If someone manages to get 20 years in, they can pretty much do the bare minimum and skate by under the scenario "G" laid out. I doubt very few sheriff offices in the state have an extra $100K in their budget to get rid of dead weight.

 

Well at 20 years most current officers could retire...it has changed to 25 for guys hired in the last few years.

 

You can take that "Skater" and reassign them to Court Security or doing nothing but transports or serving Civil Papers. Where you can keep a closer eye on them, then if they don't do the job you fire them For Cause.

Your recollection is incorrect on this matter. Kidwell was definitely NOT appointed by Pendery to fill out Dunn's term. I think it was Dave Fickensher who was appointed by Pendery in August of 2012 to serve as the interim sheriff until the election could be held the following November. In the election, Kidwell was the R candidate; Dave Otto was the D candidate. I can also assure you that Pendery did NOT select Kidwell to be the R candidate.

 

You may be thinking of Jim Daley. Pendery did appoint Daley to the open Jailer position. Daley had been a D for a long time. Pendery got a lot of flack for appointing a D to the position. But Daley was by a large margin, in my opinion, the most qualified person for the position.

 

Correct in terms of who appointed and who ran, however, it is a widely held belief the Mr. Kidwell was assisted by the CCRP because of his loyalty to the organization. Still does not make up for the fact that he was sorely lacking in qualifications.

 

I did hear from a retired Sheriff Deputy that retired when Kidwell was installed that is now coming back to work for Jantzen. No double dip benefits, but is collecting his retirement and working for hourly pay.

Correct in terms of who appointed and who ran, however, it is a widely held belief the Mr. Kidwell was assisted by the CCRP because of his loyalty to the organization. Still does not make up for the fact that he was sorely lacking in qualifications.

 

I did hear from a retired Sheriff Deputy that retired when Kidwell was installed that is now coming back to work for Jantzen. No double dip benefits, but is collecting his retirement and working for hourly pay.

 

That's kind of the Webster's definition of double-dipping.

That's kind of the Webster's definition of double-dipping.

 

Is there anything wrong with that?

I see what your saying, but taking the position away from the voters put's it even more in the pocket of politicians. If the County Judge can hire-fire the Sheriff then it becomes an even bigger political mess. Let the voters throw out bad sheriffs, not some other elected politician.

 

Of course if the Sheriff breaks the law you can always have the Coroner Arrest them.

 

I think we are getting a little confused; or maybe I am? I'm not suggesting that the Campbell County J/E be able hire/fire the Sheriff. I don't think Ky's Constitution permits that. But I see where you are coming from. I'd just rather have the senior law enforcement officer not be involved in politics but rather be focused on running a professional police dept and stay out of politics. Polly-anish on my part? Perhaps.

 

I analogize the police chief of the the County's Police Dept to the police chiefs of city government units. They aren't elected either. They are hired/appointed by the Mayor/City Council.

 

From everything I know (and that's obviously not everything), the Campbell County Fiscal Court has not injected politics into the administration of the Campbell County Police Dept but rather has "left them alone" to do their jobs (as it should be).

This reminds me of The Rock in Walking Tall.

 

"You're all fired."

I did hear from a retired Sheriff Deputy that retired when Kidwell was installed that is now coming back to work for Jantzen. No double dip benefits, but is collecting his retirement and working for hourly pay.

 

That's kind of the Webster's definition of double-dipping.

 

Didn't say that. Just pointing out that the above quote is a massive contradiction.

I think we are getting a little confused; or maybe I am? I'm not suggesting that the Campbell County J/E be able hire/fire the Sheriff. I don't think Ky's Constitution permits that. But I see where you are coming from. I'd just rather have the senior law enforcement officer not be involved in politics but rather be focused on running a professional police dept and stay out of politics. Polly-anish on my part? Perhaps.

 

I analogize the police chief of the the County's Police Dept to the police chiefs of city government units. They aren't elected either. They are hired/appointed by the Mayor/City Council.

 

From everything I know (and that's obviously not everything), the Campbell County Fiscal Court has not injected politics into the administration of the Campbell County Police Dept but rather has "left them alone" to do their jobs (as it should be).

 

That's good if they have left it alone. I know locally we went for many years with an acting Police Chief only because the mayor couldn't get anyone to take the job after going through 2 or 3 chiefs in less than a year I think. Every time one disagreed with him they either were fired or resigned. Acting Chief was safe as he was a tenured officer, as soon as he finally accepted the Chief job he gave up that security and served at the pleasure of the mayor. Mayor has fired him at least once because the chief refused to follow an illegal order. After memo from mayor went out stating that the chief had been fired he changed his mind and gave him his job back. But stuff like that is what even police departments can have to put up with.

 

Elected Sheriff or selected Police Chief they both do similar job, it's just one is replaced by the voters, the other at the whim of a politician.

Didn't say that. Just pointing out that the above quote is a massive contradiction.

 

I consider "double dipping" to be a pension retired employee, returning to work the same or similar job, with full benefits. In the case of a retired deputy returning to work as an hourly employee, we really recieve the full benefit of the sunk cost from their past training.

 

I don't see anything wrong with this provided that they are not eligible for any additional retirement plus ups. Why waste a trained law enforcement officer only to have them get a job at Home Depot ?

 

I see this as a cost saving initiative and am glad the Sheriff has gone down this road.

I consider "double dipping" to be a pension retired employee, returning to work the same or similar job, with full benefits. In the case of a retired deputy returning to work as an hourly employee, we really recieve the full benefit of the sunk cost from their past training.

 

I don't see anything wrong with this provided that they are not eligible for any additional retirement plus ups. Why waste a trained law enforcement officer only to have them get a job at Home Depot ?

 

I see this as a cost saving initiative and am glad the Sheriff has gone down this road.

 

It's cost saving on the county budget. It is by no means cost saving for the entire state with a depleted pension fund.

It's cost saving on the county budget. It is by no means cost saving for the entire state with a depleted pension fund.

If they hired someone else besides the retired employee, wouldn't that be more of a burden on the pension?

If they hired someone else besides the retired employee, wouldn't that be more of a burden on the pension?

 

I don't blame the officers it's the system put in place. The bottom line is the actuaries and the rules put in place on pensions plans have failed governments and private businesses. That is why pensions are becoming extinct in the private sector and there will be a time when most government pensions will be drastically changed.

 

People are living to long for these plans to be sustainable.

 

But to answer your question again it's cheaper on the county not the state.

I don't blame the officers it's the system put in place. The bottom line is the actuaries and the rules put in place on pensions plans have failed governments and private businesses. That is why pensions are becoming extinct in the private sector and there will be a time when most government pensions will be drastically changed.

 

People are living to long for these plans to be sustainable.

 

But to answer your question again it's cheaper on the county not the state.

 

What does it cost the state extra? Guy retires, the state has to pay regardless if he goes to work at Local Sheriff's Office or at Burger King.

What does it cost the state extra? Guy retires, the state has to pay regardless if he goes to work at Local Sheriff's Office or at Burger King.

 

Correct .

 

But a few different points that are left out. One Pensions are so underfunded very soon they are going to depend on the inflows of current workers to pay out obligations already committed. They are turning into in the very near future legalized ponzi schemes .

 

Actuaries used calculations on unrealistic returns and time frames of funding which left future generations with a promise they will not be able to keep.

 

The original idea of a pension decades ago was created for someone who would actually retire not for someone to get an extra income source while working. Again this is no fault to the worker the rules are there and if it's legal then you would be dumb not to do it. But if I take pension even though I'm still working I'm taking money from an extremely under funded pension when I could be being payed by another source that is not as severely underfunded.

 

Again when pensions started life expentancy was much lower so most people retired to actually retire with the short life they had left. Now at the age of 50 if I am in the 25% of life expectancy I have another 40+ years of life. It's not sustainable for a pension to cover people living that long. The pensions now are paying many people longer than they actually contributed to the plan.

 

Like I said it's not going to be popular with government workers but because these practices are in place it puts a strain on the system in the next decade we are going to see major reforms to all these pensions . If we wait until we have to act there won't be anything left.

Correct .

 

But a few different points that are left out. One Pensions are so underfunded very soon they are going to depend on the inflows of current workers to pay out obligations already committed. They are turning into in the very near future legalized ponzi schemes .

 

Actuaries used calculations on unrealistic returns and time frames of funding which left future generations with a promise they will not be able to keep.

 

The original idea of a pension decades ago was created for someone who would actually retire not for someone to get an extra income source while working. Again this is no fault to the worker the rules are there and if it's legal then you would be dumb not to do it. But if I take pension even though I'm still working I'm taking money from an extremely under funded pension when I could be being payed by another source that is not as severely underfunded.

 

Again when pensions started life expentancy was much lower so most people retired to actually retire with the short life they had left. Now at the age of 50 if I am in the 25% of life expectancy I have another 40+ years of life. It's not sustainable for a pension to cover people living that long. The pensions now are paying many people longer than they actually contributed to the plan.

 

Like I said it's not going to be popular with government workers but because these practices are in place it puts a strain on the system in the next decade we are going to see major reforms to all these pensions . If we wait until we have to act there won't be anything left.

 

Agreed, but that has nothing to do with this thread IMO. Would maybe be a good thread on it's own. Teachers, State and First Responders pensions are not in good shape in Kentucky. That's probably why Law Enforcement Retirement was moved back 5 years a few years ago.