The Madison County Board voted 15-9 in favor of a non-binding resolution to present an advisory question on the November ballot asking voters to weigh in on whether retired county employees and officials should be permitted to “double dip” by collecting a pension and a salary at the same time.
The resolution asks: “Shall retired Madison County employees and officials drawing a pension be permitted to also draw a salary for service in another position as an employee, official or independent contractor in Madison County?”
It was introduced by board member Don Moore (R), who said the resolution is going through a three-part process. He explained that it passed through the Government Relations committee on July 13, was then presented to the full county board on July 15, and will now go before voters to see if they think the discussion should continue.
Board members Michael (Doc) Holliday, Bruce Malone, Christopher Hankins, Jack Minner, Michael Parkinson, Nick Petrillo, Gussie Glasper, Elizabeth Dalton and Larry Trucano all voted against the resolution.
Board members Don Moore, Phil Chapman, David Michael, Mick Madison, Ray Wesley, Mike Walters, Dalton Gray, Robert Pollard, Tom McRae, Chrissy Dutton, Eric Foster, Jamie Goggin, Chris Guy, Erica Harriss, and Heather Mueller-Jones voted in favor of the resolution.
Board member Victor Valentine Jr. did not vote, and board members Judy Kuhn, Matt King, Kristen Novacich-Koberna and Jim Dodd were absent during the meeting.
When Parkinson voted, he said the resolution is an “illegal proposition.”
Moore, however, said it gives Madison County the opportunity to “show some leadership” and push back on a double dipping trend in Illinois.
Some Board members have previously rejected the argument that the resolution was presented in response to Eric Decker’s recent consulting contract with the Madison County Sheriff’s Department. Decker is a former captain with the Sheriff’s Department and retired in June. His company, Decker Analytics, entered into a consulting contract with the department on July 1 for $114,000 per year.
Decker Analytics will be responsible for handling tasks such as grants, budgetary issues, use of technology in the workplace, human resources issues, and litigation issues, among other responsibilities, Major Jeff Connor previously explained.
The contract had originally been included on the Public Safety Committee agenda, but was tabled in June so committee members had more time to discuss the request.
At the July meeting, Connor said the approval of the special services agreement was not required from the committee.
Wesley asked how the situation changed from seeking approval to not needing approval for the contract.
Connor said the department did some research and learned that by “state law, county ordinance, and the Attorney General’s ordinance,” professional services agreements do not require county approval.
Hankins questioned why the resolution was being brought up "now." He said he has witnessed county employees in the past drawing pensions and salaries, including people on the board who draw consulting salaries. He did not clarify who he was referring to.
“So to pull this one out I just think is funny,” he said.
In response, Madison said he agrees with Hankins in regards to the history of double dipping. He said that the reason the issue is being brought up now is because it recently occurred at the Sheriff’s Department.
“I don’t care if you are Democrat, Republican, every time that we’ve done it as a party it’s aggravated me to no end just as much,” Madison said. “I disagree with the policy.”
He added that when county employees and officials participate in double dipping, it looks as though they see their neighbors and taxpayers as “their own personal cash cow.”
Parkinson, who retained Decker as his campaign treasurer in his run for county board, turned the conversation to Prenzler, saying “your people” have participated in double dipping.
He added that if the question was instead a binding resolution, “I would almost bet you it would be illegal.”
Parkinson continued by saying that no one is questioning the contract other double dipping employees.
Madison responded that he did raise concerns over other double dipping examples and said the resolution attempts to address the concern of taxpayers.
Parkinson said that if this issue is going to be brought up, they can’t pick and choose what is considered a pension and what is not.
“I just did,” Madison responded. “I just did bring it up.”
Parkinson apologized for interrupting Madison, but said it comes down to legality.
“We can break it apart and make determinations all we want, but the reality of it is it is legal,” he said.
At the end of the discussion, county Auditor Rick Faccin, who is not seeking re-election in the fall, also questioned the legality of pursuing the double dipping issue.
“Are you inviting another lawsuit?” he asked.
Prenzler responded that they are discussing an advisory referendum to get a sense of what the voters think.
Connor spoke on behalf of Shariff John Lakin at the board meeting.
“As your elected sheriff of Madison County, Sheriff Lakin strives to find ways to protect the citizens of Madison County and the brave men and women at the Madison County Sheriff’s Office. Sheriff Lakin also continues to find ways of saving money of the taxpayers of Madison County, and he asks the board, the County Board, to support him in his efforts to save taxpayers money. Thank you. Stay safe and God bless everyone,” he said.
Holliday was not in support of the resolution and questioned if it would prevent elected officials like him from running for a county office.
“To me,” he said, “this resolution is going to eliminate people from being able to get jobs that may have some retirement from other places. It’s not double dipping.”
He added that in some situations, bringing back retired county employees could help the county or save money.
Guy clarified that the resolution is a non-binding question on the ballot intended to gauge voters’ opinion on the issue. Based on the voters’ input, the county board can then decide whether or not to move forward with addressing the issue.
He added that the language of the question does not seek to prohibit retired military veterans from seeking election or becoming a county employee, in response to a question by Chapman.