Azazello1313 Posted April 6, 2011 Share Posted April 6, 2011 Mr. Bejarano is one of an increasing number of public employees here who are retiring one day and going right back to the same jobs the next, enabling them to supplement their income with retirement benefits without really retiring at all. The practice, restricted under Arizona law but common nonetheless because of loopholes, has come under fire recently from critics who say such “double dipping” is endangering the financial health of state pension funds. ... Mr. Bejarano, 58, the superintendent of the Isaac School District in western Phoenix, is an example of a nonretiring retiree. He intends to officially give up working on June 30 and then go back the next day to the same job as a consultant for a private education firm. Many who retire and then immediately go back to work take lower salaries, giving a financial advantage to the school district or other public entity where they work. In Mr. Bejarano’s case, there will be no pay cut. That he will receive the same salary and benefits of about $150,000 a year, along with a pension of about $100,000, has angered many local residents because Mr. Bejarano’s own financial restructuring comes as the struggling school district he oversees is planning to lay off staff members and close two schools. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nuke'em ttg Posted April 6, 2011 Share Posted April 6, 2011 school supers have gotta be the slipperyest bassturds on the planet, one step below human trafficing Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SayItAintSoJoe Posted April 6, 2011 Share Posted April 6, 2011 What is the cost to the state for his position the day before he "retires" vs. the day after he "retires"? More, less, or the same? In situations like this I don't have a problem with it if the cost to the state is less or the same, as long other candidates are also considered for the position. Reading the story I'm not sure if the job was ever made available to others. If it wasn't then it stinks. If it was then nothing to see here, IMO. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted April 6, 2011 Author Share Posted April 6, 2011 What is the cost to the state for his position the day before he "retires" vs. the day after he "retires"? More, less, or the same? In situations like this I don't have a problem with it if the cost to the state is less or the same, as long other candidates are also considered for the position. Reading the story I'm not sure if the job was ever made available to others. If it wasn't then it stinks. If it was then nothing to see here, IMO. who do you think is paying him double if not the state? whether other people were considered -- seems obvious the answer is no, it was just him being offered and taking a new "consultant" position that just so happened to be at the exact same salary as his old job -- is beside the point, which is that this is essentially straight-up fraud. he is not "retiring" in any way shape or form. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riffraff Posted April 6, 2011 Share Posted April 6, 2011 (edited) I have no problem with someone retiring from one company (govt in this case) and then going to work for someone else. Looks like he worked 30-40 years for the govt. He earned it. I wouldn't berate anyone that retired from one position and then got a job that pays equal to their previous employment. I would congratulate them on a sound financial decision. I guess the only reason this is news is because he has the same position. My opinion is that he would have gotten a position in his profession of choice, he just went with what he knew. Consultant jobs usually aren't permanent. He's there to ensure the new guy (that got his old position) transitions well. If there isn't a new guy/old position, then the money is saved by the school system and funded by a company instead. Different pot of money of sorts. The govt does this all the time with contractors. Edited April 6, 2011 by Riffraff Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SayItAintSoJoe Posted April 6, 2011 Share Posted April 6, 2011 (edited) who do you think is paying him double if not the state? whether other people were considered -- seems obvious the answer is no, it was just him being offered and taking a new "consultant" position that just so happened to be at the exact same salary as his old job -- is beside the point, which is that this is essentially straight-up fraud. he is not "retiring" in any way shape or form. So if he retires and the state hires someone else for his position then they don't have to pay him his retirement? Please show me the scenario where he retires and the job with it's current pay and benefits is filled by another and the cost to the state goes down. If the cost to the state will be the same the day after he retires whether he is rehired in the position or not then I don't have a problem with it if the job was made available to other candidates. Once again if the job wasn't made available to others then yes, it stinks. Edited April 6, 2011 by SayItAintSoJoe Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted April 6, 2011 Author Share Posted April 6, 2011 So if he retires and the state hires someone else for his position then they don't have to pay him his retirement? no, but if he pretends to retire in order to fraudulently collect retirement benefits to the tune of $100K per year, and then continues performing the same job at the same salary, that costs the state quite a bit. I'm frankly kind of stunned that anyone would try to justify this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duchess Jack Posted April 6, 2011 Share Posted April 6, 2011 maybe I am not understanding this. it seems to me that the state would be saving money. Its not like the state wouldn't have to pay his retirement anyway - except he is now working at a lower rate (per the article) and the state is not paying for a new pension. so they save on the salary for the position and the benefits. right? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
untateve Posted April 6, 2011 Share Posted April 6, 2011 no, but if he pretends to retire in order to fraudulently collect retirement benefits to the tune of $100K per year, and then continues performing the same job at the same salary, that costs the state quite a bit. I'm frankly kind of stunned that anyone would try to justify this. Given that he has committed 'fraud,' why has he not been arrested? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bpwallace49 Posted April 6, 2011 Share Posted April 6, 2011 no, but if he pretends to retire in order to fraudulently collect retirement benefits to the tune of $100K per year, and then continues performing the same job at the same salary, that costs the state quite a bit. I'm frankly kind of stunned that anyone would try to justify this. First off . . . this is in no way shape or form endorsing his actions. But he is just playing the game within the rules. While this is very distasteful and doesnt pass the smell test . . neither is it illegal or "wrong" to do within current law. I cant tell you how many cops/fireman, etc do the exact same thing by retiring with full benefits then getting hired in lateral moves to other departments in other states as "consultants" while collecting hefty pensions. While it is morally repugnant to the rest of us, it isnt illegal and I believe then it isnt "fraud". However I would love stipulations in the pensions that decrease beenfits paid if they take a similar position. Isnt that what pensions review boards are supposed to do? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted April 6, 2011 Author Share Posted April 6, 2011 maybe I am not understanding this. it seems to me that the state would be saving money. Its not like the state wouldn't have to pay his retirement anyway - except he is now working at a lower rate (per the article) and the state is not paying for a new pension. so they save on the salary for the position and the benefits. right? the article says, "In Mr. Bejarano’s case, there will be no pay cut...he will receive the same salary and benefits of about $150,000 a year, along with a pension of about $100,000" in some instances, if they do take a lower salary, it saves the district money, in that the pension disbersments don't come out of their budget, so that's free money as far as they're concerned. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gbpfan1231 Posted April 6, 2011 Share Posted April 6, 2011 First off . . . this is in no way shape or form endorsing his actions. But he is just playing the game within the rules. While this is very distasteful and doesnt pass the smell test . . neither is it illegal or "wrong" to do within current law. I cant tell you how many cops/fireman, etc do the exact same thing by retiring with full benefits then getting hired in lateral moves to other departments in other states as "consultants" while collecting hefty pensions. While it is morally repugnant to the rest of us, it isnt illegal and I believe then it isnt "fraud". However I would love stipulations in the pensions that decrease beenfits paid if they take a similar position. Isnt that what pensions review boards are supposed to do? This is EXACTLY why collective bargaining rights are being targeted!!! Yes it is within the rules that have been agreed upon. When the crappy rules keep getting passed with a wink wink eventually people get pissed and now you end up with someone who rips apart the union. This is why people are so against public unions and because of these nice rules unions are being targeted and people are crying because the "nice" things are being taken away. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gbpfan1231 Posted April 6, 2011 Share Posted April 6, 2011 maybe I am not understanding this. it seems to me that the state would be saving money. Its not like the state wouldn't have to pay his retirement anyway - except he is now working at a lower rate (per the article) and the state is not paying for a new pension. so they save on the salary for the position and the benefits. right? I think what you are missing is that the state is payng the pension earlier - they pay the pension until death by the employee and then it goes to the spouse until that spouse dies - if this person "retires" 5 years early that is an extra 5 years of paying out a $100,000 pension. That is a cool half mil gone!!!!! That is my understanding on how it works so I think it does cost the taxpayer more money. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted April 6, 2011 Author Share Posted April 6, 2011 Given that he has committed 'fraud,' why has he not been arrested? are you being obtuse just for the sake of it? the word "fraud" does not necessarily imply committing the crime of fraud. question: do you believe he actually retired? because it would certainly seem to me that going back to work the next day at the same job at the same pay with the same benefits reveals that "retirement" to be a sham. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perchoutofwater Posted April 6, 2011 Share Posted April 6, 2011 I really don't have a problem with this either. When the guy signed on, he knew once he got to a certain age, and a certain number of years "in service" he would get specific retirement benefits. If he just retired and gone fishing, the district would be out at least as much as they are now, and possibly more, as they are saving the cost of health benefits. Additionally there is an argument to be made that he knows the job and the district and can run it more efficiently than anyone that would have replaced him, particularly in the short-term. While for most of us, it might seem unfair or even dishonest, it really isn't, particularly if this guy does a good job. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perchoutofwater Posted April 6, 2011 Share Posted April 6, 2011 are you being obtuse just for the sake of it? the word "fraud" does not necessarily imply committing the crime of fraud. question: do you believe he actually retired? because it would certainly seem to me that going back to work the next day at the same job at the same pay with the same benefits reveals that "retirement" to be a sham. It doesn't really matter. The day he reaches age and tenure requirements for retirement, the school district or state is on the hook for the cost of that retirement. I just don't see where the district or state is losing any money here. Would you be upset if he "retired" got his retirement package and went to work in the private sector making the same pay he made when working for the school district? People in the education system pay "teacher retirement" which is the same as those of us in the private sector contributing to our 401Ks. Do you think that once you reach 59 1/2 you should not be allowed to access your 401K without penalty if you are still working? It's really the same thing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaP'N GRuNGe Posted April 6, 2011 Share Posted April 6, 2011 The real problem here and everywhere with these pensions is they are just totally out of control. Extremely poor management decisions to give these outrageous benefits that cannot be afforded nor maintained. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted April 6, 2011 Author Share Posted April 6, 2011 I really don't have a problem with this either. When the guy signed on, he knew once he got to a certain age, and a certain number of years "in service" he would get specific retirement benefits. If he just retired and gone fishing, the district would be out at least as much as they are now, and possibly more, as they are saving the cost of health benefits. Additionally there is an argument to be made that he knows the job and the district and can run it more efficiently than anyone that would have replaced him, particularly in the short-term. While for most of us, it might seem unfair or even dishonest, it really isn't, particularly if this guy does a good job. here's why that's wrong. retirement benefits are calculated based on when people actually retire. typically, retirement involves a pay cut, which creates an incentive for some people to NOT begin pulling benefits the moment they reach the eligible age. imagine how much faster SS would go bankrupt if people could begin pulling full benefits the moment they reached 62, regardless of whether they are still working and pulling income or not. SS balances these incentives pretty well, I think, by allowing a certain amount of exempted income ($10-15K) and then reducing benefits for anything you earn above that at a 2/1 ratio. so you can have that part time job marshalling at a golf course, but you can't be pulling in 6 figures and still get benefits. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gbpfan1231 Posted April 6, 2011 Share Posted April 6, 2011 It doesn't really matter. The day he reaches age and tenure requirements for retirement, the school district or state is on the hook for the cost of that retirement. I just don't see where the district or state is losing any money here. Would you be upset if he "retired" got his retirement package and went to work in the private sector making the same pay he made when working for the school district? People in the education system pay "teacher retirement" which is the same as those of us in the private sector contributing to our 401Ks. Do you think that once you reach 59 1/2 you should not be allowed to access your 401K without penalty if you are still working? It's really the same thing. Am I wrong that they would pay out extra years of pension - I don't think the pension runs out - you get a certain amount until you die - if you retire earlier the state pays you more pension than they would have otherwise. Feel free to poke into your 401k earlier - when it is gone it is gone. I would assume in most cases that when someone retires you replace that person with someone who makes a bit less - maybe not that specific job but if you replace from within it tends to trickle down and I would believe in most cases it would result in less money paid out in terms of salary by the state. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rocknrobn26 Posted April 6, 2011 Share Posted April 6, 2011 In IL, there is a "cooling off" period of 90 days. After that the total compensation must be less or equal to their retirement income and in the case of TRS, only for 120 days. In SURS the same "cooling off" applies and the same max, but days don't apply. The penalty for exceeding the max is revocation of retirement benefits. Outside of the educ system there is no Max income. In both cases the pay/salary paid is substantially less (Sub-pay or PT pay) than a normal FT position. Not to mention there are no bene's. Again I can only speak for IL. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
untateve Posted April 6, 2011 Share Posted April 6, 2011 are you being obtuse just for the sake of it? the word "fraud" does not necessarily imply committing the crime of fraud. question: do you believe he actually retired? because it would certainly seem to me that going back to work the next day at the same job at the same pay with the same benefits reveals that "retirement" to be a sham. every now and then being obtuse for no other reason than being obtuse can be mildly entertaining. However, and maybe it's because of all the work I do with attorneys and how often I testify, I would not have used the word 'fraud' in describing the man's actions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nuke'em ttg Posted April 6, 2011 Share Posted April 6, 2011 if it's Yuk or HR i'm ok with it Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perchoutofwater Posted April 6, 2011 Share Posted April 6, 2011 here's why that's wrong. retirement benefits are calculated based on when people actually retire. typically, retirement involves a pay cut, which creates an incentive for some people to NOT begin pulling benefits the moment they reach the eligible age. imagine how much faster SS would go bankrupt if people could begin pulling full benefits the moment they reached 62, regardless of whether they are still working and pulling income or not. SS balances these incentives pretty well, I think, by allowing a certain amount of exempted income ($10-15K) and then reducing benefits for anything you earn above that at a 2/1 ratio. so you can have that part time job marshalling at a golf course, but you can't be pulling in 6 figures and still get benefits. Again, I ask is the district or state out any additional money because he didn't really retire? He was eligible to retire. Had he retired the state would have been out more money cause they would still be paying his benefits, as well as another persons. Comparing teacher retirement to SS is not a good example as SS has morphed into much more than it was ever intended to be in the first place, something both you and I have stated in the past. Teacher retirement has remained the same. The comparison to the 401K is much more applicable than the comparison to SS. So, I ask again, do you think you should have your access limited on your 401K if you decide to work well into your 60's or 70's? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yukon Cornelius Posted April 6, 2011 Share Posted April 6, 2011 good for him even though he was a super Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yukon Cornelius Posted April 6, 2011 Share Posted April 6, 2011 is private and public the same in Arizona? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.