers are not doing police work.

[Swadlo]

So how do you suppose we solve the issue of not being able to find qualified personnel to staff the Police Department? Of course with the economy in the toilet we may begin to have more applications than we know what to do with. As far as the local P.D. is concerned we don't have any double dippers in high ranking positions. Not even a Sergeant. Had the Police Department staffed the highr ranks with double dippers the morale would have certainly collapsed. Most administrators that have drove a desk for many years are not interested in returning to the Police Department and working the midnight shift on patrol. That being said, suppose one did? Whould that be wrong? What if they started at the bottom and were forced to work their way up like everyone else?

A good start would be to offer a LIVING wage with decent benefits. This could be done by stop the BS lones and backing foolish enddevers.
Just a thought
Take care
Swadlo

[mfish]

Pulled this off Joe Monahan's "New Mexico Politics" blog (http://www.joemonahansnewmexico.blogspot.com/) this morning.

Evidently "double dipping" has become a grand New Mexico tradition in places other than Roswell:



DOUBLE THE FUN

ABQ Mayor Marty Chavez, sensing political peril, responded swiftly to a KRQE-TV report pointing out the double dipping going on with city employees. That's when they retire from their positions, start picking up state retirement checks and then are rehired by the city to their original positions. They then draw a retirement as well as a city paycheck. Nice work if you can get it. Some of them are pulling down nearly $200,000 a year because of this loophole that the Legislature is considering blocking (for state employees) after approving it some years ago.

Chavez says employees in his office will not be allowed to stay on if he is re-elected in October unless they agree to the one check rule. The mayor adds that all city employees will be told one paycheck only, but KKOB-AM radio reports he is exempting from the ban a reported 275 "public safety" employees who are not cops on the street. That's drawn attention of critics. They say double dipping may be needed to keep enough cops on patrol, but not for police (and fire) employees not on the front lines and who are not in short supply. Why are they also exempted from double-dipping? Wonder what the mayor thinks? His mayoral foes were not yet reacting.

[ElRipper]

I saw Larry Barker's program about officials double dipping with a water conservation agency in Northern NM. Like most of you, I thought DD was retiring and coming back on board to draw a retirement and salary at the same time. This is allowed and procticed in many places, -especially government (NM teachers, state workers, I guess city also, Federal workers -allowed).

But in Barker's show the officials never actually retired. The supervisors signed retirement papers for workers who didint actually retire. He pointed out that the particular statutes of this agency say "retirement" is leaving a position for a minimum of 90 days. In his case, the worker never left, just started receiving his retirement pay. Therefore, it was illegal for the Supervisor to sign the retirement and for the worker to sign and accept his retirement without leaving the position, in addition to drawing both the salary and Rtrmnt pay. The workers are currently remaining on the State dole. You might be able to query this story via the net. You might be able to write to your govenor requesting an explanation of fraud on his watch. I might ask him if the whole state is crooked.:pinch:

[SonnyCrockett]

Don't forget this is not just big City NM it happens right here, Siri Cooper left work one day and returned the next with a new job as a contract employee with the city.. Or should I say same job... Retired? I don't think so.. Not even the 90 days off as stated in PERA

[saw]

As of 12/02/08 Siri Cooper was a full time employee making $77,172.37 per year with the position of assistant city manager. Larry Fry is also listed as an assitant city mananger and he makes $81,930.98 per year. John Capps makes $108,589.10 per year. These figures do not include the burdens and the perks. The total salary budget for the department (financial) that they work in is $531,513.00 not including burdens or perks. Lots of managing going on don't you think?

When did she leave and come back as a contract employee?

[mfish]

Interesting article on the "double dipping" issue - evidently it's a problem everywhere:

http://newmexicoindependent.com/24446/ags-office-wary-about-double-dipper-reform-is-itself-a-double-dipper

[Daisy]

Yeah, a headline in the RDR recently was, "Governor okay with Double Dipping". So what they're saying is, it may be wrong, it may be unethical, it may be dishonest, but let's make it NOT illegal.

We're becoming just as morally corrupt as the big boys in Washington. :no3: