DROP Dead: Double-Dipping Police Program to Expire

Ross Mirkarimi's arguments made sense -- in some world

​A program that allowed San Francisco police to simultaneously amass salaries and pensions died yesterday, despite Supervisor Ross Mirkarimi's attempts to alter time and space.

Readers may recall our April cover story about the Deferred Retirement Option Plan (DROP). The program was pitched as a cost-neutral method of retaining veteran cops longer. Yet an analysis by the controller's office and an independent actuary painted it as a costly program that actually led to earlier retirement ages.

But that isn't how Mirkarimi saw it. During last week's Budget and Finance Committee meeting and again yesterday, he painted the city-produced report as incomplete, inconclusive, and irresponsible. Since three years' worth of data weren't enough to determine if the program was working, he proposed it be extended to a fourth year.

Essentially, Mirkarimi was stating that we don't know if the program we've committed scores of millions of dollars to -- and are on the hook for many millions more -- is working. So we should keep it up and keep pouring money in.

Did we mention Mirkarimi is running for office?

Because he is. His attempt to placate the sheriff's union and Police Officers Association may have impressed those organizations. But it wasn't cutting it with his colleagues.

​Yet Mirkarimi wasn't finished. He claimed San Francisco couldn't truly determine if DROP was cost-neutral as the city had never defined the concept of cost-neutrality. Evoking semantics to try to win an argument is a bit like trying to redefine the concept of time to claim you didn't show up late. In any event, other cities tend to apply a 2 percent margin of error when determining cost-neutrality -- but that's neither here nor there with regards to San Francisco, where the controller estimated DROP would add well over $50 million to the city's retirement burden.

When Mirkarimi proposed DROP be extended for one year, Board President David Chiu asked if anyone would second the motion. A very awkward five or so seconds ensued. Finally, Supervisor David Campos raised his hand.

At this point, Supervisor Sean Elsbernd got mad.

"I was hoping not to have to stand up, and I didn't think there'd be a second to a motion that is, frankly, so irresponsible," he said. "The numbers, the documentation isn't there? I sit on the retirement board ... and and every three meetings we get exact documentation presented to the board about how many people applied [to DROP], what age group they are, how much further they could have gone if they'd not filed. The controller has tabulated all that information for us."

Elsbernd continued. He may not have needed the microphone, as he was already talking loudly. "With all due respect, I don't need a definition in the charter to tell me what 'cost-neutral' means. The report makes it very clear this is not cost-neutral. There's no debate here."

Campos, quickly, noted that he only seconded the motion "out of respect for Supervisor Mirkarimi. I actually disagree with his position on this."

Jim Herd

Ross Mirkarimi has seen better days

​Mirkarimi, no fool, realized his ship was sunk. But he fought on, and sank with it. He decried Elsbernd's notion of fiscal sanity as "the conventional wisdom" and described the controller's report as "not well-tabulated," and filled with data that is "thin and incomplete." City Controller Ben Rosenfield was, awkwardly, sitting right behind Mirkarimi the whole time. He squirmed a bit and set his jaw in a clench.

Left unsaid during yesterday's theatrics before the Board was that DROP was a wholly misbegotten enterprise. DROP programs nationwide have bankrupted municipalities. San Francisco has used an actuary who was being sued by multiple cities and counties for gross negligence simultaneously. The employment conditions that spurred its creation have changed, vastly, in the city's favor. And, most basically, it's a costly paradox: Coupled with San Francisco's 90 percent pensions for safety workers, the city incentivizes cops to both retire early and work past retirement.

Finally, the notion that lucrative rewards are necessary to coax police to work past age 55 indicates that the city's benefits system is perilously out of whack.

All that was left unsaid. But maybe it was being thought, as only Mirkarimi voted to continue DROP. Hopefully his quixotic effort was enough to win the good graces of the law enforcement unions. Because he sure did get diced by the windmill blades yesterday, for all the world to see.

Follow us on Twitter at @TheSnitchSF and @SFWeekly