And just who pays for this system abuse?
The good old American taxpayer.

@DouglasAmerica - I thought that reporter was going to start crying. What's up with that?

@DouglasAmerica - What they should've look at is those who double dip. Take Dick Buehler, Utah County Sheriff deputy while simultaneously working at DNR-Forestry, Fire & State Lands Director AND State Forester. Imagine how much he earns as a salary, then imagine his URS payment plan.

@DouglasAmerica - This story was hard to watch knowing how many fine people are at our local un-employment office. They could sure use this money and earn it from the taxpayers rather than paying someone twice.. And let an honest person pay his bills with sutch money..

@DouglasAmerica - I find it interesting that many of these double dippers (good ole boys) have run some of their agencies into the ground and are not really respected. This practice needs to come to an end in order to save taxpayers the burden of supporting these inept, tyrannical gluttons. I can’t believe this has been allowed to go on for so long.

@DouglasAmerica - A contract is made between the employer & the employee. The agreement is that after 20 years of service, the employee will receive "x" amount of dollars for their retirement pay. If the employee retires, the employer (city/state) in this case is obligated to the contract and the employee deserves their monthly pay. If they choose to go work at McDonald's they will still get their retirement income. If the employee leaves to work at McDonald's, the employer (city/state) will have to pay "someone" to do the job. Right? So what is the problem? The city/state will actually SAVE money by not having to train a new person.

@DouglasAmerica - MDScott: I have to disagree with you. There is no contract between a police chief or sheriff that says after 20 years you'll get "x" amount of dollars. The law enforcement retirement is base on 20 or 30 years of service. At 20 years of service an officer can retire and get 50% of the three highest year's salary as their retirement. If they work to 30 years it's 70%. The city or county doesn't "save" money by not having to train a new police chief or sheriff. Police chiefs are hired based upon their experience and ability to run a police department. No one "trains" them how to do it. The chief has been nominated to hold that position by the mayor and the city council votes on whether or not to hire the applicant for the job. As you may or may not know, the sheriff is elected by the citizens. I would hope they are elected based upon their ability to run the sheriff's department. There is no savings in regards to "training" a new Chief or Sheriff. If there was, who trains them?

@DouglasAmerica - I think one piece of information was missed in this story. Pull your head out was exactly right about how retirement is earned. Most city and all state employees earn a retirement based on years of service. The current retirement plan is that officer's retirement is 50 percent at 20 years of service and it increases another 2 percent a year after that to a maximum of 70 percent. This is part of the salary and one of the benefits of a city or state job. I also believe it's one of the reasons that the salaries are a little lower. There's no question it's a good benefit, but it is part of the salary and the officers and other city/state employees pay into the system for their entire career.

The point I think was missed is that once a chief draws his retirement, that's it. His retirement doesn't increase and he's certainly not getting anything he doesn't deserve. The chief or sheriff must be of retirement age and have at least 20 years in prior to pulling his retirement. Many chiefs and sheriffs would be retiring anyway at this age and the city would be hiring someone else to do the job. Allowing a chief or sheriff to retire in place keeps the experience in place and really doesn't cost cities or counties an additional cent. Any person who reaches retirement age and decides to retire can do so, and then take another job. It happens in every job in the country and this is no different.

The issue is that the retirement system has been hammered by the economic downturn that is affecting us all. Three years ago, Utah's public retirement plan was the envy of the Country. It was "making money" every year and was easily covering all the retirement costs of city and state retirees. When the stock market tanked, so did the retirement investments.

I'm not saying that something doesn't need to be done to address this issue because it's obviously not working. I just think we need to look at it rationally and not sensationalize the story by singling out one group of the hundreds of different job titles that all pull retirement out of this account.

@DouglasAmerica - It takes law enforcment to work at least twenty years, underpaid for the work and the risk they put themselvs through, then, retire and have to come back to work to finally earn the money they deserve for the job they do. They deserve it.

@DouglasAmerica - Am I the only one that see’s a serious mathematical flaw in these numbers? They claim they have lost “4 Billion” because of this practice of “Retiring in Place” and on average they pay out between $100,000 & $200,000 so let’s say the average is $150,000 which 4 Billion divided by the average of $150,000 gives you 26,666 employees engaged in this practice. OOPS, you don’t have that many cops in the entire state of useless state of Utah! Do you really think most cops want to continue working in that thankless line of work? I doubt it, just read all the cop hating comments on this board when ever a crime story is printed! I think they should all walk off the job and watch this state implode with all you’re teacher & preacher child loving molesters, prescription drug abusers and all the rest of the wack jobs. I would pay 4 Billion to watch that in a heartbeat!

@DouglasAmerica - Non C.

The 4 billion lost is not from this practice but from investment losses due to the failing economy.

@DouglasAmerica - This story is hot air at best. Go look at any police chief in any major police department in america. They retire from their old police job and become police chief at another city and yes, sometimes in place. This is not even news. Chief bratton with LAPD, NYPD's police chief. Gimme a freakin break. Plus the Utah Retirment system is basically the state employees 401k. Its their money that they put into retirement. Not the taxpayers! They earn that from their 20-30 years of employment. It costs the taxpayers nothing when they recieve those benefits. Lori Pritchard is an idiot.

@DouglasAmerica - @Bag of Fries

You are absolutely correct. This story is meaningless. The money they are getting out is the money that they have put in. It has no effect on the budget.

Even if these people did not "retire in place" the agencies STILL need to fill that position and would still be paying BOTH the retirement benefits to the person that left AND the salary to whomever filled the new position.

It only looks bad because the person recieving retirement pay and the person recieving the salary for the work they complete happens to be the same person.

However, if you spent 30 years paying into a retirement system, you would sure want that money back as soon as you were eligable to recieve it. Bovernment or not, you are entitled to YOUR retirement money.

@DouglasAmerica - This is a highly biased and poorly researched story by a "team" of investigators who are sensationalizing a story with inaccurate reporting.

The state offered this retirement system which is not tax funded but funded by the employers. The system lost equity investment value, just as everyone in the nation did last year. It has rebounded and now covers all beneficiaries.

If there is a problem with double dipping, it should apply to every member of society who has the gumption to earn a pension then go back to work, not just a KSL selected group.

Shame on you, KSL, for misleading and misreporting this particular story. You sound like a shill for the legislative branch who are looking to cut benefits earned by hard working folks who just happen to be in the Utah Retirement System.

Very bad ethics at work here, IMHO.

@DouglasAmerica - This is disgusting.

Not suprising at all though...Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

Our tax dollars at their finest!

@Hot Karl - All of the salaries were "estimates." How accurate are these estimates?

Too many Chiefs....let's make a Metro Police Department.

@Hot Karl - This story was confusing?? Lori is no Debbie. Bring Debbie back!

@Hot Karl - It sure seems like a lot of work to say

"People who payed into [the equivilent of a] 401k for 30 years are starting to recieve their retirement checks."

It is hardly newsworthy, and grossly confuses issue.

@Hot Karl - No tax dollars at all.

The employer funds the pension plan along with the salary and most in this system do not get payed by tax money.

News flash. This is not limited to the police agencies. Check out the Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control (DABC). And my guess other state agencies as well. I don't think they should be able to do both. You are either retired or working.

@Angela W - I'm sure that any State employee can do it.

@Angela W - Line police officers and school teachers can do the same thing, they are just required to fulfill certain criteria. For example, one department I am aware of requires the "retiree" to be gone for a minimum of 6 months before they are rehired back in their old position. I know lots of line officers who have retired only to take the same job again later.

@Angela W - Nobody can give a rational reason why a retired person should not be able to go find other work to supplement their income. If the agency from which they retire needs to fill that position, why can't they fill it with the person who just retired? Again, it does not cost the agency any more money (unless they could have filled the position with a less-experienced, lower pay employee, in which case there probably ought to be an adjustment).

Makes me SICK!

@d0zx - The 401k contribution that is talked about in this story is mandated not by the state but by a 1995 court case. The Utah courts ordered that agencies had to pay retired employees a benefit if they did not contribute to the utah retirement system(put it in A 401K). The rule is based on a lawsuit about equal treatment to all employees.
Also, taxpayers pay to educate, train, and give experience to these cops. Why do you want to create a rule that would not allow them to retire and return serve the commnunity (that educated, trained, and gave them experience) as a chief? We would force them to leave the state to double dip. What type of chief's would we have then?
Finally, utah retirement lost 4 billion dollars last year. Don't try and fool us into thinking it is because of double dipping cops! I did some math and the chiefs 401k contributions cause a 900k loss to utah retirement.
The reporter and producer of this story should look into why utah retirement lost 4 Billion last year? Why they invested so much in AIG? Who in Utah retirement system benefited from such a high investment with AIG? Why Utah retirement system put all their eggs in ONE basket and didn't diversify???

News flash, this is not limited to police agencies. The Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control (DABC). And my guess is that there are other state agencies doing this too. In my opinion you should either be retired or working, not both.

If you are just looking at the raw numbers, then yeah it may seem like overly greedy individuals. However, to replace the depth of knowledge for those chiefs and sheriffs by having them retire out of place the taxpayers would be paying twice the amount to keep these folks in office.

@Stan P. - You must be a good golfer, this sounds like Ogden City talk. What about those who would like to get promoted up the ranks but cant. Because retired in placesupport a specific candidate for Mayor that justifies to keep them around. I know how the game is played.

@Stan P. - That's BS - the Police Chief shown on the video, takes the same stand. Then mentions that he can justify doing this because it would take 6 months to bring someone else up to speed.
Great balls of fire - 6 months!!!!
Geez, how many months do we continue to pay twice for the same thing!
That guys (all of them) are going to have to come up with better excuses than that!
GET RID OF EVERY ONE OF THEM ON THE LIST - AND ALL OTHER STATE, FEDERAL, COUNTY AND CITY EMPLOYEES DOING THE SAME DA__ THING!

@Stan P. - Stan P.....everyone thinks they're indispensable....that no one else on earth is as qualified to do their job as they are.

How do you figure taxpayers would be paying twice the amount?
I think we would be saving money by hiring younger individuals at less pay....

And please don't bring up training as citing a need to rehire these guys....I'm sure rehired police chiefs and sheriffs attend the same number of useless conferences and seminars after they rehire as they did when they were working.

This stinks and it needs to end......

If they want another job let them work at Walmart handing out shopping carts...

What they failed to mention is that the pension isn't coming out of any budget. It is coming out of the state pension fund, that was either paid into by the officer or the agency that they work for in their behalf. It is money that is rightfully theirs.

@inline - I am pretty sure the report stated that the pension fund lost like $4 billion. maybe it was just me...

@inline - inline-
it's my understanding that their salaries are paid for by tax dollars. So that being said, it's actually our tax dollars that are going into their state pension plan no matter the "contributing officer or agency". The money is there fore rightfully the taxpayers.
END OF STORY!

It sounds like we need to realign the state budget. No wonder there's no money in our educational system.

@inline - And I'm sure you think that NONE of that money comes from taxpayers?
BS!

@inline - A 4 BILLION DOLLAR LOSS! ITS TIME FOR SOME OBAMA CHANGE! LETS BREAK OUT THE OBAMA!

[Please don't shout with ALL CAPS.]

@inline - What KSL isn't saying with the 4 billion loss is where it came from. The URS pension is designed to make money off of the contributions from the individual. From what I've been told is that the pension fund buys land and other tangible assets that will increase in value over time. Since land and property values have tanked over the last few years that to me would mean the pension fund would "lose" money in the sense that the gains it had made are no longer there but it maybe at a break even point.

@inline - Absolutely. People on here are acting like Democrats, by whining "It's not fair that you get all this money", not realizing that the money is going to be paid to somebody.

@inline - OHMYWORD- You are a complete idiot. Once you pay a plumber to do work on your house, do you still beleive the money is yours because it came out of your pocket? Once you pay someone to do a job it is thier money, your stupid statement makes it sound like the taxpayers own the state employees. Stupid people like you make it hard for others to read these posts. I bet you are so stupid the state has to pay you money due to your disability, which would then mean the taxpayers own you. As a taxpayer I order you to stay off of blogs and keep your ingorance to yourself!

if any of those cops had Any decency, they would give it all back. This made me lose even more of my already lacking respect for cops

I agree with the problems of "Double Dipping" However, only law enforcement was covered.
Teachers and Educators also "Double Dip" and they make more money (higher pay) over a life time than Most Law Enforcement. There are also many many more teachers and Educators than Law Enforcement that are/ or will dipping into tax money.
Would you do a followup on them??
Thank you.

@PC - PC

I don't know about administration, but I can speak for teachers in the classroom. My husband's paychecks were less in 2008 than in 2001. Absolutely every cost of living raise was absorbed by an increase in the cost of our medical insurance. His final salary, after 30 yrs was in the mid 40's. There is no retiring in place. He also was ineligible for health insurance after turning 65- 15mths after his retirement, which meant our sons, 19 &22 and I, 57, no longer had insurance either.

If the concept of retaining a knowledgeable person in a position is important vs training a new person in law enforcement, it should be just as important in education.

I would also like to see some followup on this but let's include our state legislature as well.

@PC - Ohmyword,

Perhaps the reason you feel so picked on is that you and your husband failed to educate yourselves. You will notice that KSL stuck to chiefs and sheriffs and didn't talk about regular cops or regular teachers. The rules from URS are exactly the same for teachers as for cops. Your husband could have chosen to retire, take 6 months off and been rehired as a teacher. A little reading may lighten that chip on your shoulder....

http://www.urs.org/general/pdf/brochures/post_retirement504.pdf

Sure they are deserving of their retirement money, they paid into the retirement system for years, but once they are retired they need to leave the agency they retired from. If they want to go to work elsewhere so be it, but it just isn't ethical to "retire in place." It is not fair to everyone else or to the retirement system. If its good for one, then it ought to be good for all.

@NFL FAN - Thanks NFL Fan for some rational commentary. Cops or teachers do deserve their retirement money, and they deserve to get another job after they retire, just like anyone in the private sector. But. To retire 'in place', with the same pay, at the same level, is unethical and flat-out wrong.

These retirees need to apply for a vacant teaching/police/whatever job that is open to the rest of the general public, even if it's the same agency they worked for previously, and if they get that job based on their many years of experience, great. But their pay grade should start at the bottom, just like any new employee, with maybe an extra step or two higher to compensate for prior experience, at most.

@NFL FAN - I agree with NFL FAN. Go ahead and retire from public safety, and then go to work for UDOT, or USOE or any other state agencey if you want, but retiring "in ;lace" sounds to me like nothing more than getting a great pay raise.

@NFL FAN - Ok nfl fan so the dumb asf foutball player the are say o i got a brain injury a worth an extra couple of mil because they played football. give me a break!!!! dumb azz

HERRIMAN CITY

The Mayor is not retired and he collects two paychecks. One for being the Mayor and one for being the city manager. Why doesn't KSL investigate this?

Mayor Crane needs to go and the city council needs new people. They have been in for over 10 years each.

Vote them OUT of office.

@Nevada M. - This has been talked about on the news already.

What about Firefighters? No they wouldent do such a thing! Or would they?

Most of these chiefs have worked 25 to 30 years as police officers. When they retire they will be paid by the city their retirement wages. The city will then have to hire a new chief at the same wage as the newly retired chief was getting paid. So why not keep the old chief who knows what he is doing already. It seems like the city will be paying out exactly the same wage either way.

@Cocopuffs - Because the city is not paying into the current system. Only to there own 401 ks. Its like you taking a social security check at age 50 and not contributing to it anymore. So those who want to collect when they retire wont be as fotunite. There just greedy!

@Cocopuffs - Less jobs to go around that way. Why not retire the old chief and give the job to another hard worker so they can too support their family?

@Cocopuffs - Cocopuffs-
Your thought process is off-kilter!
That 'retirement money' comes from the taxpayer.
So we get the priviledge of paying them twice as much as a new/different chief.
Who knows, the new guy just might be honest too - so you get a double bonus!

@Cocopuffs - all they are doing is holding someone up from getting promoted and that is wrong to stay.

@Cocopuffs - The rationalization that this is okay makes no sense. If you look at most of these men, they are no where near retirement age. If this benefit was not available most of them would continue to work their jobs for their current salary. In short, they would not retire and there would be no training or hiring! This is just plain GREED!

@Cocopuffs - "What's good for the goose is good for the gander". If they're going to do this, it seems rightful they should do it across the board to include all state agencies.

The problem as I see it is that an agency run like this soon becomes top heavy. Everybody expects to move up but no one is moving out and making way for the newcomers. In a well run organization, when a person retires everyone moves up and the FTE is actually replaced at an entry level, a big difference in salary.

Something this report did not mention....at the Ogden Police dept. good ol Chief Geriner lets his Lieutenants retire then holds a slot for them for six months (which is illegel) and the hires them back as Lieutenants -. OPD Lt's start at about 76,000 a year. So there is basiclally no upward movement at OPD. Also isint it great that Chief Geriner is so concerned that the city of Ogden does not have to spend six to eight months training his replacement....that 195,000 a year sure is a bargon.......NOT!!!!

@Mrbigdog - Did you see the story on channel 2 about bribery? Why is the Chief can be bribed with all the lobbyist meals and not be charged for bribery? Isn't that a federal crime? Oh but so is the Hatch act, but it is ok he is with Mayorn Godfrey.

This makes my blood boil!
ANOTHER reason to get rid of EVERY current politician and pass 'term-limit' legislation!

fleeced us, skinned us and devoured the flesh, were left with a skeleton. and there still hungry.

THESE PEOPLE ARE ON THE RETIREMENT COMMITEE FOR THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTIVES FOR UTAH. GIVE THEM A CALL!
Mel Brown - Chair 435-336-3309
Stephen Sandstrom - Vice Chair 801-224-2194 801-229-0088
Brad Daw 801-850-3608
Wayne Harper 801-566-5466
Brad Last 435-635-7334 435-673-8666
Merlynn Newbold 801-254-0142
Susan Duckworth 801-250-0728
Neil Hansen 801-393-1514 801-564-0862
Christine Watkins 435-650-1969

What would Glen Beck do!

@AGLUTZ04 - But wait!!!! There's more!
Go to the 'link' "Retirement and Independent Entities Interim Committee" (right side of article) - then click on Committee Membership (left side), and....
Rep. Melvin R. Brown, Co Chair
Sen. Daniel R. Liljenquist, Co Chair
Sen. Curtis S. Bramble
Sen. D. Chris Buttars
Sen. Gene Davis
Rep. Bradley M. Daw
Rep. Susan Duckworth
Sen. Brent H. Goodfellow
Sen. Jon J. Greiner
Rep. Neil A. Hansen
Rep. Wayne A. Harper
Rep. Bradley G. Last
Rep. Merlynn T. Newbold
Rep. Stephen E. Sandstrom
Rep. Christine F. Watkins
Cathy J. Dupont, Associate General Counsel
Shannon C. Halverson, Associate General Counsel
J. Daniel Schoenfeld, Fiscal Analyst
Benjamin N. Christensen, Policy Analyst
Glenda S. Whitney, Legislative Secretary

@AGLUTZ04 - GlenN Beck would probably write a book about it. And that's all.

@AGLUTZ04 - I think that Harper,Duckworth, and Hansen are the only ones that live on there legislative pay. It is only 12,000 a year. good on them. No conflicts there. sincerely.

@AGLUTZ04 - glen beck would say it is ok we are all mormon republicans and we can do what ever we want.

@AGLUTZ04 - andy,andy,andy. what would glen beck do? hmmm. 90% of this states public "servants" are lds and "republican" just like your hero glen. so what do you think? wake up to reality and smell the turd balls all these peaple have rolled up to make their lives seem perfect.

@AGLUTZ04 - It is a conflict of interest for anyone who receives their income from the public trough to serve in the state legislature or any public policy making body for that matter where a conflict of interest is present. Jon Greiner should resign his post as Police Chief or legislator as should public educators etc.

Corruption begins when ones personal self interest is placed above ethics. It is easy to justify and rationalize away ones integrity. Corruption is sustained when one places himself in a position of power and uses his unjust influence to embed himself and make laws to protect himself and his friends at the expense of others.

There are many good ole boy systems, brotherhood and sisterhood fraternities and sororities. Who even understands ethics any more?

"Utah law says only the state's police chiefs and sheriffs, along with the head of the Department of Public Safety"

This isnt true.
The directors of WEBER HUMAN SERVICES in Ogden are all double dippers. This is a private non profit agency funded by tax payers and the directors are getting huge salaries on top of monthly retirement pay. These are the people that make decisons like cutting employee retirment contributions since they are already getting theirs.

I also have a relative that retired from the division of natural resources and is now a bailiff. He also gets full retirment on top of regular pay.

@will bike - No! not Brad Dee!

@will bike - Yep, Brad I'm going golfing while I'm at a legislative conference Dee.

Yep, Brad I'm going golfing while I'm at a legislative conference Dee.

Yep, Brad I'm going golfing while I'm at a legislative conference Dee.

Yep, Brad I'm going golfing while I'm at a legislative conference Dee.

Yep, Brad I'm going golfing while I'm at a legislative conference Dee.

Yep, Brad I'm going golfing while I'm at a legislative conference Dee.

Yep, Brad I'm going golfing while I'm at a legislative conference Dee.

Yep, Brad I'm going golfing while I'm at a legislative conference Dee.

@will bike - Brad Dee is not a bailiff.

From the news article in the part titled 2006 URS audit > the system is "susceptible to abuse.

Well folks if this is not abuse i guess i do not know what abuse is and ya all wonder why Government is trying to fleece more of your "Honorable Tax Dollars".

Come on people $200 grand year for a cop way out of line and i think should be further investigated it sounds very criminal like to me. What a joke so go ahead and troll me you know i am right. These idiots are doing nothing more than fleecing your "Honorable taxes". Until you stand up say no more this will continue folks.

At the bottom of the news article it says there is a meeting regarding this next month BE THERE I WILL. Call your senators, call your representative. The only smart wise decision i heard made in the entire news article was when the legislature "SLASHED" their budget last session. This is what we need more of SLASH THAT BUDGET BLOW IT AWAY I A "HONORABLE TAX PAYER" DO NOT NEED THE BURDEN OF THESE POCKET FLEECERS BUDGETS. MY MONEY IS BEST MANAGED IN MY POCKET BOOK.

@Jimmy The Great - Go ahead and become a cop and then see if $200k is enough for you or not. It's a thankless job each and every day. At least educators get a thank you every now and then!!!!!!!!!!!!

@Jimmy The Great - analis,
Give me 200,000.00 a year and play golf with lobbyist just like greiner and tell me that is a thankless gob. give me a break. and 3 months out of the year he is not even on the job, between vacation and legislature, who you trying to fool Willis.

@Jimmy The Great - Why don't one of you Einsteins tell us how much money a city would save (for example, the one paying $200,000 per year) if they forced the chief to really retire and hired a different person? The city would be paying the same amount of money for it's chief, so how are the taxpayers getting fleeced?

@Jimmy The Great - Beatus:

I can hire ROBOCOP for 1% the cost these money fleecers get and ROBOCOP is life long lasting vs these morons cost me money every day, every week, every month, every year. ROBOCOP is a all in one special. I vote we hire ROBOCOP and fire these money fleecing morons it is more responsible and wiser money spent.

Chief Greiner is correct - there is little, if any, cost to this.

Example 1: (rounded numbers for illustration only)

URS payment to retired Chief - $70,000
Ogden City salary to new Chief - $100,000
Ogden City payment to new Chief's Pension - $31,000

Total - $201,000

Example 2:

URS payment to retired Chief - $70,000
Ogden City salary to retired (in place) Chief - $100,000
Ogden City payment to r.i.p. Chief 401(k) - $31,000

Total - $201,000

The only difference is that in example 1, you have a new person in the Chief's office. If you believe retired chiefs should vacate the office to make room for new blood, fine, oppose the r.i.p. policy. But you have no argument if you oppose it because it supposedly costs more or somehow wastes taxpayer money. That is simply, and demonstrably, untrue.

@slpa1 - It isn't the cost that causes the problem Cheif Greiner's little buddy. It is the fact that he ties up the position for years, the good old boy syndrome goes on and on and nothing new happens to the department. Others wait and wait until he dies in the office or has a stroke so that others may promote upward. It's called greed.

@slpa1 - One more thing Chief Greiner's puppet. When Greiner is retired and working as Police Chief, the city pays an equal amount into his 457K (not 401K) as they would be paying into the State Pension Fund. The State of Utah Pension Fund is losing $ 31,000 a year that they are not getting into the fund that another person would be funding that isn't retired. So, it does cost more....it cost the State more for double dipping. Multiply that by all the double-dippers in the system and the State is losing millions!

@slpa1 - Sorry to burst your bubble, Dan H. I don't know Chief Greiner from a hole in the wall. I used his name because he claimed the r.i.p. policy had little cost to it, which is true. I used Ogden City's pension contribution rate because it was published in the story.

I know a great deal about the URS, and many related issues, but Chief Greiner is a stranger to me and I to him.

You appear to oppose the r.i.p. policy because it does not make room for new leadership. That's a valid concern and legitimate public policy issue. Your claim that it's based on greed is vacuous, at best. There is nothing to keep a Utah police chief from retiring, and getting a chief's job in another state, thus reaping the same benefit. Is that greedy? No. People resign or retire from jobs all the time, only to be reemployed in the same or similar field for more money. That may be ambitious, but not greedy. They still have to work the new job, no matter the circumstances.

@slpa1 - So, You say that quarter million dollars is no cost to this. Just who are you trying to fool. now willis come on

@slpa1 - Sorry slpa1!
I don't buy into your thought process!
Isn't the 70K paid from the retirement fund and not the state?
If it's from the 'fund', that money is supposed to already be there - unless of course the 'fund' somehow loses $4 Billion, and then the 'fund' has to be subsidized from the state fund.
You must be, or have a few 'friends' that are a part of this - Yes? No?

@slpa1 - Though it would appear the URS is "losing" $31,000, that is not true. The r.i.p. Chief is out of the pension system, and will not earn any more service time, no matter how long he is Chief. When he actually leaves office, URS will still pay him the same amount they did while he was in office.

On the other hand, with a new Chief in office, the new Chief is earning service time in the pension system, and when he leaves (assuming he has at least 20 years in the system) the URS will owe him a pension for the rest of his life. This is IN ADDITION to the pension that the URS continues to pay the previous Chief.

The $31,000 per year being paid into the pension system will be paid back out to the new Chief - again IN ADDITION to the pension being paid to the previous Chief.

@slpa1 - Actually, Dan H., I don't have any "friends" in the system, nor am I advocating the r.i.p. policy. That is for the voters and their representatives to decide. Some states allow it, some prohibit it. I'm simply pointing out that to oppose it solely on the basis of cost is misplaced. It costs no more to keep the retired chief in place while paying his pension, than it does to pay a new chief while paying the old chief's pension. The sources of funds are different - pension payments come from URS, and are made up of government employee/employer contributions, plus investment interest. The salaries come from the government employer's general funds. In the end, it is all taxpayer money, except the investment income from URS.

If you want to attack my figures or information, fine. But it does no good to attack me personally or question my motivation for posting, because I have absolutely no dog in the race, so to speak. I just think reason and sound argument should rule the debate, not personal attacks.

@slpa1 - Dan, you are incorrect is the city hires a chief that is already retired from the URS system. The city must pay into the 401k for him (utah court ruleing in 1995). If they hire a non-retired chief, they still have to pay the same amount into the URS fund. Only differnce is the total income of the chief is lower (he has no retirement income).

Ogden's Fire Chief Mike Mathieu is getting two pay checks. He retired years ago from the state retirement system (after he lied and told the local union he didn't) remained on the city payroll as a consultant to the department for 6 months then was back as Fire Chief. All that time none of the firefighters even knew he had retired and wasn't the chief for 6 months. This "double-dipping" causes stagnantation in the ranks, keeps others from promotions while the upper admin gets richer.

If the mayor is getting a paycheck for other employment then he is braking the law. It is in section 10 of the utah code

One point that was not made in the story is that the retired in place person is taking from the retirement system but no longer contributing. So this person is in a spot that someone should be in and contibuting. This is just a part of why there is a shortage. I think if your going to let them retire in place they should still at least be contributing to the group retirement not just there personal 401k's. There in a state benifitted job they should be treated like everyone else in the group. Its not only police that are doing this look into all the goverment jobs.

The only reason the fund lost 4 billion was the downturn in the economy. I'm estimating that it has already earned over half of that back and will earn it all back in the next year.

Just a bump in the road.

@Orem/provo - So much for the best managed state by the Republicans. It time to retire them all, and vote democrat for a change.

@Orem/provo - $4 billion is a 'bump-in-the-road'?
You sound like an 'Obama man'!

I don't know about administration, but I can speak for teachers in the classroom. My husband's paychecks were less in 2008 than in 2001. Absolutely every cost of living raise was absorbed by an increase in the cost of our medical insurance. His final salary, after 30 yrs was in the mid 40's. There is no retiring in place. He also was ineligible for health insurance after turning 65- 15mths after his retirement, which meant our sons, 19 &22 and I, 57, no longer have insurance either.

If the concept of retaining a knowledgeable person in a position is important vs training a new person in law enforcement, it should be just as important in education.

I would also like to see some followup on this but let's include our state legislature as well. If I understood correctly, an article in the Deseret News, during the 2008 elections- after serving a minimum of 10years in the state legislature, our state provides and pays for health insurance for a legislator and their family for LIFE.

I hope I misunderstood, but if I did, I'm not too far off.

@OhMyWord - truth is that they do get health benefits if they pay the whole premiums if they want it. not many of them do. they have other insurance from their other jobs.

@OhMyWord - Well even with that they're fortunate. At least they have the option available which would be great.

BTW-for the 15mths since retiring he had to pay $1,450 mth for PEHP/Cobra Ins of which $750 was reimbursed,and we're all quite healthy. We never saw it coming. We thought we were pretty secure. It's a good thing we're not big spenders.

Once again, government employees get all the breaks, benefits, and perks that those of us who PRODUCE WEALTH don't get unless we're in management. Is our country f%$^ed up or WHAT.

What about federal employees?

At Hill Air Force Base alone, there are thousands of people who have retired and returned to the same job. If all of these people stayed retired, we would have thousands of high paying jobs available right here in Utah. If you consider the nuber of federal employees across the country, we could put a lot of people to work who are losing their homes.

Both slpa1 and Chief Greiner are using correct numbers to attempt to demonstrate there is no net cost to the employer BUT using inaccurate application of what really happens to mislead everyone.

The employer contribution paid to the URS system is a benefit paid by tax dollars. There are different plans within URS but here is what happens when someone retires. The employer contribution is a percent of the wages paid, depending on the specific plan. Once a person retires, the contribution that used to go into the pension fund is REQUIRED to be paid to the "retired" employee's individual 401k or 457 account. Let's use the $70k suggested for Greiner. If he works for 7 years, he is drawing $70k per year out or $490,000. Add to that the 31.47% of $100k salary that now goes into to his 401k instead of the URS pension fund. (It is possible this is an even higher amount. Look at the Ogden City audited financial report on the State Auditor's website. There is a note that all or part of the 9.3% employee contribution may be paid by the city.) That amount for 7 years is $220,290. The total net additional money in Greiner's pocket from URS and the employer paid 401k is a cool $710,290 in the 7 years. Sounds pretty good, eh? Would you turn it down if it were available to you?

The misleading information comes from the fact that the total dollars paid by Ogden City is the same and therefore there is no additional cost. WRONG!!!

In this case, the URS pension fund paid out $490,00 to Greiner since he is retired instead of having the $220,290 in additional contributions coming in. This is a the combined difference of $710,290. The extra money being paid out has to come from someplace, right? For those of you playing along at home, bonus points for being able to answer that the difference in money HAS to come from higher URS contribution rates applied to all working, non-retired employees. These contribution rates are recalculated each year. URS is suggesting there may be substantial increases in contribution rates required in the future. Any idea how big an extra 3% of all wages paid to benefitted employees of all state, county, municipal, school district and all other local government entities in Utah would be?

The Greiner example is an estimate, but it can't be too far from reality. I know from personal experience in my job that the actual numbers for an individual someone referenced in an earlier post are in this range. Multiply a VERY healthy 6 figure difference to the URS pension fund by the hundreds of individuals who are "double dipping" and you begin to understand the magnitude of what is going on.

Be assured, this goes far beyond police chiefs and sherrifs. It happens in education, state agencies, and local governments. The others can't retire in place like in public safety, but the couple of extra hoops to jump through are no deterrent. Who wouldn't jump through a couple of hoops for an extra half million dollars in retirement pay? It has been going on for several years. I have personally contacted KSL and other news organizations and asked them to expose the practice. I have asked folks running for state elected offices why this has been specifically allowed by a change in state law. For some reason, no one has been interested in looking deeper. This issue has come up in the media several times but doesn't seem to get much traction. I think part of the reason is that too many fall for the same line quoted by Greiner about actually "saving" money or the incorrect explanation offered by our friend and defender of the faith - slpa1. I can absolutely support what I'm saying with publically available information. Anyone interested?

@4Fun - Is this information still accurate if the retiree goes to work for some other employer after retirement? And if so, then aren't you implicitly endorsing a form of socialism, whereby all people will be forced to retire at a certain age and not work anywhere thereafter?

@4Fun - Well said, but keep in mind that the 4 billion dollar short fall in not from double dippers. The economy is bad but lets not forget that URS are the custodians of the money and responsible. Why was so much of the money tied up in AIG stock? Maybe the double dipping laws need a tweek but most city's have address double-dippin in place. The state will loss alot of great trained employees that might want to start a 2nd career after they retire.

@4Fun - 4fun
If you're still out there - I'm very interested in what you have to say.
I'd love to hear more. How?

They paid into their retirement plans, and now they are helping out the agencies they work for with their expertise. How many other people do you know who have retired, and are still working? Why are they only honing in on these workers? This is not illegal, and it is not unethical.. Sorry, they have worked hard for their pension, and they paid into their pension. If they are forced not to work after retirement, then no-one in any circumstance should be able to work after retirement! How is that going to effect others not retired law enforcement, has anyone thought of that?

Nothing to see here.....move along.

politican are day after day, enacting laws to make criminal activity legal and this is just another example at that and the PUBLIC IS THE VICTIM and their money is baing taken. Conflict of interest noticed in this storry anyone?

Greedy bastages. Hopefully Karma will come to play with these Animal Farm pigs or their descendants. Oink Oink.

Just another way for the goverment to screw the people. Corruption on all levels.

WAIT A MINUTE....I THOUGHT WE WERE NOT IN A RECESSION?I THOUGHT THE FINANCIAL GURUS SAID THE RECESSION WAS OVER?EVERYTHING WAS ROSY ONCE AGAIN.EVERYONES HOME VALUES WERE RETURNED,EVERYONE HAS THEIR HOMES BACK,FUEL WAS 5.00 A GALLON. ITS NOT OVER SPORTS FANS,THE ONLY THING THEY DID WAS PAD THE BOOKS WITH MONEY THAT IS NOW SO WORTHLESS,IF WILL SHOCK ME IF IT WILL EVER COME BACK.THE UNDERLYING ISSUES STILL ARE THERE,PEOPLE STILL HAVE HOME LOANS ON HOUSES THAT ARE UPSIDE DOWN YET STILL MAKIN PAYMENTS ON THEM,IM SO HAPPY ITS OVER,WALLY WORLD HERE WE COME!

[Please don't shout with ALL CAPS.]

Good story KSL. This is the kind of investigative reporting I like to read.

I'll bet they will blame Obama for this too!

@Brent S. - Uh . . . no, they will blame Bush.

Such an irony. The people who uphold the law are in all reality one's plundering the system all under the guise of entitlement. What a perk! A "legal" way to plunder the system. Shame on your guys! Shame on the "system". Shame, shame, shame!

SURPRISE.... It shouldn't be. This has been a LEGAL loophole in Utah's retirement system for ever. Other large companies i.e., Rock Mtn Power, Quetsar, etc. allow it also. The blame goes to our 71% Republican run house of Rep's. They have known about it and have turned a blind eye to it. Let the wolves watch the chicken coop and sooner or later they all will have feathers in their mouths.

The police/fire depts are not the only agencies that allow "retiring in place." Valley Mental Health has several employees who 'retired" and then returned to same or similar jobs. Yes, there is a lot to be said for the experience they contribute to the agency but some times new blood is needed, new ideas and each year there are people graduating from college and graduate school that can fill those positions. The retiring in place should only be allowed when an agency can't find a qualified candidate and has proven to the state employment director that they've done an exhaustive nationwide search for a qualified candidate.

So if this story is accurate, Greiner lobbied for a bill that directly shoveled tens of thousands of dollars right into his pocket.

Wow. That's slimy even by the non-existent ethics standards of this legislature. No wonder the U.S. Attorney is after this slimeball. In a state with any kind of real ethics rules, Greiner would be on the other side of the jail bars.

I'm so glad I don't live in Ogden city any more.

@dsn - Ditto on all you say dsn. Ogden's Police and Fire Chief's are as corrupt as many of the criminals that the police has put behind bars. Believe me.......

Several items. One, move the date for retiring from the job of firefighter or police officer to 25 years for 40% of their salary (average the best 3 years out of the last 5 like teachers do) and 70% of salary if a police officer/firefighter stays for 30 years. Teachers have to stay for 30 years to get full retirement. Also, teachers can only work part time for the first 3 years after retirement I believe if they work as a teacher in the same district. Why not make this the case across the board or follow the next idea.

I say if they retire and want to work, fine, let the state take advantage of that knowledge but pay them as a new employee with 0 years of experience if the teacher or police officer/firefighter wants to double dip. If they don't take it, then a new person is brought in at that low salary, and yes, that means training and getting them up to speed but that is the advantage to the city or school district that they can hire 2 teachers or 2 police/firefighters for the cost of the one who retired, and thus saves the city,state or school district that other money.

Finally, there is rumor of doing away with the pension plan for educators, I assume this would be grandfathered in so new people hired into education would not get a retirement. The negative to that is that for many in education, law enforcement or firefighting the state pension IS the incentive for taking a lower salary and if they take that away, I'm not sure how that will attract or retain the people we need to recruit to do these jobs, unless they raise salaries in proportion so the extra money can go into a 401K or some other retirement savings. That's not going to happen though.

Bottom line is that the legislature made this mess when they allowed the retirement system to be invested in high risk areas and they showed lack of financial foresight on this. There is also the argument to let this ride out and see what happens as eventually the market will rebound. Bottom line though is that those who have a vested interest in this need to follow the issue very closely and stay on top of their state representative and senator and those on the committee. Just imagine, a strike where teachers, police and fire go on strike for 30 days! How would that mess up everyone's life (I know they can order police and fire back to work but not educators, and I do think all will strike or have a sick out IF the legislator doesn't handle this correctly)! Bottom line as others have stated, a contract was entered into, and needs to be honored for the services being provided. Change it for new hires, and stop the double dipping like this, but the retirement itself for those even with only 1 year in the system needs to be honored in my opinion.

@A J. - So you want the police and firefighters to work more years for less retirement???? You can't compare it to any of the others, the job is more physicaly demanding do teachers have to take a physical agility test every year to keep there job? Police and fire need to be 20 year retirements. If your able to go longer great. You can't change that becauase police and fire chiefs are retiring in place there doing desk jobs. Not all will have that opertunity.

What most writing comments are upset about is that a public officials are being paid hundreds of thousands of dollars not that they are retiring in place. If you take the dollar amount out of the discussion and look at the scenario it really seems quite logical.

Public official works long enough to earn retirement. Public official retires and receives retirement pay. Public entity needs to replace the retiring official. Replacement employee gets hired and gets paid. Public entity is now paying the retirement of the old and wages for the new. New employee will get retirement benefits if he remains employed long enough.

Now the benefit of hiring the person who supposedly retired: Public entity gets an experienced employee. My assumption is (not verified but I expect that) Public entity does not have to pay any retirement benefits to the "retired in place - new employee" in the future. A "retired in place" employee is not earning time towards retirement. This becomes huge benefit and delay of financial costs to the public entity and the tax payer. Public entity does not have to train a new replacement.

Retiring in place is bs. But the retirement package for the average officer isnt great. 50 percent at 20 years other states and cities are offering 60 or 70 and full medical. Our state wants to take that 50 at 20 away. Its okay though police are the under belly of our society.

Salaries are based on the cost of living. So if an entity hired a new Chief/Sheriff from out of state, say Los Angeles, CA that person would expect a salary in line with the CA salary. Most Utah agencies can not afford to hire these people.
But, we have a lot of good police leaders in Utah that are retiring out of the system, but we are losing the benefit of their wisdom, training and years of service. It's a BRAIN DRAIN.
By allowing these few people to hire back into the workforce and keep the retirement benefits they have already earned with 20 or more years of service, we, the public, are the benefactors.

And the george bush legacy goes on and on!!!!!!!!!!!

And I felt bad this whole time that Cops didn't make enough money... holy cow!
After 25 years of extremely hard work for my company, all I get out of it is pretty much nothing... I think I'm gonna go be a cop now!

I am disappointed with this story. I have been a KSL news fan for many years but this story tells only half the story. What it says may be correct but not complete thus leaving the reader without the opportunity to evaluate the situation. It leads the reader down a path to predetermined conclusions. I think that is known as misleading Yellow Journalism.

The rest of the story is that all employees under the Public Safety Retirement system are entitled to retire after 20 years service. This could be a point of legitimate debate but that is not the issue here. An elected Sherriff or Chief of Police is no exception. If they retired and a replacement were hired there would still be two payments going out. The retirement check and the pay check but now they are going to two separate people instead of just one. There is no savings here for the government. Both officers are receiving what they have earned when they took the job. The retiring officer would take another job somewhere else and still receive two checks, a retirement check and a pay check. KSL deceptively calls this two pay checks.

If a non-government employee invests wisely and receives returns on his investment in addition to his pay check is this bad? If a non-government employee retires and receives the retirement pay he is entitled to then takes another job and receives payment for both is this receiving two pay checks or Retireing in place? How is it different if that second job means going back to work for the same employer because he has the skills and experience that employer needs.

In the case of the 401K, what KSL does not make clear is that when a Police Chief retires and then resumes the same job he can no longer contribute to the the retirement plan because he has already retired. Since the employer is making 401K contributions to all other employees they now put that same controbition amount into the employees 401K.

I wouldn't begin to tell an unemployeed individual how to feel about these issues but I feel that KSL has done a big dis-service to the men and women who put their lives on the line every day to keep us safe by enflaming the public with only part truths because it will sell news.

@Jay F. - The point is that the younger people who wnat these jobs cant get them. They try to promote but it is nearly impossible in some circumstances. The Mayor will lock in the Reriree such as Police/Fire cheif and so on!

I knew they were corrupt......I never realized that they would have been this corrupt! With budget cuts and a recession in full effect how can we as the public support such a bad public policy. The financial department spend recklessly on things such as video survallence at the pioneer park. Where is this channelled into who monitirs these cameras? The police? So I have paid is excess to have these camera's put in place for the officers I pay to patrol this area sit in a office eating doughnuts and drinking coffee while they joke about the impoverd people who I also pay to take care of!? NOVEMBER 12 at the capital is the public hearing and I will be sure to be there.

@bleeding hearts - Dear bleeding hearts,

I can appreciate your sentiments but please become better informed so you can you can speak intelligently at the public hearing on Nov 12.

@bleeding hearts - I contribute to the Utah Retirement System and I belive this is a sham. I will be there to tell my oppisition to this subject.

post the revision to my comment KSL !

Jay- what is it that you would like to share? What do you think I am missing?

@bleeding hearts - bleeding hearts,

I felt your comment about "I knew they were corrupt" and "sitting in an office and eating doughnuts and drinking coffee while joking about people.." was mis-informed and unfair to many who work hard for a living like you do.

I spent four years working as a police officer in Utah many years ago and I saw very little of this kind of thing. I know there are bad cops just like there are bad mechanics, bad plumbers, and bad salespeople. But they are the exception. What I saw were dedicated people working in difficult conditions and making personal sacrafices to serve their public well. The pay was low but the retirement benefits helped make up for it.

@bleeding hearts - Jay- first of all thank you for your service and you sound like a good friend sticking up for your fellow officers (or an inside man concerning the current matter). I don't know how long ago that was that you served here but today there are a lot of conduct and spending issues I am concerned with. I would like to know how much money was it to install the "security system" at the PARK. How much is it for maintenance of the devices and how much to monitor these systems? I pay for these things too. I would imagine it is far greater of an expense than patrolling the area regularly (which I used to see them doing). I speculate that they sit in the control room with these monitors doing who knows what (eating doughnuts came to mind first but I could have said something else). Why aren't they out there keeping in shape? I would like to see a portion of this fund to go towards gym memberships for these officers to keep them healthy which if they do keep healthy and show outstanding services should be entitled to the "hero's" salary. Too many officers today are unstable (at least the ones I have had to deal with). I believe diet and exercising has a lot to do with unstable people and they should be physically healthy to be mentally healthy in order to do any good or service for the people. I was told once by a cop I should EXPECT my children to be molested by my neighbors! What do I pay this ingrate for? Then there was the GREEN STREET INCIDENT. Then they called a hispanic girl a gangbanger after she was murdered to her family and publicly and then turned around and tried to say no one was more frustrated than they were about the situation and tried to recant their statement. I am concerned with the way the police department has been conducting itself. Why are they monitoring the homeless while I have a pedophile around the corner? Why don't they monitor the murderer in the apartments across from me? Or the wife beater down the street? I appreciate what these men and women intentions are (for the most part) but I think the $200,000 a year payment plan for every sheriff and police senior is a bit excessive. There are too many frivolous expenses in the government today. My friend lost his home because he couldn't afford it and couldn't find a job. There are a lot of people who want jobs in this field and can't get them because the seniors (who have probably lost their "good intentions" somewhere along the way and become hardend and greedy. They should retire with the 401 k like the rest of us). Of course there are those rare exceptional people who should be entitled to the "hero's" salary for outstanding duty but not every Tom, Dick and Harry. The seniors should not be aloud to stay on and continue to be paid a hefty sum where those jobs could be filled by the senior understudies (if you will) and then new jobs would be created for the next generation. Where was my senior hero cop to lock up my neighbor after he threatened to kill my family? Was this nutcase taken to jail? NO. There must not have had a senior cop on duty that day.I DO NOT WANT TO PAY SALARY'S THAT SERVE ONLY ONE PURPOSE (theirs). That does sound corrupt when you state that you have two fat checks instead one fat retirement check and your hogging up a position that a younger officer would do just as efficiently. $100,000 a year retirement check is still enough to live comfortably. They have "partners" who would like a promotion into these positions who can't get them. Yes that sounds greedy and corrupt. I'm sticking up for the other officers already in position that have already proven themselves and civilians who want the rookie jobs!. And those dedicated "good" cops are rare. At least I have yet to meet one who was worth the money I shell out every year. The pay is low only for the rookie years, you continue to build in pay as with any position until retirement. I do appreciate the intentions within this public division but I do not agree with some of the tactics or financial decisions made on my behalf by this division. I have listed a few reasons why I feel harshly towards this act of selfishness. Some are a little off topic but the basic bottom line is "where is my money going?" Try not to take it personal (at least thats what the person told me when I called to complain about the cop who told me to expect my neighbors to molest my kids.)

@bleeding hearts - Bleeding H,
You sound like you either live in Cottonwood Heights or Salt Lake City. If possible, move to a city or township that is policed by the Sheriff's Office. I think you will be more satisfied and impressed with their professionalism.

Jay- what the revision stated that I posted and has not shown up is that this should be salary's given to "hero's". Not every Tom, Dick and Harry.

@bleeding hearts - bleeding hearts - I look forward to reading your revision.

Good luck at the hearing

Same old story. You want what I have but don't want to do what I did to get it. I didn't see any of my neighbors clamoring to be a rookie policeman when my salary was 40% less than they made working for the railroad. Now I'm eligible to collect the benefits of my retirement contract after 30 years of service, you want what I have. Anyone who wanted this benefit had the opportunity to earn it. You chose your career path with its accompanying benefits the same as I chose mine. Just as you can choose to return to work wherever and whenever you want, I can also make that choice.

Why hasn't anyone blamed all of this on the Mormons yet? I'm very disappointed in you people. Remember, these are the steps you are supposed to follow for EVERY story:

1. Allow 2-3 normal people to make a comment (express condolences/outrage, add detail to the story, etc.)
2. Have some uneducated deebag post something blaming the Mormons for anything bad that occurred in the story.
3. Have several Mormons politely defend their faith.
4. Have several other Mormons lose their temper and make comments that are so grammatically incorrect nobody knows what they mean.
5. Have several non-Mormons (or Mormons claiming to be non-Mormons...we'll never know will we?) stick up for their Mormon neighbors.
6. Have some "ex-Mormon" tell everyone how he used to be a Mormon, but they were judgmental so he quit and is "so much happier now".
7. Have some wannabe journalist make a comment about the poor writing/reporting.
8. Start over at step 1.

If everyone could please stick to the format, it would be greatly appreciated. This thread has completely thrown my whole day off!

@Puppy_Phucker - okay I have seen this EXACT post on other story's..... I'm not mormon and you're not funny. Oh and your name SUCKS! (there ya go... a little format controversy for your day. Enjoy!)

Start in Wellington with Lee, move up to Ogden, put them all in jail. This is highway robbery for everyone. Good-day.

A person should only earn money for work given. Once they are done, they should only be getting one (1) retirement check a month.

@TexMexCoug - In the case at hand, they do get one retirement check as earned over years of service, then they return to work and receive one pay check. Added together that makes two checks both of which must be earned. Some people do not go back to work when they retire but value their time instead of another pay check. Plan ahead and you may be fortunate enough to make that choice.

Let's stop "paying" these criminals to destroy our freedoms!

http://www.lewrockwell.com/grigg/grigg-w114.html

Utah Retirement Systems Membership Council Mike GALIETI, CHAIRPERSO
MS SHERI WATTERS, VICE-CHAIRPERSON
MS KIM CAMPBELL
MS VICKI COON
MR TOM HARDY
MR JAY BLAIN
REP. BRAD DEE
MR. DEAN DREW
MR ROGER MINER
MR MARTY PETERSON
HON GARY STOTT
MR JIM THOMPSON
MR BARRY VINCENT

Look:
Who was over House Bill 230: Ron C. Bigelow (born 1948) currently serves as the House Chair of the Executive Appropriations Committee (state budget committee). He is in his seventh term as a member of the Utah State House of Representatives District 32, representing West Valley City.
Currently, he is the Manager of Finance in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints Missionary Department. He has also worked in their administration offices in Mexico and Chile.
We all know who runs the Gov. in utah?

For those of you who did not understand this story, this only applies to Chiefs, Sheriffs, and the head of Utah DPS. This would not apply to normal officers Captains and below. MOST COPS DO NOT MAKE ANYWHERE NEAR WHAT A CHIEF, ASSISTANT CHIEFS, CAPTAINS, AND MAYBE LIEUTENANTS MAKE. There was only one side of the story given in this. For instance, say a cop makes $60,000 annually when he retires (probably topped out at 10 years of service). At 20 years cops make half of what their normal salary would be, which is $2500 a month. For providing a service for 20 years, which ultimately has an effect on your family, your health (shift work) we better get something else out of this career. Has anyone ever asked why most cops in Utah have major health problems or do not live more than a few years after retirement. I would hope after my service as a police officer, my family would be able to live okay after everything this job took away from them to provide a service to YOU! Head administrators are the only ones that can remain in place. Other officers have to leave the agency at least 6 months before they can return. Just so all you complainers are aware there are current subcommittees being held right now discussing the change of police retirement to 25 years so I hope this makes you happy. Statistically, most cops will not make it until they are 60 years old due to health problems. So say a cop starts his career at 25 at 50 he can retire and have a whole 10 years to live a not so retired life. Why? That is because his retirement is just enough to pay the bills. Just remember who it is that you rely on to help when everything goes to crap!

I'm sorry....I just don't believe that we have to keep these people in place after retiring because it's too costly to train a new individual. There are a lot of fine people who have worked in law enforcement for a number of years that could promote up. It's shear greediness that these individuals retire in place. Nothing more. As was stated in a number of comments, there are a number of these individuals who do not hold the respect of their peers or those they serve. Sometimes, it's best to get "new blood" in the job. If they are doing their job correctly, they would have a few individuals who could step in their place without needing in-depth training. I believe it goes to show it's more of the good 'ol boy mentality. Higher ups do not DESERVE the money...the men and women who are pounding the pavement and actually put their lives on the line for us everyday deserve a salary they can support themselves on rather than the chief making a obscene amount for sitting behind a desk.

@Debbie - Debbie,

I appreciate your remarks. I'd like to say however that the original comment "it is too costly to train a new individual" was very poorly spoken. What makes more sense is to understand that when the employee retires you are paying their retirement and the salary of their replacement. Sometimes it can be more beneficial to continue paying the salary to the former Chief rather than to a new one. Either way the cost to the taxpayer is often the same. Also, in most cases the Chief or Sherif came from the ranks of those who put their lives on the line year after year and few of them spend their time sitting behind a desk. Their duties are extensive.

@Debbie - Debbie....you hit it on the head. I'm retired from Ogden Fire as a Captain with 25 years of service. The Fire and Police department heads should roll down the street. I know them both personally and can attest to the fact that they are not respected by the troops. The lower employees work hard because they need a job. They are intimidated by the administration if they speak out. Management practices by both departments is unethical, at times employees are interviewed about incidents in their department under durress and the city council and Mayor don't give a feces. The council doesnt hear all the crap from below because employees cant speak to them without repercussions. I KNOW! I was fired by the Ogden City Fire Chief after 25 years of service because he needed a fall guy to show examples to the troops what can happen if you don't play the game. I get my retirement because I had over 20 years of service. And yes, Chief Mathieu is NOT respected by anyone that I know in the lower ranks. He lied to the union several times and is still the Chief. He lied in my investigation with the Civil Service Commission. Do I have a grudge? Heck yes I do. 90% percent of OFD personal know I was fired because of a personality conflict. I had more thank you letters in my file over the years than him and 2 of his favorite Batt. Chief's (by the way, one Batt. Chief lied during my investigation and got 7 days without pay for discipline. The personal below were told he was on vacation. Yep, examples of a Chief in power too long with no one above supervising "them". Good ol' boys , heck, let 'em retire in place so they stay forever! Great for all below them, huh? right!

If the Police officer was Senator Chief Greiner, there would have been no law broken. Because he would have said, that it was just from a lobbyist trying to get out of a ticket.
This is how the story should have read, I was just lobbying the officer to not give me a ticket and he said no. no foul, let me go. Is there really any difference. I guess that if it were donuts then the whole issue would have gone away.


Man Accused Of Bribing Officer With a Pepperoni Pizza
Reported by:
Friday, Oct 30, 2009 @09:22am

A Sandy pizza delivery man is in trouble for allegedly bribing a police officer but it wasn't with money.

Back in June, Paul Booth was on the job delivering pizzas. An officer pulled him over for going 50 in a 45-miles-per hour zone.

Paul says he made a joke to try and break the tension.

“I leaned out the window and said, ‘hey, if you go easy on me I can get you a pizza,’ “ Booth said.

He told 2News the officer responded by telling him that would be a bribe.

“I was kind of in disbelief,” said Booth.

“In this particular case the benefit that was offered up happened to be a pizza. There’s nothing in the statue that says it couldn't be that benefit,” said Alicia Cook with the Salt Lake County District Attorney’s office.

When Booth went to court for the ticket, he found out he was charged with bribery which is a felony.

The D.A. has since reduced the charge to a misdemeanor.

@Chancy G. - A dishonest cop would have taken the pizza. Be grateful for one who would rather do his job. An officer has to make a judgment call and leave it to the courts to determine guilt or innocense.

What the story doesn't say is, when they retire they no longer contribute to the system. This is what keeps the system going is contributing. The problem is now you have chiefs that will not leave because, really why would they?

Here's a scenario not yet discussed on this message board:

You join SLCPD. While working the graveyard shift, you attend school and earn a college degree. Later, you go back to school and earn a Masters of Public Administration. You are promoted to sergeant, lieutenant, then captain. You command many critical functions of a large department. After 20 years, you decide to take your hard-earned retirement.

A year or so later, you learn that Sandy (or fill in the city of your choice) is looking for a police chief. You are capable and very qualified for the job. You think it might be satisfying to get back in to public service, and a challenge to take leadership of a young and growing department. You apply for the job, and are hired.

Now you receive your retirement check, which you earned while at SLCPD. You receive your salary from Sandy City. And, since you cannot contribute to the retirement system anymore, and cannot earn a second retirement, you receive a contribution from Sandy City towards a 457 plan.

Are there people on this discussion that think the above described scenario should be outlawed? On what basis? There are many agencies in this state being directed by command level officers retired from larger agencies like SLCPD, and many who retired from smaller agencies.

Why would anyone oppose this? Is it realistic to expect agencies to reject applications from retired officers with excellent credentials of education, experience, and leadership?

Would you expect local agencies to only promote from within? What about bringing in "new blood," new ideas, new skills, by hiring capable persons from other agencies?

The reason I bring this up, is that it is no different, financially speaking, than the scenario of "retiring in place." The only difference is that the people involved go to work for different agencies.

Remember, this is what happens in the job world in every place and every industry. Companies hire qualified people who have retired from other companies, and who receive retirement benefits from their previous employers. There is nothing new about this, nothing scandalous, or even exceptional.

Your thoughts?

@slpa1 - I dont think anybody has a problem with this, it is the Chiefs that stay in the same job one day they are retired and the next they are not. That is the general debate.

@slpa1 - Agreed. But the cost to taxpayers is the same, whether the retired captain takes a chief's job with another agency, or takes the chief's job in the same agency from which (s)he retired.

My point is that to oppose the policy based solely on cost is misplaced. The cost is the same. Even the URS audit that accompanies this article can only argue that the policy "may cause employees to retire earlier, resulting in less contributions to the system." This is purely speculative, and demonstrates that there is no real, immediate, demonstrable cost to the system for the r.i.p. policy.

The bigger debate, and one that merits critical review, is whether a sitting chief should be able to retire and remain in the same office.

Unfortunately, KSL, URS and ULCT all know that they can push the taxpayers' hot button by focusing on cost, suggesting fiscal waste, and generally smearing r.i.p. participants as corrupt or greedy, all while missing the real public policy issue, which has more to do with whether sitting chiefs are so valuable to their departments as to merit the r.i.p. policy.

@slpa1 - My thought? Herte it is. No problem with me retiring from one department and going to another. But to stay in the same department? BS BS BS. It causes stagnentation, resentment from the ranks, favortism, lowers morale tremendously, makes people quit and hire on elsewhere. Why, because they are doing this with Chief's, Asst. Chief's, Battalion Chief's, Captain's......many opportunities for the guys below to get screwed out of. And on top of this, the old chief or whoever stays forever and carries out grudges towards lower ranks forever. I KNOW THIS MR SLPA1. Hey, just who the heck are you anyway. Come on, tell us why you are so for this, etc. Let me guess, you are a dm double -dipper! Right!!!

@slpa1 - Well, Dan H., you have stated your point of view. I don't disagree with you on the internal problems with having department heads retire in place.

However...you have continued to attack me personally and questioned my personal motives. There is no cause for this. I have not advocated the r.i.p. policy. I have only questioned those who oppose it for purely financial reasons. Those arguments are weak, and even the audit report published with this story can only speculate as the the potential cost of having employees retire earlier due to this policy.

I have asked people to consider the bigger debate, which is, in fact, the issue you raised from the beginning. It is good public policy to allow department heads to retire in place? Are they really so valuable to the agency that they should be allowed to do so? Does that allow fresh ideas, methods, training into the department? What about those grudges you mention? Many officers are held back in their careers because they have offended someone in the chain of command. New leadership can allow those past grudges to be set aside and get careers moving again.

There are valid reasons to oppose the r.i.p. policy. There are also reasons it could be of value to an agency. There are varying versions of it in public employment across the country. In the debate, however, it is most important to not get blinded by one "hot" issue, such as cost, and miss the bigger picture. The internal issues you raise are a big part of that and should be considered.

No one will listen to you, though, if you continue to attack them personally. Learn to clearly describe the problems you see in r.i.p. and explain your position with sound argument, not ad hominem attacks.

Am I a double dipper? Hardly. I work in a highly technical field far from law enforcement or public employment. So far, in fact, you would laugh to learn what it is. My privacy is more important to me than satisfying your vain inquiries, however, so that's the end of that.

Has anyone stopped to think why this article was written? Why is KSL allowing itself to be a propaganda tool for Utah Retirement Systems and the Utah League of Cities and Towns?

This article is nothing more than the opening salvo from those entities as they try to swing public sentiment in favor of their attempt to get the Legislature to change the rules in URS and ULCT’s favor. This is to the detriment of current teachers, firefighters, police and judges (the entities whose retirement is paid by URS). Alas no investigation or in-depth analysis by KSL on this.

On 07-17-09, the Utah League of Cities and Towns released a draft retirement package options statement which begins with the following, “It is the intent that each package will sufficiently address the anticipated $140 to $150 million shortfall that is anticipated by state and local government for the 2011 fiscal year.” Some proposed resolutions include adjusting defined contributions, multiplier changes (the ones KSL used to figure pay), and changes in post retirement reemployment benefits AKA retiring in place. I wonder who planted the idea for this story in KSL’s ear?!?

Let me offer my own resolution for saving money. Abolish the Utah League of Cities and Towns. Cut the pay of every city council person, mayor and legislator in the state. Cut all the Arts spending and other nonsense that government should never have been in the business of funding in the first place. The list could go on forever.

Teachers, firefighters, police and judges are essential to society. A bunch of government blowhards are not. Public servants shouldn’t have to feel the pain that results from inept money management by URS. Public servants shouldn’t have municipal budgets balanced on their backs.

FM

hey all you... your make a big deal out of all this. you who think that the football players should get some million or whatever because they got some head injury play a game. What about the officers that did meth lab hits to make your commuinty safer and got cancer and died and the state this fock up state that doesnt give a shet about them. The admin of the pds and this state makes me sick. fock yoy all.

I enjoyed the show. The most evil part of this practice is when one employee is fired, so another can retire and take their job. This happened to my wife when after 15 years as a department head with Weber County, she was suddenly fired by her boss (who always gave her good job reviews). He then retired and hired back in her job. She was devistated. This should be illegal!!

I am amazed as I read through these thoughts why someone doesn’t recognize the underlying discussion point or rather the secret agenda. Sure KSL has pointed out a situation here, it is what it is, but they probably don’t know the whole story. What hasn’t been said is the other elephant in the room. The special people. You see the Utah Retirement System allows for special people, who never contribute to the common good of the retirement pool and they are the highest and best paid with tax dollars. The URS allows for governments to exempt up to 50 employees or 10% of their work force for special people, people like a City Manager or an Attorney or a full time Mayor so that they can take their defined contribution, 401 account, and Social Security, defined benefit, plan with them as the move from job to job. The state employee, firefighter, policemen, judge or teacher may only have this one plan, possibly no Social Security and may lose it if they change jobs because the URS keeps all the funds it collects under the contributory/noncontributory rules. The URS average for the last 20 years in growth is above 9% even with the disaster of a -20% for 2008. They only plan to grow at 7.5%. The cost of payouts doesn’t ever exceed 6% in growth and there is enough reserves to take care of over 80% of the needs of the retirees for the next 20 years with no more contributions. What we have here is a situation where the special people lost 40% of their defined contribution plans on average last year and want the masses who have stayed in a defined benefit plan to pay more of the costs even though many agencies negotiated away the employee contribution part years ago. Be very, very careful those in the state retirement system, those special people who don’t have a horse in the race are the ones talking to those who make laws! They want to use actuaries who said the other plans were financially solid based on years of data. Those same actuaries don’t have a contingency for the 100 year flood plan like that which occurred in 2008 and they want to make up loses in 3 or 4 years when they are still well ahead of the investment game.