Some good questions to ask Ogden's mayoral candidates
By Curmudgeon
Two stories up this morning, one in the Trib, one in the SE, that suggest, I think, some good questions to ask Ogden's mayoral candidates.
The Trib one is about Ogden's new police crime center monitoring the city's cameras, and plans for increase surveillance. Particularly interesting are the last paragraphs which report that several studies show such monitoring has no appreciable effect on crime rates:
The other, in the Standard-Examiner, is on double-dipping in the Ogden PD --- i.e. people who retire and are rehired at the same jobs so they pull both pension and pay checks for the same job. The Ogden Civil Service Commission declined to assert jurisdiction in the Sgt. Blaine Clifford matter; and now the case appears destined to be headed back to the District Court:
Definitely worth a read. Drop a quarter if you have to and take a look. And youir blogmeister will be most certainly looking for statements about double-dipping from the candidates.
© 2005 - 2014 Weber County Forum™ -- All Rights Reserved
43 comments:
Double Dipping is just plain wrong .. unfair .. and is construed as
cronyism
I guess the question is, are officers retiring too early? You can't overlook the fact that an experienced officer's knowledge is very valuable. If they were pulling from a retirement system that shrinks as they pull from it, like a 401k or such, it would be more palatable. With it being a pension, that's a little more grey. We shouldn't hold on to burned out officers, but we also shouldn't show the most experienced ones the door.
It would be informative to learn the extent of double dipping in other police agencies outside of Ogden city.
As for cameras, it's likely more cost effective then having an officer walk a beat. It's also very alienating. I think they will only cause the rift between citizens and Ogden city to widen. Very Orwellian!
I think the legislature eliminated double-dipping going forward. That does not, of course, resolve the matter of currently double-dipping city employees, particularly those who serve at the Mayor's pleasure.
I'm also not sure if the anti-double dipping legislation applies only to new hires, or it covers all pubic employees not yet retired. I know in some states and instances, the courts have held that retirement provisions are contractual obligations for the states, cities and so must be honored. Does the double dip ban then apply to all current and non retired pubic employees or only those employed after the new rules went into effect? I don't know. Seeking information.
If the Mayor had any sense of right and wrong that isn't directed from above, then maybe he should stop this whole damn dirty mess that the greedy and him have started. Remember that he too will leave city service with excess campaign funds to the tune of his year's salary of $80,000 plus. Pretty good for a guy that spent $5,000,000 to repay Weber County for knocking down one of their buildings and being rewarded for such incompentance.
Ask all the candidates about their positions on honesty, proper behavior, fair treatment for all and personal accountability. Then you will have your answer who best will serve.
he might need the $80K - in which case he would have to report it as income ... or keep it for 2 years in case he tries to run for public office again.
You wrote: "Ask all the candidates about their positions on honesty, proper behavior, fair treatment for all and personal accountability. Then you will have your answer who best will serve."
That's not going to do it, One Who Knows. What do you expect a candidate to say if you ask for "his position on honest, proper behavior, fair treatment"? He's going to say he's for 'em, along with motherhood, apple pie, the flag, and being nice to small dogs and children.
Big broad general questions like those candidates love . They can answer them just as broadly without saying much of anything. Questions based on some specifics work better to elicit useful information about a candidate's beliefs, commitments.
Something like this, maybe: "Ogden City is making a huge investment in a Crime Center and increased camera surveillance around the city, including via blimp. Yet the studies that have been done on such Crime Centers and camera surveillance already in place in other cities state that they have had not reduced crime at all. In light of that, do you favor halting Ogden's expanding investment in things like the Crime Center until research shows they actually reduce crime? And if not, why not?"
That could probably be trimmed a bit, but you get the idea. Ask about specifics, not generalities.
Interesting dilemma fer sure Mr. Curmudgeon - this double dipping thing.
Is is alright for a retired person to take an unrelated job after they start their retirement - ie a federal employee drawing retirement and going to work for a state gummint or private industry - or a retired perfesser, say someone from a University in Loosyanner coming west and doing the same teaching thing at a local college?
Or - should it only be wrong if the person retires and then comes back to the same agency in the same job? Other than the obvious cronyism inherent in the OPD situation - and others like it where the retiree returns to his same position - where do we draw the line on this problem that cheats others out of advancing in their careers regardless of which of the above examples is considered?
I guess the question is, are officers retiring too early? You can't
overlook the fact that an experienced officer's knowledge is very
valuable. If they were pulling from a retirement system that shrinks as
they pull from it, like a 401k or such, it would be more palatable. With
it being a pension, that's a little more grey. We shouldn't hold on to
burned out officers, but we also shouldn't show the most experienced
ones the door.
Hello: if they retire too early then decide to come back to their old position, their salary should be paid and retirement checks put on hold until they really retire ... no brainer there.
Sorry for the double post. iPhone doesn't like me today.
Courtney
If the retirement system stipulated that an officer is eligible for retirement after xyz criteria was met, and they have met those, why not give it to them? Can we expect that someone is going to keep working when they could just draw retirement for sitting around? If they are useless, don't hire them back. If they are still the best, keep them. This happens in the private sector all the time. Getting rid of someone because you want to be "fair" to the person below Is bad management.
Thanks Dad for showing me the errors of my ways. If it wasn't for you and your everlasting wisdom for others, life would be boring and rather dull. Is that SPECIFIC enough?
I can tell you where several states have drawn the line, and it seems a reasonable place to draw it from my POV: you cannot retire from a state job, and then take another state job without your retirement pay being suspended for the duration of your employment. Ditto for any public job in that state. You retire from a state job and go to work outside of state government in a different job, that's your business. But you should under no circumstances be simultaneously drawing retirement pay and a pay check from the same source of public employment.
As I said, that seems a reasonable and workable... and fair... standard from my POV.
That is done in some other states.... suspending pension payments for people who return to full time work for the state.
JN:
Here's another solution for over-committed public pension systems I think would reduce long term indebtedness substantially and be fair to employees as well: You get to retire after say 20 years if that's the standard, or 30 or whatever it is... but you don't get to start collecting until you're 65. That would also I think solve a lot of the "early retirement" problem CW mentioned. You can retire once you've reached the requisite number of years --- what is it, 20 for police? --- and are entitled to a pension, but you don't start collecting it until you hit 65. Want to retire and start another career elsewhere? Have at it. But the pension checks start at 65.
"You can't overlook the fact that an experienced officer's knowledge is very valuable."
What a load of complete BullCRAP, Courtney!!
When the top ranks of the OPD are clogged with the likes of Greiner and these other double-dipping fatasses, Ogden's top rank& filelower-ranking guys an gals will just go somewhere else, no?
I'd agree with that idea, but I wouldn't be opposed to offering some sort of incentive to stay on the force once you've met that goal of 20 years. You don't want them all becoming mall cops after years of training and experience.
They do go elsewhere and they will continue to do so, unless they are actually acknowledged for their value and worth ... OPD and Fired Dept ... I've spoken with seasoned Firefighters who are getting paid the same as newbies ... when the newbie figures out he/she won't be getting a raise ... buh'bye Ogden!
The physical and mental stress on a fireman or police officer are a lot different than that of sitting behind a desk or lecturing to college students. Under your proposal we would have 65 years old firefighters or policeman attempting to do a very serious job. Its a tough job.
Agreed, BR. But if you want to carve out more generous arrangements for people in public service doing physically taxing and dangerous jobs, we need to draw the lines around those more generous arrangements more narrowly than we do now. Not all soldiers go into combat. Not everyone working for the PD is a beat cop.
What might work better than a lift time pension after twenty is guaranteeing a lateral transfer within the organization after twenty if you're still in a physically demanding and dangerous job.
The idea behind pensions is to provide enough for a decent living after your working life is over. Pensions were not intended to provide a second income for half of a person's working life or longer [assuming a working life averages about 45 years on the job.]
And if you've worked for say the PD or the Army for 20, presumably you've acquired some marketable skills. If you wish, after twenty, to retire and start a second career in the private sector with them, you still can... and collect your public pension at 65 along with a second private pension if you've earned one too.
PS The fastest vesting pensions I know of are legislative pensions. The boys in the state houses and in DC made sure of that.
i realize that the dangers and stress you face in your job must be comparable. After all carpal tunnel from turning the pages of a textbool or eyestrain from reading student papers and lets not forget those paper cuts can really hurt. the biggest danger you ever faced was boring yourself to sleep and falling out of your chair. If every officer or fireman retires after 20 years but wishes to work until 65 years old you will hgave to hustify a tremendoyus increase in jobs to fit them all in.
BR - insert obnoxious game show "wrong answer" sound here ... now that was just dumb
js
BB
you are also wrong. Why is Crumdgeon and his replies immune to criticsm? he is often wrong but he is given greater latitude to reply and bully others. His solution to create more jobs for retiring foireman and policeman is wrong and seriously expensive. His advanced age did not give him the power of complete wisdom or knowledge in all things. He has been wrong before, he is wrong now and he will often be wrong in thefuture.
I'm not saying keep the bad cops, I'm saying dont throw away the good ones. And
that goes for more than just the highest ranks.
A blanket statement saying "double dipping is bad" is false. If the issue is
kicking out leachers and cronies, then do that. I'm just saying don't boot out
your best because they've got a few grey hairs. I wouldn't keep a beat cop in
that job after he's become unable to perform it, but what about clerks,
detectives, etc? If the police force is fighting over scraps, maybe that's where
we need to look.
"i realize that the dangers and stress you face in your job must be comparable."
I said nothing of the kind, BR. Not above nor anywhere else.
You wouldn't be booting them out, CW. They retired. That was their decision, not the PD's or the city's. The point is, if you want to keep working in the same job, don't retire and then apply to be rehired at the same job at full pay again. But no one has suggested booting them out. The only question is, should the city rehire in the same job at full pay someone who just voluntarily retired from that job. I think not.
Chief Greiner wasn't booted out ... he retired, started collecting his retirement (city's coffers, not private 401K or IRA) -- then Mayor reinstated him as Chief of OPD complete with salary out of city's coffers -- while he still collects retirement pay (he has a second home in St George) .. He wasn't booted out, I think they worked this out behind closed doors ...
Kind of like Blain Johnson? Huh? The MO seems to follow the mayor everywhere. Can't wait for the next chapter of his life to unfold "behind the scenes". (Get it, BEHIND!)
Booted out is just one way to look at it. If you tell someone they can get a check for staying home, or they can work as normal without any additional perks, which do you think they would take? I'm not saying you offer this kind of incentive to everyone who is retiring, but if you have the Micheal Jordan of police work, you'd be stupid not to try and keep them working. They would be drawing a pension regardless.
Now, it looks like they broke a few of their own hiring rules.. That's different, and I don't condone that.
This is simply a mental exercise, I would say. This situation in particular sounds fishy, and I'm not advocating in their favor. I'm just saying I wouldn't say that "double dipping" (There has to be a better, non disparaging term) isn't inherently wrong, its how you use it.
The federal law enforcement/firefighter retirement allows retirement at age 50 with at least 20 years service but collects an extra percentage from those employees to cover the cost. They have mandatory retirement at age 57. Personally I don't believe it should be mandatory as long as they can pass the required qualifications. (physical, firearms, etc).
It is double dipping - both the retirement checks and the salary checks for Greiner and the other Sargents etc hired out of retirement are coming out of the city coffers --> either get a salary OR a retirement check, not both
The retirement check comes from my paycheck, not the city. I pay into the system, the system manages and invests it for me, I draw from the fund.
"Personally I don't believe it should be mandatory as long as they can pass the required qualifications. (physical, firearms, etc)."
Agreed.
who pays your paycheck -- is it the taxpayers?
js
BB
Let's say you wait tables for a living. I'm sure your paycheck belongs to you not to the restaurant and everyone who has left you a tip. You provided them a service and were paid for it. When does my paycheck become my money? I worked for city and was paid for my time. I also used that paycheck to buy a house-who owns the house, me, or the taxpayers?
Even the military allows double dipping. Retire after 20 years, make some good connections and then get hired whithout knowing the job. This passes over career civil servants. These aren't technical positions but in management.
The law was changed years ago that they could take either their military or the new civilian pay. They used to go into private business. Want to save money make them choose either pay scale. This makes moral on base lower since it shows it is who you know not your qualified.
cronyism ... first comment on this post ...
Why is anyone spending one ounce of energy on the double dippers when the triple dippers have been on board? Blain Johnson has his law practice, was collecting city council salary and also received "donations" from the "FNURE and Envision Ogden" accounts. Why not start with the triple dips?
Actually Chief Greiner is a quadruple dipper!
Let's see - He gets his Police Chief pay, he gets his Police Chief retirement pay, he gets his Army Reserve retirement pay and he is married to the Lindquists - perhaps the biggest pay day of them all - and arguably the smartest thing he ever did!
You are the "sharpest tool in the shed" my friend! Quads need attention long before trips!!! Blain Johnson can't even hold a candle to this.......tally ho and onward we go.
Post a Comment