“
The new law completely changes
the structure of what constitutes
retirement for the next generation
of police officers
”
work patrol to the end of their career, or are forced
to work in the field due to reduced staffing from
budget cuts.
There’s no science that says the right retirement
age is 57 or 55, but we believe that the higher age
set point will result in more injuries and disability
claims, and that such increased costs that come
with this could well exceed any of the savings
anticipated by pension reform, therefore negating
any benefits the governor believes will be enjoyed
under the new system.
I believe that relying on savings from setting the
retirement age at a higher level is a false economy,
in which the cost of Worker’s Compensation and
disability claims likely will exceed any of the
anticipated savings.
Q. You mentioned the impact Gov. Brown’s
pension reforms will have on recruitment. Can you
elaborate?
A. Law enforcement still is an attractive profession,
but these changes will reduce that attractiveness.
People recognize a value in a stable retirement
because of the sacrifices they make in their
profession, and being a police officer often
involves long hours and working weekend shifts
— not to mention the danger officers face on the
job. If that benefit is dramatically reduced, I can
imagine bright, capable candidates re-evaluating
their interest in this most important form of public
service.
Q. Do you believe the reforms will cause a ‘brain
drain’ among higher-ranking officers?
A. Most provisions of the new law don’t affect
current employees, except for them being mandated
to pick up an increased share of pension payments.
Those increases become effective in 2018, but
could be phased in over five years; so, for example,
|
Behind The Badge
BTB-Magazine-Fall2012.indd 8-9
an officer paying 9 percent now will eventually
be paying 12 percent. Officers who pay a lower
amount resulting from prior negotiations with their
employer will be moved even more. The point is,
at some point, these changes will have an impact
on the paychecks of all officers. Surveys we at Cal
Chiefs have conducted show that a large number
of current employees are very concerned about this
increase and are so sensitive to the impacts of the
new reforms that it could affect their decision to
retire earlier than they would otherwise chose.
And the impact on employees hired after January
is expected to be significant, especially if it causes
talented people to make a financial decision to not
promote in the future.
Q. What about crime rates? Will AB 340, in any
way, have an effect on them?
A. I see the timing of pension reform as a troubling
mix in the context of other major changes. Crime
rates have been on the uptick, especially when it
comes to property crimes and some crimes against
persons, including violent crimes.
We are right now in the midst of another dramatic
shift in our justice system with the realignment of
public safety to counties through AB 109. Throw in
reductions in staffing at law enforcement agencies
statewide and an economy still struggling to get
back in shape, and I have serious concerns. We
have strongly expressed that this is the wrong time
to be creating a pension reform dynamic that causes
a mass exodus of our most talented and mature
public safety leaders exactly at the same time we
are trying to manage the effects of realignment.
Pension reform is coming at a time when there’s
been a sea change is public opinion about the
compensation of public-safety employees. Sure,
in limited cases we’ve seen instances of excessive
benefits, as well as instances of “spiking,” when an
employee is given a big raise during the last year of
employment to inflate his or her pension. But the
perception that excessive benefits are widespread
in law enforcement simply is not true. Cal Chiefs
has publicly come out in favor of pension reform,
but reform done correctly and for the right reasons.
These reforms are expected to hurt the profession
and we are focused on working to minimize those
effects. •
The Young Guns
of Placer County
You wouldn’t mistake John Ruffcorn for
being an old-school police chief.
One of the first things he did after being
sworn in as top cop of Auburn in June 2011
was throw away his business cards are
reprint them to read “John Ruffcorn, chief of
police.” He doesn’t like the title before his
name.
“My first name isn’t ‘chief,’’’ he says.
Also, whenever possible, Ruffcorn wears a
suit and tie to public functions instead of
his uniform --- another way of him putting
the person before the title. Such moves,
although minor, reflect the fresh, progressive
approach R Y???????[??? ?\???\? ?X?B??YY?? \??] H??X\? H M ??]Y[??????Y?????]X?\???YY???X?B?^ [??]?HX?\???[? K ?X? ? ?]?\????H H ?X?\?????X?[Y[?? ?Z?HZ?H[? H?]?YH??\?[?[???\?H ?\ ]][??\?H ?Y?K?[Z[ H?Y[?Y ?Y?[???\?]H] ? ?^?KX?\???[? H? H\???\??]Y\? ?] ?X?H?YY??]X?\?????]?[K????[??[?[?????[? ?YH? \?H?YY?? KKH?Y?????[[?? [H KKH\?H ?[]]?H [?[???\?? ?[??]??Y\? ? ?[??[??][?X?\[]?[????[Y[?Y?[??Y\?H?? \??Y][??? ?\?H ?????[?\??[? H ?[YH [YH\? YX\?[???[?? Z\??[?\?][? ?[??X?[]Y\? ? ?X?[??[??X[?Y?[Y[? ???'?H ?X[ H]?HH?????X??][?[???Y[? ?\ 8?'H ?^\??Y????? ??]
?\? H?^??Y?[\??[?Y[Z?
\? ?X?H?YY?????]?[K[???]?[??K
? ?[?? H????[???X?H\\?Y[?
[????\?[?[?\?[H ?X?H?YY?][?[?[? ??\?
L
K???'H?[YH \
??Y?]?[????[Y[?
H ?[? \?H ?\?[?H?H8?& ? Y???&H\ ??X? ? B???? ?X?H?YY?8?'H ?^\?]?[??K ??Z?H?Y?????[?Z?]?H^ [??]?H^ \?Y[??B?]\??H]?[????[Y[?Y?[??Y\?]?[??H ?\?H\ ] H] HX?\???[? H?\?Y???&\?\\?Y[?[?[ ??[???X?\?[? H[?[ ?[??\??X?[Y[?? ?X?H\\?Y[? ???Y????? ???Y?? H?]?\??YH??[? H?\?Y???&\?\\?Y[???[[?? ?? YX\??[?Z???\??Y ?? YX\?? ?] H?X?[Y[???X?H\\?Y[? ????[ ? L???????LK? ?L? LN??N?MB??