Marshall said he’s talked to the governor’s staff about Senate bill 207, which would effectively end double dipping in the future, and expressed his displeasure.

Marshall said his current police chief was the strongest candidate for the job–but couldn’t have been hired if SB 207 were law. “Our chief of police makes less then the previous chief because his pay is adjusted to make up the contributions on his behalf,” he said.

“We’ve been able to bring in people as re-hires and adjust their salaries and make up for any PERA issues.” What Silver City does with their re-hires is offer them a salary minus what would be paid to the PERA. The city than pays that amount, instead of giving it to the employee. Marshall said the end result is the same contribution to PERA that any employee would make.

The bill, which was passed by the Legislature but has not yet been signed by the governor, would require employees to either collect a paycheck from the government or collect a pension–but not both at the same time.

Finding strong candidates for positions in rural communities can be a challenge because city budgets can’t often compete with the pay offered by state agencies, Marshall said. Cities often hire entry level employees and then do all they can to keep them as they become more experienced, but Marshall said it usually doesn’t work that way. “We end up being a training facility for many other agencies around the state.”

One of the reasons the Legislature took a look at double dipping was to help shore up the Public Employees Retirement Association’s (PERA) retirement fund. But Marshall says Silver City’s re-hires make good financial sense for all involved.

Marshall told The Independent he’s not sure how things will change for Silver City if the governor signs the bill, saying, ”Its a little difficult to predict how much impact it will have going forward.”

Photo by Robert Terrell

By a vote of 65 to three Thursday morning, the House overwhelmingly passed legislation that would prevent the vast majority of government retirees after that date from earning both a pension and government paycheck, commonly referred to as “double dipping.”

Gov. Bill Richardson has said he likes the ‘double dipping bill.’ He vetoed a similar measure last year.

The House’s approval of a ban on future double dipping came three days after the Senate passed SB 207 35 to 6, sending it on to the House. Neither the House Appropriations and Finance Committee nor the House as a whole altered the bill, although an attempt was made on the House floor Thursday morning.

“This measure HAD to pass without amendment to ensure it went to the Governor this year,” Rep. Dennis Roch, R-Tucumcari, said on the Independent live blog Thursday during debate on the bill.

Currently a public retiree can earn both a pension and government paycheck.

Under the new rules workers who retire after July 1 would have to sit out for 12 months following retirement before returning to government work. They also would have to stop receiving their pensions for as long as they are back at work.

Those exempted from the new rules would be elected officials, temporary legislative employees and the more than 1,400 people who currently double dip.

Temporary legislative employees work for the Legislature during the 30-day and 60-day legislative sessions.

While the legislation doesn’t go after the more than 1,400 retirees who currently double dippers, it does require those individuals to begin contributing into the state’s retirement funds. Current double dippers–unlike most employees–don’t do that.

Rep. Bill Rehm, R-Albuquerque, a retired police officer, tried to amend the bill, arguing by not exempting public safety retirees from the new rules smaller communities around New Mexico would “lose the ability to retain an experienced person to be your chief of police.”

A similar argument was made in the Senate earlier in the week. But as happened in that chamber, the House shot down that amendment.

An earlier version of the Senate’s ‘double dipping’ bill had exempted retirees who returned to work in small communities around the state, as well as public safety officers and firefighters. All told, about 700 people would have been exempted from the new rules.

But the Senate removed those exceptions after the Public Employees Retirement Association (PERA) estimated in a Feb. 9 letter that the fund would lose $16 million in contributions during the first year if all those retirees were exempted.

That’s because the retirees would be in jobs instead of active employees who contribute into the fund, PERA’s director Terry Slattery, wrote in the letter.

Ultimately the majority of lawmakers in the Senate were persuaded by PERA’s concerns. It appeared effective in the House as well.

Over the past year the practice of ‘double dipping’ has gained in notoriety and scrutiny. The state allowed government retirees to return to work while collecting a pension several years ago.

Critics have pointed out that New Mexico can’t afford double dipping in hard economic times.

Because current double dippers don’t contribute into the state’s retirement funds, the state is forced to pay a double share into the retirement funds – the employee’s and employer’s – for these particular workers. Those payments come out of the state’s general fund, the state’s main account, which has a projected budget shortfall of several hundred million dollars next year.

Requiring current ‘double dippers’ pay the employee’s share would save the general fund roughly $1.23 million, according to a legislative analysis.

Other critics say that double dipping keeps younger workers from moving up the job ranks because retirees inhabit them.

Photo by Robert Terrell

The vast majority of government retirees couldn’t “double dip” after July 1 under a bill the Senate passed Monday.

Senators passed the legislation 35 to 6 after a lengthy, complex debate that exposed urban-rural tensions among lawmakers. The legislation now heads to the House.

Currently a public retiree can earn both a pension and government paycheck, commonly referred to as “double dipping.”

But that practice would stop for government employees who retire after July 1 and return to work for state, local or county governments if the bill clears the House and Gov. Bill Richardson signs it.

Under the new rules workers would have to sit out for 12 months following retirement before returning to government work–and then stop receiving their pensions for as long as they work.

Those exempted would be elected officials, temporary legislative employees and the more than 1,400 people who currently double dip.

Temporary legislative employees work for the Legislature during the 30-day and 60-day legislative sessions.

While the legislation doesn’t go after current double dippers, it does require those individuals to begin contributing into the state’s retirement funds.

Current double dippers–unlike most employees–don’t do that.

“We need to put the genie back in [the bottle],” said the bill’s sponsor, Sen. David Ulibarri of Grants.

The state allowed government retirees to return to work while collecting a pension several years ago. But over the past year the practice has gained in notoriety and scrutiny. This bill (SB207) is a proposed solution.

Critics have pointed out that New Mexico can’t afford double dipping in hard economic times.

Because current double dippers don’t contribute into the state’s retirement funds, the state is forced to pay a double share into the retirement funds – the employee’s and employer’s – for these particular workers. Those payments come out of the state’s general fund, the state’s main account, which has a projected budget shortfall of several hundred million dollars next year.

Other critics say that double dipping keeps younger workers from moving up the job ranks because retirees inhabit them.

Although the ‘double dipping’ legislation passed, many lawmakers Monday groused that the bill before them wasn’t a perfect fix.

Some pointed out that the bill doesn’t stop double dipping altogether by retroactively preventing those who benefit from it now from living under the new rules after July 1.

And that gave many lawmakers the most heartburn — that the legislation wouldn’t stop the more than 1,400 double dippers from benefiting from the practice.

“The people cried reform…and there is no reform,” said Sen. Rod Adair, R-Roswell, adding that “we are not addressing the problem.”

The people of New Mexico are angry at people who get $80,000 in retirement pensions and $90,000 to the do the same job he or she retired from, not the police captain who retires and then returns to work as a patrol officer, Adair said.

Adair attempted unsuccessfully to amend Ulibarri’s bill to prevent a retiree from returning to the same job he or she held before they retired.

“He is hurting the unemployment rate,” Adair said, referring to a generic double dipper. “He is hurting office morale.”

But that amendment failed 13 to 28.

Several rural state lawmakers also attempted to change Ulibarri’s bill, complaining that an end to ‘double dipping’ would make it more difficult to fill certain jobs when the new rules go into effect.

Often the most qualified candidates for public safety jobs are retired police officers in small towns and county governments, lawmakers said.

Because the retirees already have been trained, the towns and counties don’t bear the cost of training them. But with the new rules, training costs will rise for these small communities, lawmakers said.

That’s because forcing future double dippers to temporarily give up their pensions to go back to work will dissuade the most qualified candidates from applying, the lawmakers said.

Sen. Stuart Ingle, R-Portales, tried unsuccessfully to exempt small, rural communities from the new rules in the bill, but the amendment would have applied to as many as two-thirds of the counties in the state.

Under that amendment small communities could identify “critical needs” and then hire double dippers to fill them. Those individuals wouldn’t have had to sit out for 12 months or give their pension up temporarily.

Not everyone liked the amendment, including Sen. Richard Martinez, D-Española.

“Coming from a small and very political county, I can only imagine what the critical needs are,” quipped Martinez, who comes from Rio Arriba County, famous for its political intrigue.

After Ingle’s amendment failed by a 14 to 26 vote, Sen. Gay Kernan, R-Hobbs, said the cost to small communities would be significant.

“I’m sorry that those in urban communities don’t have a feel for what we go through in small communities,” Kernan said.

An earlier version of the ‘double dipping’ bill had exempted retirees who returned to work in small communities around the state, as well as public safety officers and firefighters. All told, about 700 people would have been exempted from the new rules.

But Ulibarri’s bill removed those exceptions after the Public Employees Retirement Association (PERA) estimated in a Feb. 9 letter that the fund would lose $16 million in contributions during the first year if all those retirees were exempted.

That’s because the retirees would be in jobs instead of active employees who contribute into the fund, PERA’s director Terry Slattery, wrote.

Ultimately the majority of lawmakers were persuaded by PERA’s concerns.

The legislation is  sponsored by Rep. Jack Thomas, D-Rio Rancho.

The statute in question easily cleared the Legislature in 2009, and includes a petty misdemeanor charge for anyone who knowingly violates rules prohibiting disclosure of the pension amounts.

The ban on ERB’s disclosure of members’ pension amounts comes at a time when state officials are struggling to contain costs and have targeted the practice of double dipping, when a public sector retiree returns to work for the state, collecting both a salary and a pension.

The Independent discovered the new rules in December when it requested pension amounts for retirees.

The increased scrutiny of double dipping, and the public’s interest in retirees’ pension amounts, coincides with cost-saving efforts by state officials as the state faces a large budget shortfall for the year that starts July 1.

Unlike most state workers, retirees who return to work do not contribute to the pension system–but the state continues to pay into the system on their behalf.

Photo by Robert Terrell

State government retirees who return to work after July 1 could temporarily lose their pensions under legislation headed to the Senate floor.

The state also would stop paying the employer’s contribution to the retiree’s pension, as is the current practice.

The legislation (SB207), which passed the Senate Finance Committee on Tuesday, is a proposed solution to the practice of double dipping. That’s when state retirees return to work, collecting both a pension and a paycheck.

Critics have pointed out that the state can’t afford double dipping during such bad financial times. Some estimates are that it costs the state several million dollars a year at a time that New Mexico confronts a budget shortfall of several hundred million dollars next year.

Under present rules, in many cases the state continues to contribute to the pension accounts of double dippers, and those contributions eat out of the state’s main account, the general fund.

Other critics say that double dipping keeps younger workers from moving up the job ranks because retirees inhabit them.

The legislation sponsored by Sen. David Ulibarri, D-Grants, wouldn’t affect the roughly 800 double dippers already collecting a pension and a paycheck, officials said. But it would set out new rules for state government retirees who return to work after July 1.

Many of those state government retirees would face a choice if they return to work, particularly if they haven’t retired with a full pension.

The individual retiree could opt to temporarily stop receiving his or her pension while they collect a paycheck. Or the individual could opt to re-enter the pension system, meaning they would in effect un-retire, and earn more service credit toward qualifying for a full pension.

In most cases, a state worker qualifies for a full pension after working 26 years and eight months.

Ulibarri’s bill would exempt certain retirees who return to work from temporarily giving up their pensions. Public safety officers and firefighters who retired with a full pension wouldn’t have to give them up, Ulibarri told lawmakers.

Several state lawmakers expressed unease with Ulibarri’s bill, particularly because it wouldn’t stop those retirees currently double dipping.

Sen. Gerald Ortiz y Pino, D-Albuquerque, also worried that it would provoke a surge in state workers who would retire to take advantage of the current rules, which require a retiree only to wait 90 days before returning to work. Ulibarri’s bill would extend that sit-out period to a year.

“Won’t we experience a surge in retirements?” Ortiz y Pino asked.

Ortiz y Pino also pointed out that current retirees would fall under the more lenient rules if they were to return to work prior to July 1 – they wouldn’t have to temporarily give up their pension.

Paul Ritzma of Gov. Bill Richardson’s office told lawmakers that the governor had contemplated changing the rules on those already collecting a pension and a paycheck. But to “retroactively take that away would result in a lawsuit,” Ritzma said.

Richardson vetoed a bill that passed the Legislature last year that would have affected current double dippers. It would have capped how much retirees returning to work could earn at $30,000. It also required retirees to sit out 12 months after retiring before returning to work.

Sen. Sue Wilson Beffort, R-Sandia Park, said Tuesday she would support Ulibarri’s bill this year, but wanted legislation to take care of those already double dipping.

“We’ve got to have another bill,” Beffort said.

Sen. John Arthur Smith, D-Deming, told Ulibarri “I don’t think the bill does a whole lot to solve the problems.”

“You have no guarantees that the people who voted for this will vote” for this on the Senate floor, Smith told Ulibarri.

A bill that would require the Educational Retirement Board to publicly disclose the pension amounts for each of its 30,000 members cleared its first House committee Thursday. As The Independent reported in December, a state law passed last year prohibits disclosure of such information.

The House Labor Committee voted unanimously Thursday afternoon to send the bill, sponsored by Rep. Jack Thomas, D-Rio Rancho, on to the House Education Committee.

The statute in question easily cleared the Legislature in 2009, and includes a petty misdemeanor charge for anyone who knowingly violates rules prohibiting disclosure of the pension amounts.

The ban on ERB’s disclosure of members’ pension amounts comes at a time when state officials are struggling to contain costs and have targeted the practice of double dipping, when a public sector retiree returns to work for the state, collecting both a salary and a pension.

The Independent discovered the new rules in December when it requested pension amounts for retirees.

The increased scrutiny of double dipping, and the public’s interest in retirees’ pension amounts, coincides with cost-saving efforts by state officials as the state faces a large budget shortfall for the year that starts July 1.

Unlike most state workers, retirees who return to work do not contribute to the pension system–but the state continues to pay into the system on their behalf.

At a time when double dipping has invited extra scrutiny in New Mexico, a state law passed last year prohibits disclosure of such information.

The statute in question easily cleared the Legislature in 2009, and includes a petty misdemeanor charge for anyone who knowingly violates rules prohibiting disclosure of the pension amounts.

The sponsor of HB 231, Rep. Jack Thomas, D-Rio Rancho, said Tuesday that his legislation had a message from Gov. Bill Richardson, meaning lawmakers are allowed to hear it. Non-budgetary bills require a message from the governor in a budget session of the New Mexico Legislature.

Thomas said he didn’t expect  much opposition from his fellow lawmakers.

“It’s a pretty simple bill,” Thomas said. “It’s about open government. This should move through the Labor Committee quickly and the (House) Education Committee. I don’t see any opposition on the House floor. I see no opposition on the Senate that I know of.”

The ban on ERB’s disclosure of members’ pension amounts comes at a time when state officials are struggling to contain costs and have targeted the practice of double dipping, when a public sector retiree returns to work for the state, collecting both a salary and a pension.

The Independent discovered the new rules in December when it requested pension amounts for retirees.

The increased scrutiny of double dipping, and the public’s interest in retirees’ pension amounts, coincides with cost-saving efforts by state officials as the state faces a large budget shortfall for the year that starts July 1.

Unlike most state workers, retirees who return to work do not contribute to the pension system–but the state continues to pay into the system on their behalf.

The Herald’s story puts the dilemma facing state lawmakers in perspective:

The plummeting property values pose problems for lawmakers, taxpayers and the school system: If the Legislature keeps the schools tax rate the same during the spring lawmaking session, schools could lose tens of millions of dollars statewide. But if lawmakers raise the tax rate, they fear a backlash in an election year.

Oregon Gov. Ted Kulongoski bowed to mounting criticism Wednesday and said he’s ready to pare the state’s tax subsidies for green energy projects — especially wind power — after vetoing a similar plan earlier this year, according to the Portland Oregonian.

And bad news continues for the newspaper world: The Washington Times plans to cut its staff by as much as 40 percent over the next 60 days by some estimates, Politico reports.

And in the department of good news, the Pulitzer Committee has opened up the requirements for winning an award in journalism to make online reporters eligible for the prestigious honor, according to FishbowlNY.

Finally, so you think you know how America got its name. Sure, you know who America was named after — Amerigo Vespucci. But who gave America its name? The Smithsonian Magazine investigates that question in this really interesting story.

Richard Berry speaks with NMI and other press on election night.

So far, two of mayor-elect Richard Berry’s appointees will be double-dipping. Both Lou Hoffman and Tito Madrid currently receive government pensions. Police Chief Ray Shultz qualifies for a pension but will not be taking it while working for the Berry administration.

Berry has filled every position but two so far, Berry spokesperson Chris Ramirez told the Independent. Next week he’ll announce his selections for chief financial officer and for director of municipal development. He will not be filling the position of chief operating officer, Ramirez said.

There has been some speculation that Berry might move current Chief Administrative Officer Ed Adams to the position of chief operating officer. But Ramirez told the Independent that the position won’t be eliminated or filled. Instead, Berry’s administration will assess at some point in 2010 whether or not they need to fill it.

Lou Hoffman, who will head up the Department of Finance and Administration, has been retired from the City of Albuquerque since 2006, and currently draws a $67,000 pension from the Public Employees Retirement Association (PERA). His salary will be $97,000, the same salary currently allocated for that position, and he’ll continue pulling his pension.

Tito Madrid, Berry’s Constituent Services Director, is also retired and draws a pension from PERA. The amount he collects wasn’t known by the Berry administration as of Tuesday. His salary will be $75,000. Madrid’s position is a consolidated position, Ramirez said, which means several people were doing the job under Chavez. The combined salaries of those people totaled $82,000.

Ramirez said that both Madrid and Hoffman fall within the guidelines set out in a bill by State Rep. Lucky Varela earlier this year that required a 12 month waiting period before a government retiree could be rehired and  collect both a salary and a pension. This practice, called double-dipping, has been roundly criticized at both the municipal and state level in New Mexico due to what some say is a potential for abuse. Varela’s bill, passed last year by the state Legislature was vetoed by Gov. Bill Richardson.

“The way Lucky Varela’s bill was written, we’re not in violation [of what the state legislature passed],” Ramirez said.  “[Hoffman] isn’t someone who retired then came right back.”

“Hoffman has so much knowledge and Berry felt he truly was an expert in his field,” Ramirez continued, “He was the best pick, and also agreed to take a much smaller salary than most people at his level of experience would have.”

Madrid has not worked for the city, but has held the position of director of field operations for the New Mexico Environment Department. As of Tuesday, Ramirez did not know how much Madrid, who was traveling, collects from PERA.

As for Adams, Ramirez said Berry’s transition team is still looking at what role he might play in the new administration, if any.

While Adams was in a classified position in the past before joining Chavez’s upper ranks, the incoming administration considers him to be unclassified now and not guaranteed a job. They’re still trying to figure out if there is a position for him, Ramirez said.

“We know he’s made a significant contribution to the city and has a lot of knowledge,” Ramirez said, “and are still trying to figure out if there’s a position for him.”