Pseudo-Retirement and Gap Insurance
By Sheriff Jim Alderden
I recently met with some employees who aired a number of grievances. They suggested trying to get their issues before the public through a ballot initiative asking for binding arbitration similar to what Fort Collins employees are doing. I can’t support that, but their concerns resonate with me. Their grievances weren’t with the administration of the Sheriff’s Office, but with county government. While they had several concerns over pay and benefits, the one overriding issue was the inadequacy of our retirement plan and concern for their financial futures.
The personnel who serve the citizens of the county are Larimer County government’s most valuable resource. The inadequacy of the county retirement plan and health insurance as well as the lack of a pay plan that ensures progression through a salary range are issues that concern not only Sheriff’s Office employees, but I believe are major sources of dissatisfaction for ALL county employees. I would urge them to join with the employees of the Sheriff’s Office who are represented by the Fraternal Order of Police and Teamsters to make their concerns known to the current commissioners and the commissioner candidates during the upcoming elections. The recruitment and retention of county workers should be of concern not only to the employees but to the electorate.
In all fairness, the county stepped up and improved the retirement plan for our sworn personnel a few years ago. It still isn’t where it needs to be, but it is better than it was. The improvements will help the younger deputies who are just beginning their careers, but it won’t help the men and women who have devoted most of their adult lives to this organization. The changes were too little and too late. Deputies coming in at age 21 and working until they are 65 will be in good financial shape (if they live that long – and many won’t.) However, working as a deputy until the age of 65 isn’t realistic. For most of us the stamina, strength and reactions needed to perform the essential duties of a deputy deteriorate way before then. That’s why many, if not most, law enforcement agencies have a defined benefit retirement plan that allows a person to retire with 20 or 25 years of service at specified ages. The Federal Bureau of Investigation even has a mandatory retirement age of 57. Mandatory!
Our deputies who are currently approaching retirement won’t have enough to survive on for more than a few years. Ours is a defined contribution plan, so there is no life-time benefit. For most of their career, the county contribution was anemic. By contrast, a Colorado State Trooper can retire at age 55 and 20 years of service at 50% of his three highest average year’s salary (HAS). At age 55 with 25 years of service he can retire at 62.5% of HAS. Under the Colorado Fire and Police Pension Plan, an officer can retire at age 55 with 20 years of service at 45% of HAS and at age 55 with 25 years service at 57.5% of HAS. (Until recently, counties weren’t even eligible to participate in this plan.) Our plan is geared to supplement Social Security, and as stated earlier, most law enforcement personnel simply can’t meet the rigors of the job at that age.
While making a major overhaul to Larimer County’s retirement plan is probably cost prohibitive, I would propose an alternate solution to help our personnel bridge the gap between “retirement” and the time when Social Security and Medicare kick in. Commissioner Kathay Rennels recently made the point in a Soapbox that “the medical insurance problem is a crisis we are all facing.” She is right. In the same article, Commissioner Rennels expressed her commitment to “fairness and attracting a talented work force that will work at the 50th percentile salary range.” Bravo! Commissioner Eubanks has expressed a similar position in extending health insurance benefits to domestic partners. I think we can all agree that as an employer, Larimer County should be fair and that it should be committed to attracting a talented workforce by having competitive benefits.
I’m proposing that the county provide gap insurance coverage, allowing retirees to participate in the county medical insurance plan with the county picking up its share as if the retiree was still employed. Wouldn’t it be fair to extend this insurance benefit to the men and women who place their lives on the line every day in service to their community? Since we don’t offer a real retirement plan to our personnel, wouldn’t it be fair to help those who are no longer capable of working in their chosen profession until they are eligible for Medicare? Wouldn’t this commitment to taking care of our employees, instead of merely discarding them when they are no longer able to perform the required duties, help us attract high quality workers?
Some may question my statement that the men and women who work at the Sheriff’s Office put their life on the line and are worthy of some additional consideration. Consider that the Sheriff’s Office has the highest number of worker’s compensation claims of any county department: 54 in 2007. It’s a dangerous job. We had 134 “use of force” incidents in 2007 (incidents where force was required to arrest or subdue someone). It’s a dangerous job. Deputies have been shot at. Regrettably, deputies have been forced to shoot and kill. It’s a dangerous job! We have the names of four fallen deputies enshrined on the National Police Memorial. It’s a dangerous job.
The bad news is that our retirement plan doesn’t meet the needs of a career law enforcement officer. The good news is that for many of our deputies it won’t matter because they won’t be alive to collect retirement benefits.
Studies have shown a significant correlation between rotating shift work and prostate, colorectal, and breast cancer. Other studies have shown that law enforcement is one of the most stressful occupations and that high stress is directly linked to many diseases and an increased mortality rate. Specifically, studies show “a significantly increased risk of digestive and hematopoietic cancers among police officers with 10 to 19 years” experience. (John M. Violanti, “Study Concludes Police Work is a Health Hazard,” American Police Beat, November 2002.) In this same study it was reported that male police officers with 10 to 19 years on the job had an average age of death of 66 versus 74.4 for the average male. Yet another study by the Police Policies Study Council reported that 50% of police officers died from heart disease within five years of retirement. That study showed a 20 year difference in the life expectancy of a policeman versus a male who is not a law enforcement officer, 53 versus 73. Other studies aren’t quite as discouraging with the difference in age at death reported as only 7 to 14 years.
It isn’t just police work. Other studies in the area of Corrections had similar findings. According to Brian F. Dawe of the Corrections and Criminal Justice Coalition, “The society of actuaries has said that the stress of correctional officer service leads to the second highest early death rate at age 55.” (Richard B. Wainblatt, “Point-Counterpoint: Weighing in on Privatization.” Corrections Technology & Management Magazine, August 1998). Alcoholism, divorce and suicide are also closely associated with a career in law enforcement. Studies routinely show the law enforcement occupation group as either first or second in each of these categories. It’s a dangerous job – physically and psychologically.
Given the fact that many of our retiring personnel will have medical issues as a direct result of their occupation, providing gap insurance would seem to fit in the scheme of fairness and attracting quality employees. Sworn deputies should be given this benefit at age 55 with 20 years of service to the county. (In the interest of full disclosure, this could affect me – but my personality is such that I’ll likely work until I go toes up.) A similar arrangement should be considered for all county employees, with the age and years of service modified to fit the norms for their positions.
The costs to implement this would be minimal but the benefit to our long-term employees would be significant. In the last three years we have had only five sworn employees who meet the above criteria leave the department. Two took better positions, so only three retirees would be affected. One a year over the last three years! Currently, we have only 11 sworn employees who meet the criteria. When the Commissioners extended benefits to domestic partners, they had no idea of the fiscal impact. Apparently, money wasn’t an object when it came to being fair and attracting quality workers. If the county really wants to be competitive, if they really want to be fair, they need to consider this. Don’t the uniformed men and women who serve our community so faithfully deserve it?
April 22, 2008