We can't afford benefits this generous
| Monday, Jun 22 2009 04:29 PM
Last Updated Tuesday, Jun 23 2009 12:06 PM
Loading Stories
Advertisement
By SCOTT BARNETT / I believe that Bakersfield City Councilman Zack Scrivner should be applauded for his willingness to objectively address the politically charged issue of police officer retirement benefits and offer a reasonable alternative. Instead, in previous letters and columns in this paper, he has been subject to derision, including, most recently, questions of his fairness and principles. He has also had his positions attacked regularly in radio advertisement paid for by the police union, without the venue or means to respond in kind.
I'd like to offer some perspective in support of Scrivner's courageous attempt to question the status quo. A number of years ago, the retirement benefits that the city agreed upon with the police union increased from benefit payments of 2 percent of an officer's salary earned for each year of service, to 3 percent for each year of service, with eligibility for retirement at age 50. It is conceivable that an officer could retire at 50 years of age and receive 90 percent of his pay.
This increase from 2 percent to 3 percent is not just a 1 percent increase -- it is an increase in benefits of 50 percent, payable for possibly 30 years or more after an officer's retirement date. We taxpayers must usually save a decent slice of our own pay, invest it prudently, deal with the ups and downs of the market and hope that we can retire at age 65 with 50 percent income replacement. We are, in fact, penalized 12.5 percent if we take any of money out of our retirement accounts before 59 years of age.
I think in hindsight those who agreed to that increase either failed to understand the longterm implications of that increase or made a politically expedient decision. In light of the catastrophic financial condition in which our state and city find themselves, that decision was not a great one and must be objectively readdressed. We can't solve our problems by just printing more money here in Bakersfield, as they try to do in Washington.
I'd also like to offer a different perspective to that aired by the local union boss in his radio advertisements. He opined that there would be a public safety hazard if an officer over 50 had to apprehend a suspect. I think our city would be better served to have four officers on a beat rather than three, regardless of whether they are 40 or 55. I'd rather hire more cops and offer them a fair compensation package than have to reduce the size of our police force in order to maintain a rich program for a few.
Regarding the allegation by a columnist that Scrivner may have higher political aspirations, I would welcome the opportunity to give him my vote. He's earned it. We need more people who are willing to study a sensitive issue, weigh the options, and offer a solution, even if it may be politically unpopular.
Scott Barnett is the chief financial officer of Advance Beverage Company Inc.
