Editorial: Officers’ off-duty pay policies beg for reform

Local law enforcement’s rent-a-cop arrangements would not be a concern if the public were shielded from the costs. A cost-recovery specialist has determined that the extra-duty programs for Spokane County sheriff’s deputies and, presumably, Spokane police officers, do not recoup all costs because they aren’t charging private clients for fixed costs, such as equipment and insurance benefits.

This shortfall isn’t large – a mere $37,000 in 10 years for the city of Spokane. But costs to the state – and thus taxpayers – are larger because the money officers earn for private duty can increase their pension checks. When public officials say they are breaking even with their off-duty programs, they aren’t considering the additional cost to the state.

The Spokesman-Review reported on this pension-padding arrangement in 2007, noting that an analysis of city payroll records showed that many of the extra-duty officers were nearing retirement. This is significant because pension checks are based on average pay in the final five years of service, and the money earned while moonlighting is added to pay from official duties.

A review of the 2003-2006 payroll records revealed about 100 officers taking off-duty jobs, which allowed them to add, on average, about $17,000 to their annual gross income. For an officer in his final five years, this bump in pay means a larger monthly retirement check. For example, the 2007 article showed that one officer entering retirement was credited for about $10,000 a year in off-duty work and his monthly retirement check was estimated to be $4,498. That’s nearly $54,000 a year. State retirement experts noted that his checks would be significantly lower if his off-duty pay weren’t included.

In Tuesday’s Spokesman-Review article, Spokane County Sheriff Ozzie Knezovich said the off-duty program has public value and isn’t an accommodation to employee unions, saying that “doesn’t come into the thought process at all.” In a 2007 article, Spokane police Chief Anne Kirkpatrick said, “It’s a legal system … I’m not bothered by it. The public policy questions I’ve never really thought of.”

Whatever the intentions or legalities, the fact remains that taxpayers are on the hook for services rendered to private parties. Thus, the public policy question is an important one. Other municipalities in the state have also established employment programs for moonlighting officers, and it’s puzzling that the Legislature, especially in such desperate budgetary times, has allowed the practice to continue. Washington State Patrol troopers must go through private companies to pick up off-duty work. Lawmakers ought to extend this limitation to local law enforcement, too. Another legislative solution would be to reform the final-five-years pension formula so it doesn’t encourage pension padding.

In the meantime, the city and county ought to shift responsibility for off-duty programs to the officers or their unions. Money earned while moonlighting should be their business, not the public’s.