EDITORIAL
'Double-dippers' help but costs are distorted

There was a time when government service, if not particularly well-paid, at least offered job security, generous retirement benefits and lifetime stability.

But as Staff Writer Jim Dooley reported Sunday, government work offers extra benefits to those whose energy and skills make them extra-valuable to the public employer.

As Dooley reported, there are more than 300 individuals on the state payroll today who retired and then went right back to work on carefully tailored contracts designed to protect their pensions while offering full-time salaries.

The public has a right to ask whether this system best serves their interests as well as the interest of good government.

A strong argument can be made that this system actually saves tax dollars, at least in the short run. When people retire and then come back to work full time, the state does not have to pay their pension or health insurance benefits.

Thus, these workers are "cheaper" than a similar hire with a full plate of benefits in addition to salary.

The phenomenon Dooley reported on is the so-called "89ers" who go back to work after retirement on short-term contracts.

The law assumed that there would be occasions when retirees would be needed to come back on short assignments to fill critical positions or to train successors.

To keep this practice at bay, the law says one can only work 90 days as a returnee, after which one's retirement pension is put on hold. So, to get around this, there are dozens and dozens of individuals who work 89 days, take a day off, and then return for another near-three-month stint.

This is cynical. It might save money, but it is not in keeping with legislative intent nor does it instill confidence in government service.

For starters, this system allows at least the perception that favored individuals can be put on the double-dipper gravy train in an end-run around traditional civil service rules and protections.

As Dooley reported, it creates a "gray ceiling" that bottlestops promotion for some from within the civil service system.

And while most of these folks are undoubtedly doing good and valued work, they exist outside the protections of civil service. If a regular civil servant sees something wrong he can refuse and rely on the civil service system to protect him.

Those on the 89-day contracts are totally dependent on the goodwill of their superior; not a healthy situation.

Now, we recognize that there will be times when the best person for the job is the person who has just retired from that post. In those cases, re-hire, pay what the job is worth and place the pension on hold.

We have long argued that in critical shortage areas — teachers would be a prime example — it makes sense to re-hire retirees who have the energy and skill necessary to do the job.

And indeed the Legislature made just that policy decision in the case of critical shortage areas for teachers.

But this cynical use of the rotating 89-day assignments dilutes public confidence in the integrity of the system.