Sunday, April 24, 2011

Standard-Examiner: Issue of Repeated Double-dipping at Ogden Police Department Leads to Grievance

Isn't the current system of "recycling" "retiring" OPD top brass just plain wrong?

The Standard-Examiner follows up on its March 27, 2011 story this morning, and reports that aggrieved OPD Sgt. Blaine Clifford, "[a]n Ogden police sergeant who contends he was unfairly passed over for promotion in 2007 because of a double-dipping system is again taking his grievance to the city's Civil Service Commission":
The commission is scheduled to hear Sgt. Clifford's complaint on May 11.

So what about it gentle readers? Isn't this system of "recycling" "retiring" OPD top brass, at the expense of up-and-coming rank-and-file police officers just plain wrong? And shouldn't this issue be resolved once and for all by our Ogden City Council?

Have at it, O Gentle Ones.

Who'll be the first to throw in their own 2¢ concerning this issue?


Jim Hutchins said...

The link in the article is malformed. Here it is:

rudizink said...

Thanks, Jim. I've now fixed the broken link.

Mike Brice said...

It would be interesting - and maybe it has been done in past articles - to see what other departments in the state do, and even what other departments in other states do as far as double dipping.

OgdenLover said...

When I retired from state employment in another state, the law was that I could not be re-employed by the State in any capacity without forfeiting my retirement pay. I suspect that's the case in many places.

good_one1 said...

Retired Federal here, they allow double dippers for retired military if hired as civil servants. They changed the law years ago where you would have to forfeit either your military retirement or reduced civil pay. No penalty if privately employed. I think it should be changed back. I know of a retired Col that said he wouldn't go into private business because then he would have to work harder. Hired on as a manager and a GS -15.

It has been abused at Hill many times, holding a position open then filling it with a retiring military and passing over qualified career civil servants.

It is just part of the greed and everything is good as long as it is for me.

BobBecker said...

Louisiana had some double dipping scandals many years ago, and responded by changing its retirement rules for state employees, so that if you retire, and are subsequently hired back by the state in a full time position, your monthly pension payment is reduced by the amount of your monthly job pay. It was the right thing to do. [There were exceptions made, I think, only for part time work. For example, retired teachers could come back to work as substitutes without having their substitute's pay deduced from their pensions. The reasoning was it served the public interested to have fully certified experienced teachers on call as temporary substitutes. Made sense to me.]

But you absolutely could not retire, get your pension, and then go back to work full time in the same job, or for that matter, any job in state employ, without having your pay deducted from your pension payment.

Generally speaking, it was a very good idea. [Louisiana being Louisiana, I don't know if political influence has massaged the rules or diluted them since they were adopted. Possible. But the original reform was a good one Utah would be wise, in general terms, to adopt.]

Ozboy said...

If it wasn't sleazy Godfrey and Greiner wouldn't be doing it.

Just remember, legal is what they and their cohort City Attorney sayeth it is.

Ray said...

Many federal agencies have mandatory retirement for LE and firefighters. Those folks pay an extra percentage to retire as early as age 50 and have a mandatory retirement at age 57. I would argue as long as the folks could pass all physical and other requirements at age 57 they should be allowed to continue working. However, if the incentive for early retirement is a young and agile officer/firefighter then perhaps not. It would plug up the food chain in regards to upward promotion. My particular agency did not allow LE/firefighting people be re-hired within the agency in LE/firefighting and if hired outside LE/firefighting they could not draw their retirement just until really retired from the agency. They could go to some other agencies or state/local and be hired and some do that with no penalty.

One thing that really gets my goat is some states (California among others) allows these mandatory retirement recipients to draw unemployment insurance for up to two years. This even though they draw a handsome retirement check. This although legal, I think is morally reprehensible.

Not sure about the early retirement for state/local LE and firefighting in Utah.

Acassidyb said...

i noticed that the person most responsible for this problem, Matthew Godfrey, was not mentioned. Many others mentioned in the story and either made a brief comment or declined to respond. Usually a Scott Schwebke contains the reasoning or a response from the Mayor. This seems unusual since the reporter went to lengths to contact others involved in the story.

Dan S. said...

It's quite common for the S-E to forget to mention Godfrey when the news is bad. Of course, when the news is good, he gets the credit.

you_who said...

I dont think most people mind if a person retires and finds another job either in the private sector or the public sector if it is in a deiiferent line of work.
The retire in place is what rubs most people wrong. It's only available to a select few.

Post a Comment

© 2005 - 2014 Weber County Forum™ -- All Rights Reserved