Dear Editor,
I’d like to comment on your editorial entitled
”
A Luxury Retirement
”
published Jan. 12. First, let’s get some facts and observations
on public safety retirements. Time and again, I’ve read that police
and firefighters will retire at 50 years old with 90 percent of
their pay (the 3 percent at 50 formula).
Dear Editor,
I’d like to comment on your editorial entitled “A Luxury Retirement” published Jan. 12. First, let’s get some facts and observations on public safety retirements. Time and again, I’ve read that police and firefighters will retire at 50 years old with 90 percent of their pay (the 3 percent at 50 formula). This is possible, but not typical. If an officer started on his 21st birthday (the minimum age for police officers) and worked for the next 29 years without calling in sick (ever) he or she would be looking at roughly a 90 percent retirement.
Let’s use my career as an actual example. It is quite typical. I started police work when I was 32 years old and I’ve remained reasonably healthy throughout my career. When I turn 50 years old, I will be eligible for a retirement check equal to about 56 percent of my last year’s salary. Perhaps this isn’t bad but it’s a far cry from 90 percent.
Of course I can remain working and go for the 90 percent but let’s be honest, how effective would a 62-year-old police officer be? I’m 47 and my days of wrestling with parolees are just about over. The editorial mentioned that our “luxury retirement” puts the city in financial hardship, but consider the cost of paying out worker’s compensation claims for a bunch of 60-year-old cops. This is a young person’s game … 50 is old enough to hang up my duty belt.
Now, let’s talk about the real cost to the city assuming the reduction in benefits proposed by the Dispatch. I just tallied up the job recruitment advertisements in this month’s Peace Officers Research Association of California magazine.
There are 42 cities posting advertisements for job openings. Many of these have a better overall package of benefits than Gilroy offers, yet they are resorting to slick full color ads and signing bonuses of several thousand dollars.
Of the cities with openings, only four do not have the 3 at 50 retirements (In fact, every Public Employee Retirement System-based agency in this county has this program). Please understand that these 42 agencies are not the only ones looking for officers. Almost every city, including Gilroy, has open positions that remain unfilled.
One would think that with “luxury retirement” packages, and the “lucrative pay and benefits” packages, these jobs would be easy to fill, but they aren’t. The California Highway Patrol has resorted to placing advertisements in baseball and football venues out of state in order to attract qualified candidates.
If Gilroy did as the Dispatch editorial board suggests and rescinds the current program, the city would be unable to attract or retain well-qualified police officers. It takes tens of thousands of dollars and hundreds of training hours just to get an officer competent to patrol alone. Add on top of that the ongoing training and steep learning curve involved in law enforcement and a new officer really begins to come into his or her own after about three years of service.
With a retirement system below the industry standard, that is also about the time other agencies will recruit the officer away from Gilroy. Let’s imagine the quality of police officers that we would be able to hire and retain. Would those candidates provide the quality of service that the residents need, and have come to expect? One multi-million dollar lawsuit due to a substandard employee will wipe out years of savings on retirement.
Lastly, and directly on point, is that the chief actuary for Cal-PERS has stated more than once that the various city’s retirement cost increases were “primarily caused by POOR INVESTMENT RETURNS for the period of 2001 to 2003, not benefit improvements” – the same poor investment returns that have affected most everyone’s investment portfolios over the past few years.
I believe the Dispatch Editorial Board has once again come up with a short-sighted solution to a complicated problem. The members of the Gilroy Police Officer’s Association have no desire to bankrupt the city, and have historically been one of the lower paid agencies in Santa Clara County.
However, stripping future officers of the current pension plan is not a good option for the officers, the department or the citizens of Gilroy.
Jim Callahan,
Vice President,
Gilroy Police Officer’s Association
