NM Senate OKs limits on double-dippin...

NM Senate OKs limits on double-dipping retirees

There are 5 comments on the Las Cruces Sun-News story from Feb 15, 2010, titled NM Senate OKs limits on double-dipping retirees. In it, Las Cruces Sun-News reports that:

Public employees could no longer double dip by returning to work in government jobs with a salary and their pension under legislation approved by the Senate on Monday.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Las Cruces Sun-News.

Corey Allen

Santa Fe, NM

#1 Feb 16, 2010
What caused all this ruckus was some Cities allowing Employees to Retire on Friday and return the following Monday at the same position and pay, ignoring the 90 day stay out requirement and the fact that the employee was to return at a lesser position.
I am a Return to Work Employee.I retired as a Sergeant and I stayed out for 13 Months. I only came back because the Police Department found itself very short handed within one month's time. It took me a month to decide if I wanted to Return to Work as I served 20 years with the City faithfully. My overwhelming feeling of Public Duty and Civic Responsibility had alot to do with the decision. When I Returned to Work I came back at a lower position as required. From there I worked my way back up just as anyone else would. When I came back the restriction was set at $25G per year and because the pay is so low I had no problem staying under the limit at the time. There are numerous Officers and Teachers that Returned to Work because they are qualified and (speaking from experience) it is very hard to find (non-retired) people that are qualified under NM State Statues and Requirements to fill the still open positions.
Thanks for an oportunity to be heard.
Corey Allen
RTW Police Officer
Dedicated Public Employee just trying to make a living on already low pay and depressed economy.

Lodi, CA

#2 Feb 16, 2010
I don't believe law enforcment or even a safety-related position is the problem here. We have in our county and city government employees who are merely clerks, secretaries, etc who bought out the remaining amount of their PERA just to turn around and come back doing the same jobs that could have gone to someone just out of college, maybe a single parent just starting out, etc. Instead, these folks figured out how to collect 2 paychecks for the same job, and at a much higher rate.

If these people were already sucking the system dry, which caused our politicians to pass this bill, then why would you not go back and have it affect them? They were the cause of the problem, yet we're going to ignore them and just make it apply to NEW people.

Ahhh the land of enchantment, where we will be known for doing things backward forever.

“Old married man”

Since: Jul 08

The mountains

#3 Feb 18, 2010
Nicely put Corey. And thanks for the many years of dedicated service you have given your community.
And also a big thanks for the picture from the past you sent me earlier. Really brought back alot of great memories of the good times and great people.
Jane Q Public

Clovis, NM

#4 Feb 18, 2010
Corey, you are correct. This whole thing was brought to light by a television reporter who highlighted a very small number of people who were completely taking advantage of the situation. NONE of them were police officers. Last year Governor Richardson vetoed return to work legislation, acknowledging most who returned to work did so at salaries and pensions that were not near the excess level as reported by Larry Barker. Through the process of this bill being passed, I heard many disparaging remarks from the legislators regarding police officers. It was disappointing to hear them say there are thousands of unemployed police officers that could fill those positions and when openings for police come open, the ranks of the unemployed can fill them. The fact is, there are so many openings for police officers, and few people entering the field, the level of law enforcement in many communities is at a dangerously low level. Many cannot pass a background or psychological exam. Do you really want them carrying a gun and watching your back? This creates an unsafe environment for the public and the officers trying to serve them. Thank God we have those willing to come back and fill in the gaps. At the cost of $100k to train and certify a new officer, most communities are happy to have someone mature, experienced and already trained.

Clovis, NM

#5 Feb 18, 2010
How many legislators are double dippers? This legislation gave exemptions to legislative workers and elected officials. The legislature took care of themselves and their staffers with no regard to anoyone else. Legislators earn a retirement by paying in $500 per year. Why didn't they increase their contributions and choose not to exempt themselves? The expect everyone to.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Grants Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Weird New Mexico: Bigfoot Sightings (Oct '11) Sat Isaac 115
News handicapped space Nov 20 Victor 2
Martial Arts in Thoreau? Nov 2 laofu 1
News Arts Scene (Feb '15) Nov 1 curenado 2
News Homelessness identified as top issue in Farming... (May '14) Nov 1 curenado 24
Review: Compassion Personal Care (Aug '08) Oct 31 curenado 9
News Thoreau continues to pull together in aftermath... (Jun '10) Oct 31 curenado 4
More from around the web

Personal Finance

Grants Mortgages