When does "retirement" not require the government employee to “retire”?
What’s your point of view? Should public employees be able to double dip?
An old high school buddy who will remain anonymous, sent me this story about Central Falls, Rhode Island. It seems the police chief, retired ($48,000 retirement pay), secured his pension pay and then was rehired ($72,000 per year) to do the same job.
Here, listen to the Hummel Report and you will be asking yourself; Who negotiates these “contracts”? Who is looking out for the taxpayer?
Hummel Report Description: Retirement, as the saying goes, isn't always what it's cracked up to be. That's particularly true in the city of Central Falls. Last week, Jim Hummel called the police chief about a deal the chief made to ``retire'' and begin collecting a pension, while remaining on the job as chief, at a higher salary. Over the weekend, the chief put out a written press release reacting to our inquiry - but it didn't include all of the details. Now we have them, after Hummel sat down with Chief Moran for a wide-ranging interview about the deal and the public's perception of it.
I disagree with the police chief. His point of view completely ignores the public's outrage over how their tax dollars are being spent and the contracts negotiated by lifers of the government employment system. I realize what he did was legal, but it fails to pass the smell test. As a public official/employee you have an obligation to do what is right by the citizens, not just what is right by you. Your focus, and especially in these trying financial times, should be to save the public money. What double-dippers do is maximize their own financial gain at the expense of the taxpayer. So when what you do is maximize your own financial position with getting paid for two jobs, rather than allowing another person to have a job, there is clearly a question about whether this is in the public's best interest. With the public paying out record amounts for unemployment benefits along with public assistance for welfare and medical benefits, this will never pass the "smell test". The smell test simply means most people aren't able to verbalize what they see as wrong, but it sure doesn't seem right. What this man did, in my opinion, was ill conceived from the start. Someone else should have that job and that is what I believe is why this doesn't pass the basic smell test. If you retire then you go home and are no longer on the payroll.
Not everything that is wrong is legal and not everything that is legal is right. Sometimes we just have to use common sense.
It’s my opinion as a taxpayer that public service means public service. A contract should be honored but whoever negotiated this contract should be fired.
And what about in Iowa?
Post a comment
Post a Comment to "When does "retirement" not require the government employee to “retire”?"To reply to this message, enter your reply in the box labeled "Message", hit "Post Message."