State Sen. Jennifer Beck spoke to us about her double-dipping bill and the uphill battle to get it passed.
Jennifer Beck (R-Monmouth), the Sisyphus of the State Senate, has been the point person in the five-year bid to terminate the practice of double-dipping by public officials.
The problem is that Sen. Beck doesn't have many allies or cosponsors, and the mountain of inconvenient pension data is not something openly discussed during legislative hearings, at least not when her peers are the beneficiaries of such machinations.
State Sen. Jennifer Beck (R-Monmouth) authored the bill to clamp down on double dipping. She's been pushing this rock up a hill since 2011. (Photo: Sen. Jennifer Beck Office) She is presently sponsoring a bill to end double-dipping (S-883), essentially to suspend pensions for workers who resume public employment with a salary higher than $15,000 - zero exceptions. She admitted it may never get out of committee, but was optimistic there will be more reform talk in the future.
Beck spoke with the Star-Ledger Editorial Board prior to Wednesday's editorial, which has received an impassioned NJ.com user response in favor and against the measure.
Here's an edited transcript of the conversation:
Q. Just looking at the numbers from the New Jersey Watchdog report, the first thing I thought was, 'Where the hell is Donald Trump when you need him?'"
I was already familiar with the numbers, but you're right: It's an outrage. . . .You shouldn't collect retirement income until you're retired. That's the premise of a pension, an IRA, a Roth -- a lot of them. But as the conversation continues about pension reform, this has to be front and center, it really does.
There's a small group that are continuing to take advantage of a legal loophole and it's costing the pension system millions of dollars - and it needs to be closed. This was never the intention. This was an oversight.
Q. It's pretty easy to see how this got out of hand. . . .
If you read the comments posted by readers under stories about this, you'd think many of the public employees really feel it's their right. There's an entitlement mentality - 'This is my right to take the pension and do the same job, I've earned it.'
No, it was an oversight -- an error in drafting the statute - and they're exploiting it.
Q. You're been at this for about five years now. Have you given up hope of this bill ever getting out of committee?
The only thing that will drive it forward is the next round of pension/health benefits reform. Most teachers -- or most public employees of any system -- the vast majority aren't doing this. But a handful of others, often elected others, enrich themselves by taking advantage of the loophole. So when we go into negotiations with union folks, I doubt this is the thing they go to the mat over. It's egregious to the general public.
Everyone knows it's wrong. But there has to be another round of reforms. Otherwise, we'll ultimately have public employees without pensions, and that just won't happen. So when that round of talks comes around, maybe my bill won't move by itself, but the concept will be included.
Q. Do we know where the governor stands on this, since he once had 19 double-dippers on his payroll?
Well, this time I think he would sign the bill if it reached his desk, despite the fact that he has folks in his office retired and collecting a salary.
Two reasons: The cost and his commitment to reform. It hasn't stopped him from making other changes that affect people who work for him, and in light of the savings we'd receive, and how dire the system has become, I think he'd sign it. But I just don't see the Senate President posting it; or (Sen. Jim) Whelan (D-Atlantic) putting it up in his (Government) Committee.
So I'm thinking it would be a negotiated element in next round.
Q. Has anyone calculated the savings to be gained by forbidding the double-dip, if we're talking about hundreds of pensioners?
I've asked someone to look at it. The challenge we have is, because local municipalities fund their own pensions and counties are divided between state and local, they have no way of tracking how many people this encompasses. But NJ Watchdog did a nice job trying to highlight it.
It's prevalent enough just among the small group they looked at -- say it's just 10 or 15 percent, that's very costly. Or consider just one sheriff who 'retires' at 47. The money you put into the pension system from the time he's 20 until he's 47 is intended to cover you from age 62 on. It was never calculated to cover you 15 years earlier. You didn't put enough into the system to draw down on it.
Follow The Star-Ledger on Twitter @StarLedger and find us on Facebook. More Star-Ledger editorials.