Ladies and Gentlemen,

Today, a full assault is targeted at each of your associations and at each of your members (retired and active). Today a full assault is targeted at Arizona’s law enforcement and correctional institutions. Today life as we have come to know it and expect it is going to be irrevocably changed. This change is coming because of a politician’s political ambitions. This change is coming because of a professional lawyers’ need for headlines. This change is coming because of false information and distorted facts that were provided to the public from media representatives whose sole purpose in life is to create controversy to sell newspapers.

Those we thought we could count on do not have the courage to stand by their statements made to you and me when we vetted them prior to the last election. They may talk the talk but they apparently do not have the courage to walk the walk of their own convictions. Remember the remarks made today by these legislators for their comments will clearly illustrate how they regard each of you and the promises made to each of you and your members. It has been made perfectly clear that these legislators do not count you among their constituents. You are now an annoyance, someone not worth debating and someone beneath contempt to those deemed, by self proclamation, to be your superior.

I urge you all to continue do your jobs to the utmost of your ability. I know you will because that is the nature of those in our profession. But I also caution you, don’t take extraordinary measures or actions that could endanger your life or cause you significant injury because the promises made to you by the State of Arizona will likely no longer be kept. So please take a step back from these situations or encounters and wait for back-up. Do your duty to the best of your ability and within the scope of your operations orders because the citizens of this state deserve our support and no less than the best we can offer. Strive to be more aware of your surroundings and the dangers that could await you because if you take fateful action you are truly doing so at your own peril because, from this day forth, you can only count on your brothers and sisters in arms for support. I urge you to never forget what you hear today because when it comes to having your back in times of crisis or when you put your lives on the line for the citizens of the State of Arizona please remember our politicians, those elected officials in the legislature, that we helped put in office have already forgotten you and left the building.

The legislative action being taken today makes it clear our legislators have ceased caring about the sacrifices made by those forcibly taken from our ranks and the widows and children they left behind. Please god, let us not forget them as have these elected officials. We must now rely on the courts and the governor, the scale balancing parts of our government, to hear us.

Sincerely,

Brian L. Livingston

Executive Director, Arizona Police Association

*********************************************

What’s on the table?

PSPRS

The COLA is based on a market value assumption. This is important because the existing Excess Earnings Fund will be able to pay out a COLA for the next two years but after that it may 15-20 years before another COLA is issued.

Employees will be expected to pay 11.65% contribution rate in three years. No reduction in this rate is delineated.

Drop is eliminated for those with 5 years or less service. Those between 5-20 years will have to pay contributions into the fund when they enter DROP with interest rates dropping on these accounts. Those with 20 years of more service no change in DROP.

Return to work – Penalty payment assessed.

Commission of a class five felony (not conviction) – pension is forfeited

Military and in-state service – prior service purchase restriction (purchase must be initiated before the bill takes effect)

They are also going to study disability payments to all persons so classified in the next two years. This means there is a possibility that disability pensions will be targeted in the future for reduction or elimination. The study will also examine defined contribution options, the definition of compensation, consolidation of local boards, and merging 401(a) Plan options.

It is expected that the bill will pass out of the committee. Although committee members may not agree with the bill (as was the case with HB 2726), there will more than likely be enough “aye” votes to pass it on. If that is the case, it will move to House Rules, then onto the Caucus and COW.

You are urged to not only contact the committee members before the hearing at 2:00 p.m., but also contact the Representative within your legislative district. You can click HERE to find your legislative district and Representative.

Source: McClatchy Newspaper

A close look at state and local pension plans across the nation, and a comparison of them to those in the private sector, reveals a more complicated story. However, the short answer is that there’s simply no evidence that state pensions are the current burden to public finances that their critics claim.

Read more: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2011/03/06/109649/why-employee-pensions-arent-bankrupting.html#ixzz1GiIWAQq7

Sleepy Cops

A leading sleep researcher argues that officer deaths from vehicle accidents and violent attacks could be cut by at least 15%–”a pretty darned conservative estimate”–if the problem of police fatigue was seriously addressed.

As it is, he claims, a toxic mix of poor personal habits and arbitrary agency policies is creating a “large pool of officers at risk.”

These assertions come from Dr. Bryan Vila, a former 17-year veteran street cop in Los Angeles who now directs the Simulated Hazardous Operational Tasks laboratory in Washington State University’s Sleep & Performance Research Center in Spokane. Author of the landmark book Tired Cops, Vila spoke at the latest IACP annual conference as a panelist discussing “Strategies for Promoting Officer Safety by Managing Fatigue and Work Hours.”

He expanded on his remarks in a recent interview with Force Science News about the impact of long shifts, rotating schedules, and insufficient sleep on police reaction time and threat decision-making.

SOBERING STATS. First, some sobering statistics Vila shared with his IACP audience. According to a survey by the AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety, among officers in the US and Canada:

• 53% get less than 6.5 hours of sleep daily (compared to 30% of the general population)

• 91% report feeling fatigued “routinely”

• 14% are tired when they start their work shift

• 85% drive while “drowsy”

• 39% have fallen asleep at the wheel.

Vila identified some of the many unwelcome consequences. “Fatigue decreases attentiveness, impairs physical and cognitive functioning, diminishes the ability to deal with challenges, and sets up a vicious cycle: fatigue decreases your ability to deal with stress and stress decreases your ability to deal with fatigue.

“So far as health and wellness are concerned, chronic sleep deprivation is associated with cardiovascular disease, gastrointestinal disorders, sleep apnea and other sleep disorders, and metabolic syndrome–the group of risk factors that increase your chances of coronary artery disease, stroke, and type 2 diabetes.”

And, he estimates, fatigue is likely to be responsible for at least 15% of officer deaths and career-ending injuries from vehicle crashes and felonious assaults.

FLAWED DRIVING. The greatest risk from drowsy driving seems to come from cops heading home fatigued after shift. Before the obvious hazard of falling asleep at the wheel occurs, there’s the issue of momentary inattentiveness.

“A drowsy driver does not experience a steady decrease in driving ability,” Vila explains. “You get random, but increasingly frequent, lapses of attention. You space out for a few seconds.

“Most of the time, you get away with it. If you’re on a straight, flat road with no other traffic, it can be no harm, no foul. But if the road turns while you’re inattentive, you’ve got a problem.” He cites the case of a California officer driving home up a winding canyon on a bright Sunday morning. “During an attention lapse, the road curved and he kept going straight–out of lane and into a swarm of bicycles coming downhill. He killed 2 riders, a horrible tragedy.”

During their work shift, periodic shots of adrenalin may help officers stave off drowsiness until they’re off-duty, Vila speculates. “But then when the adrenalin wears off, the payback comes.” More research is needed, he says, to clarify the adrenalin-fatigue interaction and its effect on performance.

COMBAT LIMITATIONS. Fatigue is also “a prime candidate for affecting how well you do in a combat situation,” Vila says. Again, specific research findings are sparse, but “the best information so far strongly suggests that long work hours and erratic, insufficient sleep put officers more at threat in confrontations, as well as driving,” he says.

Among other things, as you get more and more tired, you experience a “cognitive narrowing” that can cause you to miss important elements in your surrounding environment, Vila explains. This is similar to the so-called “tunnel vision” stress reaction that is common in a threat situation and indeed may accentuate that phenomenon, Vila says. “You’re not able to shift focus readily with a lot of competing demands on your attention.”

Moreover, the fatigue-related narrowing can also impede your decision-making. “Your judgment is likely to be compromised,” he says, “and the risk increases that you won’t make as good decisions as you otherwise would. When you’re tired, you tend to latch onto a ’solution’ for challenges that confront you and stick with it even when objective information suggests it is wrong.

“Parts of the brain that we know are especially vulnerable to fatigue are those that help you control emotion and arousal and those that direct the executive functions, such as making and realizing the consequences of decisions.

“These elements obviously affect your ability to survive life-threatening challenges. Being tired puts you at a substantial disadvantage, compared to being fully alert and having your best faculties for detecting and addressing the threat.”

SELF-MONITORING. What’s also certain from studies of astronauts, fighter pilots, and other subjects is that “human beings are lousy judges of how impaired they are from fatigue,” Vila says.

“One of the first parts of your brain negatively affected by lack of sleep is the part that looks in on yourself and reports how you’re doing. That means that one of the first pieces of safety equipment to go down as you get more tired is your tiredness monitor.

“Your cognitive ability can be affected by fatigue, without your realizing it, to the same degree as someone who’s drunk. In tests even of elite professionals, people’s reports of how tired they are don’t relate accurately to how tired they really are. In short, you just can’t self-monitor fatigue worth a damn.”

AGENCY ADAPTATIONS. Protecting officers from fatigue disasters requires a collaborative effort between agencies and personnel, Vila advises.

He believes agencies can help by scheduling shifts to more closely mirror natural body rhythms. “We don’t have full information yet on what’s the perfect shift or at least the least harmful shift,” he says. “But the officers most at risk seem to be those who work through the night, because the body’s natural circadian rhythm is to be awake and working in daylight.

“In most people, there tends to be a gradual decrease in alertness after 10 or 11 o’clock at night, hitting bottom between 3 and 6 a.m. From about 6 a.m. onward light rays from the sun trigger cells in your brain that promote a renewed cycle of alertness.

“The longer your shift is in darkness, the more at risk of fatigue you are. If you’ve been up for 12 hours, you’re more at risk at 4 a.m. than if you’ve been up for 12 hours and it’s 4 p.m.

“Departments often just arbitrarily pick the times for shifts to begin and end, but with a little flexibility they could favor the night-shift officers, who are most at risk. Get them started earlier and off the job and in bed earlier, even if it means the day shift has to start earlier.”

Also, he points out, “departments don’t have to have the same length of shifts all around the clock. They could have 12-hour shifts during the day and 8-hour shifts at night. And they could sharply limit the number of night shifts an officer works consecutively. The more night shifts you work in a row, the less and less resilient you become to being tired. After about 3 consecutive night shifts, you’ll start to see a substantial problem and you need time off so you can catch up on your sleep.”

For more than a decade, Vila has advocated that agencies provide a “napping room” where officers can take 20- to 40-minute restorative breaks during duty hours. “Even if you don’t fall sound asleep, just lying down with your eyes closed for 30 minutes in an absolutely dark and safe room can have a major refreshing effect,” he says.

“All this may be a bit of a pain for administrators,” Vila acknowledges, “but it’s smart in terms of risk management. Departments will end up getting better work out of their people while keeping them safer.”

PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY. “You need to be your own first line of defense in combating fatigue,” Vila emphasizes

Among the personal issues that affect whether you get the recommended 7-8 hours of quality sleep per 24 hours are these:

• What’s your sleep environment? “Are you sacking out in the La-Z-Boy with the game on and getting up every hour or so to do things?” he asks.

• How much caffeine are you taking in?

• What’s your overall level of health and fitness?

• Are you working a 12-hour shift and then tacking on overtime or a second job?

• If you work nights, are you scheduling sleep appropriately? “The farther into the day that you first try to sleep, the fewer consecutive hours of sleep you’re likely to get,” Vila explains. “If you can go to bed at 5 to 7 a.m., good. But if you wait ’til noon, sleep is harder to sustain.”

Dealing effectively with the fatigue issue in law enforcement is really “a tightrope walk,” Vila says. “Agencies have to back the demands for service in their community with concern for the needs of the officers they put on the street to meet those demands. But by the same token, if officers are not making rest and resilience priorities for themselves, whatever departments do may not be enough.”

NEW RESEARCH AHEAD. During the next 2 years, Vila and his research team plan to conduct controlled laboratory experiments that he hopes will provide a scientific basis for managing police fatigue. Supported by joint funding from California POST and the federal DoD, they will study the cumulative impact of work-related fatigue on the performance of experienced patrol officers in 3 critical operational tasks: vehicle driving, deadly force encounters, and reporting.

Vila says: “Even though research involving other professionals makes clear that fatigue from sleep loss degrades human performance while driving, making decisions, collecting information, communicating, and reporting, little is known about the magnitude of those effects in police work. That is important knowledge we need in order to manage police fatigue in a cost-effective manner.”

The study will involve 80 officers, half of whom work night shifts and half who work days. Each officer will take a battery of tests twice, once while highly fatigued, and another time when rested. Their sleep will be tracked using wrist actigraphs and their performance will be measured in the WSU Sleep & Performance Research Center, using MPRI PatrolSimIV driving simulators, AIS PRISim L1000 deadly force judgment and decision-making simulators, and in a computerized field report writing simulation as well as a set of vigilance and fatigue assessments.

Force Science News will keep you posted as this project progresses. [Dr. Vila can be contacted at: vila@wsu.edu. His book, Tired Cops: The Importance of Managing Police Fatigue, is available from the Police Executive Research Forum at www.policeforum.org/bookstore]

SB 1609 is another bill attempting to reform our pension systems.  The bill passed out of the Senate Finance Committee with a 3-1 vote and three (3) amendments were adopted. None of the amendments were of significance to police.  CLICK HERE TO READ THE BILL AND ITS STATUS. On March 23^rd, APA spoke against SB 1609, as it was written.  Below are the major highlights of this bill:
Positives
-Continues to allow present employees to use their three (3) top base pay years for retirement
-Makes employers pay some contributions on “return to work”
-Leaves DROP in place for current members

-No changes were made to ASRS
-The bill did not include a provision that eliminated overtime included in “base compensation”

Negatives

-The bill significantly asks employees to make more contributions into the pension system.  

FY 2011-2012, one would have to pay a two (2) percent increase (9.65%) into their retirement, and

FY 2012-2013, add an additional one (1) percent (10.65%), and

FY 2013-2014 & maximum contribution from the employee, add an additional two (2) percent (max rate of 11.65%)

OR

Pay one-third (1/3) of the rate and the state pays two third’s (2/3) – whichever is lower

Police officers throughout Arizona would be paying different amounts for the same pension benefit.
-Changes the “COLA” fund so no new assets would flow into the fund for several years and no COLA’s for retirees

New Hires

-Minimum retirement age of 25 and 52.2 years of age

-Removes the match for employees who leave with less than 20 years of service

-No DROP benefit/option

-High five (5) years of base pay toward retirement

-Increased contributions rates

During the hearing, GLEA members were well represented.  CLICK HERE TO VIEW THE VIDEO OF THE HEARING.  This committee did speak to the police associations and other stakeholders.  Many of the same remarks from HB 2726 were reiterated.  On your behalf, Brian Livingston (APA Executive Director) stated the following key points.  (You can view him at 1:20:00.00 exactly on the video)

1. Reemphasized that if there was not a $1.6 billion dollars loss to the pension system, our government would not have to deal with this issue.

2. The part of the bill that is missing is “oversight”.   APA would like to see mandated accountability and everyone from the JLBC to the Governor should have a regular report on the pension system.  

3. The employee contribution rate is too short and too much.  This bill (in its current condition) is heavily weighted for employers and their contributions.

4. User fees: Police take a lot of actions to benefit of the public, namely insurance companies.  Fees should be applied to benefits they are receiving in order to have a reduction of contributions from employers.

5.  A full investigation should be done on PSPRS and the state should attempt to recapture expenditures not accounted for.

6.  Do use actuarial value versus market value.

7.  In 2011, to date, we have lost 43 law enforcement officials; Iraq lost 37.  We would not diminish the retirement of a US solider, so why would the state of Arizona do it to law enforcement?

I will continue to keep you updated on the status of this bill. 

Respectfully,

Justin Harris

GLEA-President

UPDATE: MARCH 21ST

MAJOR HIGHLIGHTS OF SB 1609:

Current Employees and Retirees:

The COLA is based on a market value assumption. This is important because the existing Excess Earnings Fund will be able to pay out a COLA for the next two years but after that it may 15-20 years before another COLA is issued. (Retirees and Current Members)

Employees will be expected to pay 11.65% contribution rate in three years. 2% July 2011, 1% July 2012, 1% July 2013.

Drop is eliminated for those with 5 years or less service. Those between 5-20 years will have to pay contributions into the fund when they enter DROP with interest rates dropping on these accounts. Those with 20 years of more service no change in DROP.

Return to work – Penalty payment assessed.

New Hires:

Many changes to the system for people not yet employed.

Other Issues for ALL:

Commission of a class five felony (not conviction) – This would result in forfeiture of your pension.

Military and in-state service – prior service purchase restriction (Not much info on this provision as of yet)

They are also going to study disability payments to all persons so classified in the next two years. This means there is a possibility that disability pensions will be targeted in the future for reduction or elimination

Arizona police officers are seeking more protections from internal investigations prompted by residents and fellow officers.

Most Valley police unions now have contracts that spell out procedures for investigations of officers accused of misconduct.

The Glendale police unions negotiated a contract with the city requiring residents who file complaints against officers to sign affidavits that they believe their accusations are true. Other unions call for accused officers to be given information about the nature of the complaints and allow union representatives to serve as witnesses during officer interviews.

 Mesa’s police union, which started negotiations with city administrators last week, hopes to add similar guidelines.

Union leaders have also proposed state laws to regulate internal investigations.

Police unions said the changes are necessary to give officers the same rights and protections as anyone else. Police administrators and experts say the rights of officers and residents must be balanced.

A handful of bills sponsored by Republican lawmakers would change procedures across Arizona.

The proposed bills would allow fired police officers who believe they were unjustly terminated to file suit in Superior Court, allow police unions to report misconduct to an oversight board and require police departments to set a four-month deadline on internal investigations. Also, a polygraph examination could not be used as the sole evidence to fire an officer.

The proposals were sparked by last year’s adoption of Arizona’s “just cause” law, which bars excessive police discipline and requires the discipline be based on a “preponderance of evidence.”

Police-union leaders say they have lobbied lawmakers to take action following a series of what they viewed to be unjust actions by police administrators.

“Basically, it’s like a cancer that has spread to multiple jurisdictions,” said Brian Livingston, executive director of the Arizona Police Association, a union that has lobbied for the proposed bills.

A review board of Surprise residents last year voted to reinstate two fired officers after it found other officers with similar violations had received lesser discipline. And the Phoenix Law Enforcement Association has spoken on behalf of Richard Chrisman, an officer indicted on charges of second-degree murder in the shooting of a domestic-violence suspect last October. The union objected when Phoenix Police Chief Jack Harris initially said Chrisman’s termination process would begin before his criminal trial.

Levi Bolton, lobbyist for the Phoenix union, said officers deserve due process when they’re under investigation.

“We’re not asking for rights above and beyond what citizens get,” he said. “We’re asking for the same thing – to give us a presumption of innocence.”

The proposed state laws, and greater mention of police-disciplinary procedures in city contracts, would further clarify requirements for those accused of misconduct and those investigating misconduct, union leaders say.

Sgt. Fabian Cota, president of the Mesa Police Association, said inconsistencies in discipline and investigative practices can create confusion.

A deputy at one agency may be fired for driving under the influence, while an officer elsewhere is given a written reprimand. Or two officers at the same department may be treated differently for similar conduct. Then questions can crop up about whether supervisors targeted the officer who received the more-severe discipline.

“We’re just trying to get things to where they’re more consistent, that there’s more equal treatment,” Cota said. “This really isn’t about trying to get away with stuff.”

He added that guidelines for police leaders could also save taxpayers’ money.

Thousands are spent to train one officer, and if she is fired without proper cause, the money goes to waste, he said.

Justin Harris, president of the Glendale Law Enforcement Association, has said his city’s contract provides direction to police and residents.

“It gives both parties distinct guidelines to follow within the complaint process,” he said.

But police leaders and experts emphasize it’s important to maintain a careful balance between the rights of officers and the rights of residents.

Officers deserve a fair investigation, but police must maintain the public’s trust.

Laws that impact the inner workings of a police department can be harmful if they hamper a police chief’s discretion, said Hubert Williams, president of the Washington, D.C.-based Police Foundation, which focuses on law-enforcement research and reform.

“They can limit the police chief’s ability to get the facts on officers who are deemed to be acting inappropriately,” said Williams, a former Newark, N.J., chief.

John Harris of the Arizona Association of Chiefs of Police, whose organization has discussed the proposed laws with police unions, agreed that chiefs need to be able to address problems that arise.

“We don’t want to lose our management rights and our ability to run our organizations,” said the chief of Sahuarita.

Kathryn Olson, president of the National Association for Civilian Oversight of Law Enforcement, said it’s most important that all sides agree on a system, regardless of what it is.

That means residents get a say, too.

“Law-enforcement agencies get their authority and their legitimacy from the public,” Olson said.

Read more: http://www.azcentral.com/12news/news/articles/2011/02/20/20110220arizona-police-internal-investigations.html#ixzz1EcQFdasc

Brian Livingston, APA Executive Director

On 02.17.2011, the House Employment and Regulatory Affairs Committee voted 5-4 for HB 2726, a bill attempting to reform our pensions systems.

The general consensus from House committee members during and after the vote was there are still a lot of changes to be made to the bill before the final product. Those committee members that voted no all echoed that the bill was unconstitutional, agreeing with the Arizona Police Association’s (APA) position the bill diminishes benefits to employees under Arizona’s constitution, Article 29. GLEA is thankful the hearing allowed stakeholders to speak at the hearing, as this issues raised will help make this a living document that will carry the issues throughout the bill’s process.

The committee and members of the public in attendance seemed to be alarmed that:

1. The Speaker of the House (sponsor of the bill) had not met with police organizations regarding the bill.

2. Stakeholders, like the police organizations, have not been able to sit at the table in order to fix any pension issues.

3. That actuary numbers from the police proposal have not been produced by PSPRS, when the proposal could be more sustainable than the original bill and is not unconstitutional.

The Arizona Police Association Executive Director, Brian Livingston, spoke first at the hearing. He pointed out, on your behalf:

1. Case law to committee members that demonstrated the bill was unconstitutional under Arizona and Federal Law. The current pension system was promised to every officer, and any change would be breaking a contract.

2. From 2001-2002, the pension system lost much of its value with no explanation, losing $1.6 Billion dollars. Whose fiduciary responsibility was it to prevent such catastrophic loses? The current fund’s manager explained the reason why the fund lost so much money was due to an overconcentration of system internally managed portfolio in technology/telecom securities. The system’s administrator at the time, Jack Cross, made the decision to invest heavily into these high risk investments into the tech/telecom world. The “high risk bet” did not pay-off.

3. With the previous fund manager, there was no accountability or documentation on investment decisions. APA knows of no documents that might shed light that Mr. Cross received from advisors or what he disclosed to board members. No documentation has been provided to APA regarding who approved decisions on investments or if documents were made public.

4. If the fund did not lose so much money ($1.6 Billion dollars), we would not be in this situation today.

5. Excessive legal costs of $200,000 to $300,000 monthly (yearly $2.4 to $3.6 Million dollars) were charged to the fund. Up to 28 attorneys at one time we asked for legal opinions. APA has asked for what reason, what cost and who approved these expenditures, with no answer.

6. Regarding COLA adjustments, a market rate of 70% is not obtainable for most, if not all, current retirees for an estimated 20 years. Using actual numbers versus a market rate is reasonable. Eliminating COLA’s is not acceptable to any organization in APA. GLEA will continue to keep you updated on how this bill progresses. Please feel free to contact a board member, or myself, if you have any questions.

Sincerely, Justin Harris, President

GLEA and APA affiliates will continue to talk out about our pension issues. View what we have done so far below:

Gripes against Glendale police now must have signature

Only most-serious anonymous claims checked

by Lisa Halverstadt – Feb. 15, 2011

The Arizona Republic

Anonymous complaints from Glendale residents no longer are enough to trigger investigations into allegations of misconduct by officers, according to the latest contract the city negotiated with its police unions.

Persons who file complaints against officers must sign affidavits stating that they believe their allegations to be true.

Police say those found to be untruthful could face criminal charges in certain instances.

Police officials still will investigate anonymous complaints against officers if the allegations involve possible crimes, or if they can independently corroborate them.

The change was specified in a two-year contract that city leaders negotiated with Glendale Police Officer’s Coalition, which comprises the city’s two police unions.

The changes likely will not have a wide impact. Of the 49 complaints from residents that police received last year, two were anonymous, according to the Police Department.

Police say the contract, which went into effect in July, is a positive move because it clarifies rules for complaints.

“It gives both parties distinct guidelines to follow within the complaint process,” said Justin Harris, president of the Glendale Law Enforcement Association, one of the two unions.

Other revisions to the complaint process include:

- The department should close an investigation into police misconduct within 120 days.

- Officers should be informed of complaints against them within three days.

- Police officials must use a specific procedure to determine the appropriate level of discipline to be meted out to officers found to be in violation of policy.

Police Chief Steve Conrad said the revisions to the city’s contract came out of negotiations between city and union leaders, who raised issues about anonymous complaints.

Conrad said the city aimed to maintain a balance between preventing frivolous complaints and protecting Glendale residents.

Human Resources Director Alma Carmicle said the updated police-union contract more closely matches guidelines for other Glendale workers who face accusations of misconduct.

Glendale must carefully monitor the impact of the contract, said Hubert Williams, president of the Washington, D.C.-based Police Foundation, which focuses on law-enforcement research and reform.

“These complaints that we’re talking about are complaints coming in from the people we are sworn to protect and serve,” said Williams, a former Newark, N.J. police chief.

Officers’ needs must be considered but the public trust and confidence must be the Police Department’s primary concern, Williams said.

The Glendale chief said he considers residents’ concerns a priority.

“When citizens come forward, I think it’s important we listen to what they have to say,” Conrad said. “Our ability to police ourselves is contingent on the cooperation of the public to help us identify problems and deal with them.”

Read more: http://www.azcentral.com/community/glendale/articles/2011/02/15/20110215glendale-police-complaints.html#ixzz1EtlJe5PP

Dear GLEA Members,

Arizona House Representative Kirk Adams has released his bill to “fix” several Arizona pension systems, including CORP and PSPRS. 

Read HB 2726 (Note: 58 pages long, a summary is below).

HB 2726 will be heard in the House Employment & Regulatory Affairs Committee in House Hearing Room 3, located at 1700 W. Washington, tomorrow (02/15/2011) at 2pm.  All members are encouraged to attend, as many members of our law enforcement community will be there.  If you cannot be there, we have a sample letter you might consider sending out to your elected officials and listed legislators below.

GLEA takes issue with many proposals in this bill. The bill proposes eliminating DROP and essentially putting everyone into something similar to a 401(k) system. With this change, it will mandate increasing employee contributions one percent for four years (four percent total), then switching to employees and employers splitting contribution’s 50/50. With numbers expected to be in the 30 percent range, that means employee contributions would skyrocket up by 15 to 20 percent of your salary the fifth year, while employers rates would drop down to 15 to 20 percent. Our members cannot afford such steep increases. 

DROP does not have the negative impact on the system that is publicly portrayed.  There is confusion to the general public, and even some elected officials, that this program drains the retirement program.  DROP was enacted to help municipalities prepare for an employee to retire and an agency the opportunity to train and replace the retiree. What they generally do not understand is that the employee and the employer are not paying into the system anymore.  We see DROP as more of a savings account that actually helps the system.  For example, last year DROP created 13.5% in interest and only paid out 8.5%.  What is left over (5%) went back into the system; hence assisting in making our retirement sustainable. 

If DROP is eliminated, it will have a huge impact on our ability to maintain adequate manpower and protect the streets. There will be a mass exodus of people who will DROP that will take years to replace.  PSPRS has already received a significant increase of people that are electing to DROP, and the system will be overrun if DROP is eliminated soon.  We all know there is not much planning for hiring more police officers in many municipalities, including Mesa.   

Also, it is proposed in the bill to eliminate COLA’s for retirees.  Reasoning to keep this necessary assistance to retirees are logical, however, elected officials and the general public have received contradicting messaging.  Obviously, most of us are not currently bringing home six figure incomes.  When the median officer’s wages in Arizona are $45,000 a year, it is estimated a retiree will bring home $22,500 yearly.  For a family, this could be below poverty lines.  It is essential to protect the COLA prevision as it crucial to the vast majority of those in the pension system.

Lastly, many elected officials and the public do not comprehend that Mesa officers, like many other municipalities, do not pay into social security and were mandated to opt out of that benefit.  Most assume that we are receiving both pension and social security benefits when we retire.  Ultimately, we are saving the city of Mesa and taxpayers from paying into an extra system, and less money returns to us (as retirees).

If this bill passes, as is, I foresee a huge legal challenge in the future. GLEA and APA believe the bill’s provisions agree clearly violate Article 29 of the Arizona Constitution and run contrary to several previous Court Decisions. This will stall needed relief while the courts sort it out and rule on it.  As I mentioned before, all of Arizona police organizations got together and proposed an alternative to HB 2726 that is projected to give an 80% actuary to the pension fund.  These proposals (listed below) will, we believe, withstand any legal challenge and do not infringe upon current constitutional protections. 

Again, we encourage members to attend the bill hearing tomorrow.  If you cannot, your voice is important to be heard with your elected officials and members of the House Employment & Regulatory Affairs Committee.  A sample letter and contact information has been supplied to you below.  GLEA will continue to keep you updated as the bill progresses. 

Sincerely,

Justin Harris

President of the Glendale Law Enforcement Asn.

Sample letter:

GLEA is formally asking members to contact the following list of legislators tonight through tomorrow phone and e-mail stating the below message:

“Dear Rep. (please fill in legislators name here),

I (state your name) of the (state your association’s name) request that you vote “no” on HB 2726. This bill has long-term negative consequences for me and my family as well as to those of my brethren who served in and retired from a law enforcement entity. The specific contract and covenant that I signed with (state your city, county, state organization here) is something I hold sacred as I perform my duties and I expect the same in return. The actions being contemplated by the committee today potentially violates the provision of this contract and covenant. Such actions will have a huge detrimental effect to the retention and recruitment of police officers in the future and to my safety now and into the future.

If passed as written this bill will have immediate impact to all members of the law enforcement family and in the long-term may have substantial impact to the citizens we serve.

Sincerely,

(place your full name here) “

Below is a list of committee members, their phone numbers and their e-mail addresses. Please let them hear from you today and tomorrow.

Bob Robson (District 20) 602-926-5549 ; brobson@azleg.gov

Justin Olson (District 19) 602-926-5288; jolson@azleg.gov

Eddie Farnsworth (District 22) 602-926-5735; efarnsworth@azleg.gov

John Fillmore (District 23) 602-926-3012; jfillmore@azleg.gov

John Kavanagh ( District 8 ) 602-926-5170; jkavanagh@azleg.gov

Kimberly Yee (District 10) 602-926-3024; kyee@azleg.gov

Sally Gonzales (District 27) 602-926-3278; sgonzales@azleg.gov

Lynne Pancrazi (District 24) 602-926-3004; lpancrazi@azleg.gov

Daniel Patterson (District 29) 602-926-5342; dpatterson@azleg.gov

Here is a summary of the changes proposed by HB 2726 to PSPRS:

 PSPRS

Existing Members

• Maintain high 3 FAC
• Maintain normal retirement requirements
• Contribution rates rise 4% over 4 years, on the 5th year (fy 2015-2016) 50% of aggregate computed employer contribution rate, not less than 7.65% (for perspective the aggregate computed rate as of 6/30/10 was 30.33% so 50/50 would be 15.165%). Contribution rate increases retro to July 1, 2011.
• If entering DROP, must do so prior to enactment date of bill because DROP goes away
• Benefit increases repealed (38-856) effective 6/29/2011

New Hires

• High 5 FAC
• If ceases to hold office for any reason other than death or retirement, member can withdraw their accumulated contributions less any benefit payments already received or any amount the member owes the plan (no employer match of refund contributions)
• 25 years of service or 62 years of age with 15 years of service
• Contribution rates rise 4% over 4 years, on the 5th year (fy 2015-2016) 505of aggregate  computed employer contribution rate, not less than 7.65%
• No DROP
• 25 years of service: Receive a monthly amount that equals 62.5% of member’s average monthly benefit compensation; less than 25 years of service reduced 4% for each credited year under 25 yrs; more than 25 years increased monthly amount 2.5% of the avg. monthly benefit multiplied by number of years over 25 with a max of 80% of the average monthly compensation.

APA’s Sustainable Proposal:

1. No diminished benefits or changes for current retirees and active PSPRS members, including structural changes to DROP.

2. Introduce a 2nd tier PSPRS Retirement measures for new members (hired after the close of session or at the regular enactment date). Goal – to achieve 80% actuarial funding in 25 years.

New Tier elements include:

• 20 year retirement with a 50% benefit utilizing a 5 year FAC
• 25 year retirement with a 60% benefit utilizing a 5 year FAC
• 30 year retirement with a 70% benefit utilizing a 5 year FAC
• Maximum pension set a 70% benefit. No increases beyond 70%.
• No 2.5% retroactive escalator at 25 years of service (standard accrual will continue at 2% past 20 years of service)
• 2% increase in employee contribution rate
• DROP participants will continue to pay employee full PSPRS contribution during participation in DROP. DROP contributions to be held in a separate account. At the conclusion of the DROP Period monies deposited will be returned to DROP participants. Interest earned by the investment of this money by PSPRS will be given to DROP plan participants at a maximum rate of the prevailing national saving account interest rate. All other interest will be sent to the underlying fund.
• Employers pay reduced contribution for DROP participants equal to an amount the employer would pay when a new officer is hired. (not at the current pay scale DROP participant) Permit employers to reduce their contribution rate by setting fees for non-emergency response services provided by police officers or for copies of paperwork (for example) requested by the public.

Such a fee would constitute a USER Fee (noted as an SLI) and can only be used to offset the employer contribution payment in their employee’s retirement system.

• Restructure COLA – maximum award 4%. Determination of yearly COLA award based on CPI. If CPI is above 4%, maximum COLA that can be awarded is 4%.
• Money deposited into the Excess Earnings Account will occur only after the earnings reach 11%. ½ or 1 point will be sent to the Excess Earning Account for every point above 11%.

2010 Police/Fire Holiday Softball Challenge

GLEA's 2010 Team

VIEW ADDITIONAL PICTURES HERE:

PART ONE

PART TWO