Our View - Monday

Sweet deal

County should change policy on unused leave

An old saying tells us that all work and no play makes Jack a dull boy. But it can also boost his bank account. Just ask former El Paso County Administrator Terry Harris, who collected $162,000 in unused vacation and sick time when he retired earlier this year. Harris said he didn’t take many vacations during the 11 years he was county administrator; he “just didn’t feel right about leaving.” Other former county employees apparently felt the same way. The county paid out about $1 million in unused sick and vacation time in the first half of 2007.

Payments in lieu of vacation are not unusual. Some companies allow employees to sell back a portion of their accrued vacation time each year and federal law requires employers to pay employees for unused vacation time when they quit, retire or are dismissed. Paying for unused sick time, however, is not so common.

Sick time is a benefit provided by many employers to encourage workers to take care of themselves. The idea is that because being ill won’t cost workers wages, they’ll stay home and get well before going back to work. That’s better for sick workers and their co-workers, who don’t want the person in the next cubicle bringing their germs into the office.

Rather than relieving the pressure for employees to show up at work every day, paying employees for unused sick days might actually encourage them to come to work when they’re sick. According to Jane McDaniel, senior account executive at Denver Management Advisors’ Colorado Springs office, “People will accrue their sick time and then leave and get paid for it. They may even come to work sick.”

We don’t fault the former county employees for taking the money; it’s natural for people to do what’s best for them and their families. Rather, we take issue with the county policies that allow, even encourage, workers to game the system. Officials say such policies are necessary to keep good workers from taking better-paying jobs in the private sector. That’s a fair point. Unfortunately, it also encourages bad workers to stay long enough to accrue a small windfall while not necessarily giving taxpayers good value for their dollars. We think it would be better if compensation packages for public employees are straightforward, with no hidden benefits. That way, the public is more able to track where their tax dollars are going and employees don’t have to perform mental gymnastics to figure out what their jobs are worth.

The benefit to the county for paying workers for unused sick days, instead of higher wages, is obvious: it looks better on the bottom line, as long as one doesn’t look too closely. But every unused sick day is, under the county’s policy, a liability that must be paid at some point. We think it would be better to have worker compensation show up as regular pay, not as a raid on reserves to cover unexpected claims on the county’s coffers.

Although the county must pay for unused vacation time, it can reduce the amount by adjusting the policy. Employees can now roll over unused time into the next year and three of the top positions have no limits on the amount of time that can be accrued. Many private sector employers limit the number of vacation days that can be rolled over from year to year. This encourages employees to take time off and eliminates large claims on cash reserves. To be responsible stewards of public funds, the county should implement limits for the same reasons.

The county now pays 50 percent of sick time at termination. The policy should be changed so the county would pay sick days only if employees use them. Sick pay should be something akin to an insurance policy rather than part of a compensation package. Keeping good employees is a laudable goal, but bribing them with the promise of future payouts might not be good for employee health, and it’s certainly not good for the health of the county budget.

It’s time to apply the brakes on this gravy train.

Unarmed lawmaker mugged by reality

Irving Kristol once said, “A conservative is a liberal who has been mugged by reality.” That certainly seems to be the case with former gun-control advocate Michael DeBose, an Ohio state legislator. DeBose’s epiphany was not a result of being mugged by reality, but by being mugged by a couple of gun-toting thugs in his own neighborhood.

DeBose told Gun Week, the periodical of The Second Amendment Foundation, that he was taking a walk around his quiet residential neighborhood on the evening of May 1 when he was accosted by two men, one of whom was armed with a handgun. The unarmed DeBose took the only option available to him — he ran to a neighbor’s home and pounded on the door. The hoodlums, apparently worried DeBose’s yelling would attract witnesses, jumped in their car and drove away.

Long an advocate of stricter gun-control laws, DeBose, along with his wife and several neighbors, have since enrolled in classes to obtain concealed-carry permits.

“If I’d had a weapon I could have defended myself,” said the ordained Baptist minister.

DeBose’s apparent conversion might not sit well with antigun colleagues, but as he said, “until someone has had a gun pulled on them and stuck in their face, (you can’t) put yourself in another’s place. . . . I just hope they’ll understand why I chose to change my mind.”

We wouldn’t wish getting mugged on anyone; being the victim of a violent crime is a terrifying experience. But we do hope other anti-firearms legislators can learn from DeBose’s experience and realize that people have a right to defend themselves and their loved ones. In a free society, the government shouldn’t prevent them from doing so.