@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.

@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.

@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).

@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???

@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...

@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!

@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

@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

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

@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.

@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.

@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?

@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.

@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.

@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).

@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'!

@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.

@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?

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

@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.......

@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.

@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!

@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.

@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.

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

Good luck at the hearing

@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!)

@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.

@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!

@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.

@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.