Retired Police Captain Cashes Unused Sick Leave for $115,900

Now I believe that this is a perk. I've heard of these types of muddied perks before and even in the private sector. But "incentives" are a corporate inspired perk and in the case of improperly used 'sick time' abuses can be ferreted out and backed up with disciplinary action. The SBPD deserves the wages and benefits negotiated in good faith for the compensation for the work performed and to compensate for the cost of living but this is compensation for work not performed.

If the "one year" cap had applied to this guy, it still wouldn't have changed the total payout much.

........ the captain just got what the union negotiated for it's members in their contract with the city .... city leadership caving into the unrealistic demands of a union

This is absolutely outrageous. Sick leave should be actually that and it should not be able to be converted into dollars when the employee or former employee is not sick! Don McD is absolutely right: this is payment for work not received.

Sure, these numbers are hidden, but, Bendy White, what are you going to do about it? You're up for re-election and if ever there were a time to stand up for the voters in this city, this is your time.

(Why is this former public employee receiving public monies not named? If he stopped a thief, he'd be named; to some this is taking from the public treasury and he should be named.)

The caving was perhaps following the conservative mantra that government should act like a business, i.e. perks or compensation for doing nothing. That golf club and cocktail corporate model has been transplanted into the worldwide American psyche. Just look at Botany as an example.

This manipulation of the system has absolutely got to stop. Someone has got to stand up to the unions that are responsible foir this type of abuse to happen in the first place. ENOUGH!

Way to go JOEY!

Don't blame the retiree. He used a benefit to which he was entitled. Usually sick leave is not a vested benefit in the corporate work world i.e. you are not entitled to the money if you don't use the time. But some companies do pay out as dollars to encourage employees to NOT use sick leave. That is other risk: employees taking the time so as not to "lose it". The union environment is a very difficult one in which to manage. Disciplining union employees for what may appear to be unwarranted use of sick time can be very difficult. Most companies have combined sick/vacation time. That way if the employee wants time off, it doesn't matter the reason. And every company I've seen has a cap on the number of time off hours one can bank. But again, in a government union environment...

Don, our watchdog against union excess and waste. Now that's funny stuff!

I don't see anything wrong with what he did.

Thanks, Don. Coming from you, I'll take that as a compliment. At least I don't depend on the government to take care of me. I'm one of those productive people that actually funds the government, but Don thinks I'm the enemy.

Don't like this. Then the city should not agree for such unlimited cash-out provisions to be in the contract for managers bargaining unit, which is up for approval any week now.

At the same time, recognize that employees close to retirement may be "sick" quite a lot in order to expend the hours not subject to the cash-out limit. Pay then or pay later.

Awesome, I got a comment removed! Is this the work of the POA I wonder? Well now lets see, doesn't he get half his salary or all of it for the rest of his life too? I am sure none of us would have turned it down, but isn't that close to a teachers salary that we are laying off for two years? LAME!!!

Anti-Union folks get your facts straight first. This guy is not part of an actual Public Employee's union. He is part of a Police Management group that is very similar to the other Management group in the City, and that if you read their contracts, you would find that they give themselves very generous perks. The actual Unions that do exist at the City have much more modest terms. The management groups are often overlooked (and they like it that way.) At the end of the game though...it's all being paid out from CalPers

I don't think most people are anti-union. Unions have done great things for the American worker. I do think most Americans are anti Public Employee Union. Public Employee unions goals are against the interest of the public in general. The conflict of interest between those elected by the public and unions representing those employed by the public can't possibly be resolved.

Almost exactly a year ago a similar story was written about our Elected County officials and some members of the D. A.’s office and their accumulated vacation hours. Are you aware that the City had already addressed the issue of accumulated vacations hours over twenty years ago? As usual the adjustments only affected the rank and file. Back then rank and file workers would extend their years of service by comingling their vacation hours to reduce their 40 hour work week. An employee who had 2000 hours vacation time work could work 20 hours then use 20 hours from vacation for a full two years and still receive full time income. And that is exactly what the senior workers were doing. The City soon found that even with all their employment positions filled they had a huge coverage issue. Just a little FYI for you concerned citizens. I have included the link to last years Daily Sound story and my blog .

TUESDAY, AUGUST 23, 2011
Vacation pay raises questions Santa Barbara Elected Officials cash out $100,000 under county program
http://www.thedailysound.com/vacation pay

Vacation pay raises questions
Elected cash out $100,000 under county program
By COLBY FRAZIER — Jan. 12, 2010
Whether they went on vacation or not, five elected officials in Santa Barbara County government accepted more than $100,000 combined in vacation payouts over the last four years, raising questions about how such benefits accumulate and are subsequently deducted from elected leaders who answer to no time clock.
Since 2006, the district attorney, clerk-recorder and assessor, auditor-controller, sheriff and treasurer-tax collector have been allowed to accumulate and be paid for 80 hours of vacation each year.
But unlike all other county employees, chief executive included, who are supposed make note of the vacation they take so it can be docked from the amount they’ve accumulated, elected leaders have no such obligation. They receive payment for 80 hours of unused vacation regardless of how much they actually used.
During each of the last four years, county documents show that Auditor-Controller Bob Geis, Clerk-Recorder and Assessor Joe Holland and Treasure-Tax Collector Bernice James each accepted a cash payment of $6,919 for 80 hours of vacation time — the maximum amount that can be paid out each year to managers.
Sheriff Bill Brown, who was elected in 2006, received $7,254 checks during the last two years, and District Attorney Christie Stanley has accepted three annual payments of $6,895 for her vacation.
County officials said the vacation payouts are made in order to give elected department heads “equivalent” benefits to their appointed counterparts, who have long been paid for unused vacation time.

S.B.C.C.C. A place where COMMON SENSE never goes out of style!
You can view the original story in it's entirety @

http://santabarbaracriminalcourtcorru...

Continuation of Daily Sound article;
However, elected officials, who answer to no boss except an electorate that typically has little idea how benefits packages are paid out, or if they even exist at all for salaried politicians, are exempted from keeping track of their vacation time.
The payouts, though linked on paper to vacation, appear to be nothing more than several thousand dollars worth of bonuses at the end of each year.
Regardless of what they’re called, the payments appear to be legal, and were authorized by the Board of Supervisors.
But in the midst of an economic recession that has forced county leaders to carve tens of millions of dollars from its operating budget, the payments stand out.
And because the elected officials receiving the payments all draw annual salaries that hover near $200,000, which they appear to receive regardless of how much time they take off, the 80-hour vacation payouts create a possible situation in which the recipients are being doubly compensated.
Revelation of the payouts sparked one member of the Board of Supervisors to say that at the very least, the practice needs to be called what it is: An extra chunk of cash. And at the most, should be rolled back.
“It’s just not right,” said 1st District Supervisor Salud Carbajal in a telephone interview. He added later, “You can’t have your cake and eat it to. If it’s salary, then let’s call it salary. It’s either vacation or it’s not.”
FOR THE SAKE OF FAIRNESS
For years, appointed department heads, like the director of public health or probation, have been allowed to receive annual cash payments for up to 80 hours of unused vacation time. Lower-level employees can be paid out for 40 unused hours.
Meanwhile, elected department heads, who aside from having campaigns operate very similar to their appointed counterparts, were left out of the payment scheme.

I have only shared 50% of the Daily Sound story but again here is the links to the original Daily Sound story @
http://www.thedailysound.com/011210va...

In 2006, as county CEO Mike Brown put the finishing touches on what’s known as the “Leadership Project,” an ambitious undertaking that aimed to streamline and modernize the county’s human resources system by connecting employee performance to pay, it seemed the elected leaders would once again be left out in the cold.
Auditor-Controller Geis, the only elected official except for Sheriff Brown who commented for this story, said because the performances of elected leaders aren’t reviewed by the CEO’s office, he and his colleagues wouldn’t be eligible under the new program to receive raises in the same manner as appointed department heads.
Geis summed up the negotiations between the elected officials and the CEO’s office this way: “We’ll buy into the leadership thing if you make our benefits package equivalent [to appointed department heads].”
Geis, whose job it is to ensure that the county’s finances are in tip-top shape, defended the payouts as an “equivalency” benefit. He said the whole issue boiled down to fairness. “We had an issue with what our peers were making,” he said. “Really, what we were doing is leveling the field between appointed and elected.”
During an interview in his third-floor office in the county administration building, Geis spoke frankly about the payouts. He pointed out that by law, elected officials aren’t granted vacation, and that’s why he and other elected department heads don’t dock themselves vacation time.

S.B.C.C.C. A place where COMMON SENSE never goes out of style!
http://santabarbaracriminalcourtcorru...

This story leaves a lot to be desired, so lets start at the beginning and try to fully understand the issue at hand.

http://www.santabarbaraca.gov/cap/MG8...

CITY OF SANTA BARBARA
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
AGENDA DATE: December 14, 2010
TO: Mayor and Councilmembers
FROM: City Administrator’s Office
2010-2012 Police Management Memorandum Of Understanding

LocalOne has good points...let's not confuse the OTHER 95% in unions, or city union, with this travesty. I can say that at UCSB their union doesn't allow sick time to accumulate like this and get paid out at retirement. Come on, Bendy and Helene, stand up and fight this insanity IN THE NAME of the other union folks who get nothing like it. Dang.

The most offensive aspect of this for the taxpayers is that, actually, we are paying this employee twice for the same time for which he has already been properly compensated. The other problem is, I don't believe for a minute that anyone can go long enough to accumulate that amount of unused sick leave without having been sick at some time. So, this means either he came to work while sick and probably infected co-workers and the public -- or never recorded the days he was off sick. Or, maybe the same woman who collected (and embezzled) the parking ticket money at SBPD was also in charge of recording sick leave -- a quid pro quo?

Best job in America for the past several decades has been in the fire departments. This is unfortunately not that unusual. In this case it is a "management" benefit but the rank and file have their own good deals. Retire around 50 with full pay, often given disability pay which reduces taxes, and then get another nice job to add to their government pension. Reform is needed--start with raising the retirement age for ALL employees and capping the benefit at a generous amount that wont allow the $400-500K pensions some have been claiming. Also prohibit double dipping. No retired government employee should be allowed to go to work for any government agency unless s/he forgoes any new retirement claim.

Cap all pensions at $100K for a start.

Wow, some of you people are really short-sighted.

I'd have to look more into the details of how many years and days worth of sick time this was, but generally speaking, if he is supposed to get paid $X/hour and is offered additional sick and vacation leave to which he is not required to work, and he instead provides a service to the police department by working so they don't have to pay another officer to take over his shift, then he has SAVED them that much money over the years and he should be entitled to it. I don't blame the officer at all, and that's probably the first time I've ever not blamed an officer for anything.

"Don, our watchdog against union excess and waste. Now that's funny stuff!" -Scooter

lol, indeed..

How is it Bendy see the error of our ways, yet he votes for even more union money every time.

Scoop 9324 - a work year at the government agency I worked for (not city or county) was 2080 hours. Don't know how many hours of sick leave this person got a year - but 20 years without using SL at 104 hours of sick leave given a year (what we got) is 2080 hours. I knew MANY people, including myself, who retired after 30 years with over 2080 hours of Sick Leave. However, our agency did not give you cash, only counted it as time worked. So their retirement would be paid as if they worked 31 years instead of 30.

I'm struggling to see the significance of this. The person accrued sick leave as part of his compensation. He didn't use it, and was able to cash it out. A whole lotta people do this all the time. It's only sensational 'cause he got a big lump sum. Otherwise we would never have seen the headline, "Police Captain retires; used up sick leave during career".

People are only upset because 1) they believe in some sort of compensation reform for public servants, or 2) they don't understand how these systems work, or 3) um... [something snide involving dolphins?].

@Sothep: why are you struggling to see the significance of this story? It's an important story and we ought to be grateful to the Indie and B. Fastman for this story.
I'm not upset [see my earlier post in this thread], and you are completely correct stating "1) they believe in some sort of compensation reform for public servants" BUT THIS AMOUNT IS OBSCENE as well as heavily damaging the prospects of others in that line of work/City of SB personnel/union to ever get their paid-in monies. As others n this thread have stated [e.g. Scooter et al.] in order to save these public pensioners we need to reform their pensions, cap them, and CUT AT THE TOP.
Where is Bendy White and H. Schneider and Cathy Murillo on this scandal?? I voted for them yet they play along; Schneider recently RETRACTED her important reform idea for the City! Let's have some leadership, eh?

I'm struggling because while pensions are a hot topic right now (and I'm not saying they shouldn't be), THIS IS NOT A PENSION. He simply cashed out unused sick leave. This was a total of $115k paid into an annuity, and people are acting like it's an annual payment of $115k. It only seems dramatic because he had saved up a lot of it over decades of employment.

As loonpt stated, if this person had USED his alloted sick leave, it would have required bringing in another person to cover (usually at a higher, overtime rate). By not using his sick leave, he actually saved the city money. That is why companies allow cash-out programs, otherwise employees are encouraged to call out -a lot- in order to not lose the benefit.

Most of the comments here are citing this as evidence for the need for apple reform. Again, I'm not arguing against apple reform; I'm simply pointing out that this is an orange.

@sothep, guess I need some education...you write, "THIS IS NOT A PENSION", yet doesn't the $115K come out of City funds and negotiated for the officer by his union?? Your point feels like a sort of obfuscation and hair-splitting: apples and oranges are both fruit, no?
@loonpt, when you write the employee was "offered additional sick and vacation leave to which he is not required to work" and so on, my argument is that the City shouldn't have allowed the sick pay to be paid out as extra salary: like many union contracts, it could have been added as however many months onto his years served. It's specious to make the point about someone had to do it, maybe it didn't have to be a captain, and so on. As a captain this gentleman was near the top: why give him this additional bonus sum? YOU are a bit short-sighted on this one.

Even F.D. Roosevelt was against public unions.
These discussions have no relationship to unions that work in the private sector and I am unaware of private sector businesses routinely allowing employees to convert unused sick leave into cash.
And there is no point in blaming individual members of public unions for taking the perks that the elected officials sold away for the support of their organization.

Mr. italiansurg:

It's not correct to say FDR was "against public unions." He is more properly described as wary, and he thought they are a special case.

:: "The desire of Government employees for fair and adequate pay, reasonable hours of work, safe and suitable working conditions, development of opportunities for advancement, facilities for fair and impartial consideration and review of grievances, and other objectives of a proper employee relations policy, is basically no different from that of employees in private industry. Organization on their part to present their views on such matters is both natural and logical, but meticulous attention should be paid to the special relationships and obligations of public servants to the public itself and to the Government."

I suggest interested readers see the entire (short) letter from which this was taken: http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/ind...

And I know at least four Santa Barbara businesses -- who have employed family members -- who convert sick and vacation time to money upon retirement or termination.

I like this fair and real-world assessment you made here:
"And there is no point in blaming individual members of public unions for taking the perks that the elected officials sold away for the support of their organization."