| Update on the Issue of Double Dipping by Elected Officials |
Over the
next few weeks, the legislative audit department is working to compile a list
going back to 1999 of elected officials who have allegedly
filed for retirement and continue to draw their regular pay
as elected officials. While that
process is taking place, I am already working to draft a set of bills
closing the loopholes in our current retirement system. I want to not only continue to expose the
current problems but also take the necessary steps to safeguard the public
trust in the future.
One
interesting fact I have discovered in the process is a lack of definition for
"termination of employment." Lawyers
and researchers have told me the definition of "terminate or termination" was a
commonly
used term and one that had an understood definition. I think that is why this issue has been so
troubling to so many average taxpayers.
Some elected officials caught double-dipping attempt to hide behind
phrases such as "it's complicated" and "the public wouldn't understand." It really isn't that difficult, unless of course,
you are attempting to twist the system and steal money from the taxpayers and
and retirees who have served as dedicated public servants.
And let's
face it, that is exactly what we are talking about.
Just because
it's there, does it mean we should take it?
When someone
drops a wallet or accidently leaves a purse, do you return it or take it as
your own? After all, the owner lost or forgot it, and their mistake is not your
fault and can be turned into your good fortune... or can it?
Growing up
in a family grocery store with depression era parents, it was hammered into me that you do not take
what is not given or earned! We were taught "do unto others as you would have
done unto you" or what my wife more commonly calls "what goes around comes
around". This phrase is not called the "golden
rule" for nothing!
It seems now
days that our professional politicians are overcome with greed and a sense of
entitlement to the point that they will do anything to defend and rationalize
their actions.
The argument
for
the process of allowing a state employee to retire and then come back to work
drawing both salary and retirement benefits, is that it prevents the loss of
valuable knowledge and experience. In addition, when the employee retires and
the employing agency no longer has to contribute to that person's retirement
plan therefore saving the agency money on that position.
Or so they want you to
believe.
I am sure there
are going to be circumstances when it will be an advantage to retain the talent
and experience of some specific individuals in certain
positions. But should the practice be widespread and apply to everyone
(including elected officials) and used in an abusive manner?
Our
government is, after all, the people that work in it. If the people never
change, how will our government change or develop new ideas or operate better?
If we continue to employ the same people that have always managed things a
certain way how can we ever expect any different results tomorrow?
I know from experience that the longer you do
something a certain way, the harder it is to change. If you have performed a job
for 30 years and now you are getting paid twice as much to do the same job,
where is the incentive to change and improve? As much as we hate to admit it, a
certain amount of turnover is good for any business or organization wanting to
keep up with progress and demand for services.
Now, as for
the argument that the agency saves money by not having to contribute to an
employee that takes his retirement benefits, that is correct. But are they really saving as much as they
could by hiring a new employee? The answer is no. True retirement of an
employee means that position opens up to be filled either from applicants
outside the organization or from within. As most government agencies pay based
upon tenure in a position, the starting salary would be less than the retiring
employee. Which means the cost of benefits, contributions to retirement plan
and overall salary will be a much lower expense to the agency than just the
savings on the retirement contributions.
In addition, if the employees in your organization know that there is
eventual room for advancement, they will have an incentive to do a better job.
They are more enthusiastic and goal-oriented which in turn will manifest into better
productivity for the agency. But if they know that positions will not actually
be vacated, and will actually be re-filled by those in them now, there is
little or no incentive for that new employee who is a potential star in the agency to do their best and stay
with that agency.
I also want to
note and recognize those in elected positions in our counties, municipalities
and state that could have easily taken advantage of this system and have shown
great honor, integrity and character by not taking part in the greed and sense
of entitlement to taxpayer money expressed by this group of officials.
|
