Possible security changes discussed by RMA BOD

[Birdieman]

I didn't say former LE. I said how many retired police officers do we have on staff right now? Anyone can get fired from LE and take a security job because they can't get an LE job. Try answering the question directly, I know you have that in you.

[Matthew]

All this discussion about what it would cost really does not mean much to me. Even if you told me we could get full law enforcement officers for an additional $1 I would not care. I am happy with security and have no desire to see things change.

[Birdieman]

Originally Posted by LisaT

And you have to look at the big picture. If RMA has to hire more to fill functions that it feels CSD can no longer provide, then we pay on the other side. We need to look for savings from both sides, and see where this is leading down the road.

Right now we have a large number of non-RMA'ers that use RMA roads which we pay to maintain. The same is true for the parks. What is really going to happen once the multiple HOAs come in, etc.? There are financial considerations to look at regarding some big issues. Security is one of those issues and would have to fit into the big picture of where we are headed as a community. This is a "big picture" idea, and not just a single issue that is being looked at.

None of us want the type of increases that we have been having on either side. Granted, CSD increased dramatically only because they weren't increasing their rates as they should have been to pay the bills.

The mantra of RM is the best of everything, and we want everything, but the paying that bill is scary. Gate services is one thing. The functions that the gate officers do are much more than what, say, occurs at Serrano, from what I am told. But this community will raise holy heck if anyone tries to decrease that level of service.

Pretty soon, when development starts, if we want to be smart as a community, some important decisions should be made. If we want to be smart, we take this downturn in building to figure out what direction we want to head in.

Spoken like a true disciple of Wilbur.

[akulasquirrel]

Originally Posted by Birdieman

I didn't say former LE. I said how many retired police officers do we have on staff right now? Anyone can get fired from LE and take a security job because they can't get an LE job. Try answering the question directly, I know you have that in you.

Right now, I don't think that there are any. Are there any statutory or regulatory restraints upon retirees that waive benefits to work somewhere because they're already receiving them (and I don't mean just LE jobs)? Have you ever considered that anyone qualified might just get a job or have a job as a Reserve Officer somewhere and work for the District for the benefits? I'm pretty sure that's happened. Twice. Maybe more. Relatively recently. That's another avenue to follow.

Saying that anyone can get fired from LE and take a job out here, as a CSD Officer, is a mighty accusation, even if indirect, that the CSD hires former LE that got fired.

[Raelyn]

Originally Posted by Birdieman

This is all crap and you know it. How many retired ex-police officers do we have on staff as security guards today? Let's not forget to mention that if a retired police officer gets a job as a law enforcement officer he effectively becomes un-retired and would stop drawing benefits. That's why they seek jobs as PI's and security officers. The union wouldn't allow them to double dip and take a job from a younger officer starting his career. So in effect if we actually had a PD we couldn't hire retired LE guys. You are totally killing me with your fantasies.

Birdieman, you are absolutely correct. I know there are hundreds of retired annuitants working all over the Sheriff’s Department. Depending on which retirement system they retired from (SPD, CHP, SSD) dictates how many hours they can work before it affects their retirement benefits. For instance, people drawing a PERS retirement can work approximately 1500 hours per year with the Sheriff’s Department while retired Sheriff’s Deputies can work approximately 950 hours per year.

I highly doubt any of these individuals would come to work as a security guard for one-third of the pay regardless of how wonderful it is out here.

Raelyn

[Luke]

There are too many variables to really make this simple, but I will try. If you are retired under PERL you can't take a job with a PERS agency and still draw your retirement. If, however, you are retired in a CERA 1937 Act county system (such as Sacramento County - SCERS), then you can retire from there, and then go work for a PERS agency and still receive your retirement.

The difference between safety and non-safety retirement is huge. When I was class counsel for the County retirees in the suit over retroactivity of 1937 Act benefits that settled about 5 years ago now, the settlement had figures worked out where safety retirees received, I believe about double, the amounts of non-safety retirees. I'll see if I can track down the settlement agreement somewhere to see what the actual amounts were. Although that is under the 1937 Act and not PERL, I don't think the differences are significant between the two Acts.

[nana]

To follow up on Raelyn's post, yes, Sac county retirees could come out here and work under the PERS reitrement formula (2% @ 55 for all CSD employees); however, if you had a retiree from a PERS agency, they would in fact become a "retired annuitant" and be limited to about 900 hours per year. Some of those PERS retirees also are eligible to draw Social Security and SS places a cap on annual earnings withoput affecting one's benefits.
Those who might be interested would be the 50-ish retirees, not those receiving Social Security, so the last part is probably N/A. However, depending upon what RMA does re outsourcing security (even if just the gate ops), it would mean a lot of current CSD gate officers would become "surplus" should RMA opt for an outside provider.
That's why both RMA and CSD need to work together to resolve this issue once and for all to minimize negative impcts on all concerned. Looking at what the community wants and needs in Security now and into the foreseeable future is most critical, NOT merely suggesting it would only take about $1000 a month per officer to get a P.D. out here. How long do you think it would take Lafco to concur, negotiate, etc., before a real decsion was made?

[LisaT]

Originally Posted by nana

... However, depending upon what RMA does re outsourcing security (even if just the gate ops), it would mean a lot of current CSD gate officers would become "surplus" should RMA opt for an outside provider....

You are right nana, CSD and RMA do need to work together.

If RMA chooses to bring in their own security people, that doesn't mean that they will control the gates. CSD, in their security code has that responsibility and that is part of what we pay taxes for. RMA *does not* contract for that service.

In the past, there was a judgement made against CSD when they were trying to replace their security officers with a private firm, and I suspect that that will play a role in this case too.

Bottom line - RMA cannot decide to do away with the CSD gate officers. Those are CSD union employees which receive no monies from RMA.

I don't really think that residents who deduct their security taxes from their income tax want to give up their deduction.

And I'm sure that the CSD BOD understand that they are responsible for providing securit for *all* of the RMDistrict, and not just for the residents that belong to RMA. That will become more important as development continues.

[akulasquirrel]

Originally Posted by akulasquirrel

Right now, I don't think that there are any. Are there any statutory or regulatory restraints upon retirees that waive benefits to work somewhere because they're already receiving them (and I don't mean just LE jobs)? Have you ever considered that anyone qualified might just get a job or have a job as a Reserve Officer somewhere and work for the District for the benefits? I'm pretty sure that's happened. Twice. Maybe more. Relatively recently. That's another avenue to follow.

Saying that anyone can get fired from LE and take a job out here, as a CSD Officer, is a mighty accusation, even if indirect, that the CSD hires former LE that got fired.

See, because we got information from several different people, I was able to begin looking more deeply into this... and I found out some interesting info. CalPERS retirees going to work for a CalPERS employer is limited to 940 hours per year.

So, what did we learn? We learned as a group that marketing to Safety retirees is not a good idea...

Thanks, and it didn't turn into a brawl. We should do this more.

[LisaT]

Originally Posted by nana

... Looking at what the community wants and needs in Security now and into the foreseeable future is most critical, NOT merely suggesting it would only take about $1000 a month per officer to get a P.D. out here. How long do you think it would take Lafco to concur, negotiate, etc., before a real decsion was made?

I don't believe that there is one person who ever suggested that all it would take is to boost salaries of the officer to get a PD out here.

There are shorter term solutions and long term solutions. With a little thought, we might be able to plan for growth as reasonably as possible. The Ad Hoc governance committee is trying to do just that. You might be interested in what they ultimately come up with.

Posted via Mobile Device