David Doucet

To: Members of the Pension Advisory Working Group

My name is David A. Doucet. I began my career in Law Enforcement in 1985, beginning with the Pawtucket Police Department. Several years later, I transitioned to the Smithfield Police Department, before joining the Rhode Island State Police (RISP) in 1992. Upon completing 25 years of service with the State Police, I was statutorily retired from the Division on April 1, 2017, retiring at the rank of Detective Lieutenant.

To be clear and unambiguous, the purpose of this writing is to make the case that the State Police should never have been included in the 2011 RIRSA legislation. My remedy would be for the State Police to return to the requirements of the previous version of pension reform enacted in 2007. (I will elaborate on this in detail later in this writing). I acknowledge this testimony is lengthy, and I appreciate your attention to reading it in its entirety.

The brief that was prepared to inform and guide your Group in its mission includes the directive to “assess the impact of the RIRSA reforms, and proffer ‘options for consideration’ by the General Assembly (GA) to address any ‘unintended consequences’ of the RIRSA”. My written testimony here is intended to clearly explain and describe the devastating ‘unintended consequences’ inflicted upon the Division of State Police through the total and utter betrayal this legislation wrought upon its members.

It is of note that the RISP has no representation either with the Retirement Board or with this Working Group. Therefore, it appears there might not be anyone taking part in this review who fully understands the differences between the former State Police retirement system, when and why it was created, when it was past amended, and why inclusion of the State Police in the RIRSA was a colossal mistake. I say this not as criticism toward members of the Group, but as a simple observation. To assist you with your mission, I will attempt to provide a brief history of RISP pensions.

A Brief Bit of RISP Pension History

Troopers hired prior to legislation enacted in 1989-1990 did not monetarily contribute toward their pensions. Troopers were not vested in a pension until having successfully completed 20 years of service, at which time they were eligible to receive a pension equaling 50% of their current salary. Troopers accrued an additional 3% per year toward their pension, totaling 65% after 25 years of service, at which time Troopers were required by statute to retire. (note: other State employees were allowed to receive up to 80% of their salary at retirement). The cost and payment of RISP pensions for these members basically appeared as a line-item in the RISP operating budget as pensions for “pay-go” employees. Clearly, at that time, RISP pensions did not appear to be a concern to anyone.

Circa 1989 – 1990, the GA passed legislation creating the RISP Retirement System and Trust Fund (SPRBT). Troopers (new hires) were now required to contribute a percentage of their base salary to the Fund. (This amount was commensurate with the contributions made by other State employees). It is important to note that this new pension system DID NOT reach back to include all sworn members, just “new hires” post 1989. Those hired prior to 1990 continued to receive pensions under the old system without making monetary contributions. Under the new system, the terms of retirement and yearly percentages maxing at 65% at 25 years remained the same. The major differences with the new system were instituting monetary contributions by sworn members and a Fund to deposit contributions into and to make distributions therefrom.

Prior to 1990 and according to the RISP/RITA collective bargaining agreement, Troopers that “maxed out” their pensions at 25 years were free to either retire on their Training Academy start date, or by their Academy graduation date. It didn’t matter either way, as their benefits were well defined, and they made no financial contributions toward their pensions anyway.

In early 2010, a member of the 1990 Training Academy class submitted retirement paperwork that was to be effective on his Training Academy start date (June 1990) but was denied as not having accrued enough service time. (reminder, Troopers weren’t vested until they completed 20 years of service). A review revealed that the State had failed to deduct retirement contributions from members of the 1990 Training Academy class while they were in training. Therefore, regardless of contractual language, Troopers could now only retire at their Academy graduation date or slightly later, depending on when their first pension contributions were deducted and credited by the State. (This oversight continued for several additional Training Academy classes before being caught). Ultimately, the Retirement Board offered Troopers the opportunity to “buy back” their Academy time based upon a calculation using the salary earned while attending the Academy, calculating the pension contribution percentage based on that number, and adding 5% simple interest over however many years you had been out of the Academy. You weren’t required to participate in the buy back, but it was offered. For example, I purchased my 6 months of Academy time at a cost of approximately three-thousand dollars ($3000.00). This process took considerable time and was a very contentious issue for the Division internally.

Prior Pension Reform:

You all should have information relating to a prior version of “pension reform” that was implemented in 2007. Donald Carcieri was Governor, and the state was facing serious budget issues. Changes to the State retirement system were made then that did not seek to incorporate the State Police.

Due to recognition and understanding by the Governor and some in the GA, of the vast differences between the State Police and all other State agencies, particularly with regard to the uniqueness of our duties and responsibilities, our work schedules, our promotional system and rank structure, along with a myriad of additional valid and relevant reasons, the State Police were not lumped into this version of pension reform. That is not to say we were unaffected. Quite the contrary. Although we remained a separate entity with regards to retirement, there were still significant statutory changes made to the pension qualifications for Troopers at that time.

During the time the State was preparing these initial changes to the overall pension system, the RI Trooper’s Association (the representative negotiating body for RISP Troopers up to and including the rank of Sergeant), in agreement with the RISP Administration and acting in good faith, proposed a separate version of pension reform for the State Police, the critical distinction was that it applied to…wait for it… NEW HIRES ONLY! This proposal (which quickly became law) basically tacked 5 years of service onto the existing rules for retirement. New Troopers would now be required to complete 25 years of service before qualifying for a pension. The accrual of an additional 3% per year also continued, maxing out at 65% after 30 years of service. All other conditions for retirement remained unchanged. This seemed a fair and reasonable change to all concerned. Prior to applying, any potential new hire could decide for themselves whether or not these new terms for retirement worked for them. We also believed that based upon the significance of these changes, no further changes to our retirement system would be necessary into the foreseeable future.

However, in 2011, RIRSA became law. Instead of continuing to recognize the distinctions that mandate the RISP maintain a separate retirement structure, due to factors I would best describe as ranging from general indifference to outright ignorance, willful or otherwise, as to how our Agency is structured and how we operate, we were homogenized into the overall changes and were therefore subject to all of the provisions in the new law. Assuming you all have access to and are familiar with these changes, I will try and illustrate to you some of the ways in which these changes negatively affected Division personnel and therefore the Division as a whole.

A Little State Police Background

Once an applicant meets the basic requirements to submit an application for employment, in order to be considered for selection to a RISP Training Academy class, one must first successfully undergo and pass all phases of a rigorous testing regimen, which includes a written test, a physical agility test, an extensive physical examination, including a toxicology screen for illegal substances, a written psychological examination followed by an in-person interview with the State Psychologist and a background investigation so in-depth, that in the end, the State Police will know more about an applicant’s background than the applicant’s closest friends and family do. This entire process will often take in excess of a year to complete.

However, successfully passing these steps in the process does not guarantee a spot in the Academy, only that you are put on a list. If you are fortunate enough to then be selected, you can look forward to spending the next 6 months in an intense, live-in para-military training environment, where Trainees report to the Academy on a Sunday night and remain at the Academy until the following Friday evening, pending dismissal, and with limited contact to the outside world during the week. Should you graduate the Academy, you then undergo a 12-month probationary period during which time your suitability to continue as a RI State Trooper is constantly reviewed and evaluated. Only when you successfully complete your probationary period, do you then become a full-fledged member of the State Police. A position you have dedicated at least the last two and one-half years of your life to achieving. For most, preparation for these challenges started long before that time.

(To elaborate further on the terms and conditions of continued employment, upon graduating the academy in 1992, every three years thereafter, we were required to undergo an extensive physical examination conducted by the Division’s Physician. Only After successfully completing your physical and after the Division reviewed and approved of your service record, would you be sworn-in for another 3-year term. The final 3-year re-enlistment occurred at 18 years, which would bring a member to 21 years. At that time the member would receive the final 2 1/2% longevity increase. The major caveat was that according to statute, upon successfully completing 20 years a service and qualifying for a 50% pension, a sworn member then served at the pleasure of the Colonel, and regardless of rank and/or position, could be retired by the Colonel at any time without recourse).

Unintended Consequences:

Passing of the RIRSA, particularly the inclusion of the State Police in this overall pension reform legislation negatively affected Division personnel in a number of significant ways. Rank and file personnel felt utterly betrayed by a seemingly indifferent or incompetent bunch of elected officials unable to appreciate the potential future negative repercussions of this decision. Morale amongst the rank and file crashed. The term ‘feeling utterly betrayed” being a generous understatement to our true sentiments.

Because of a reputation earned over many decades of honorable and dedicated service to the citizens of the State of Rhode Island, the RI State Police historically attracted what were considered to be top-level candidates from a variety of different backgrounds. Members of the Division included former Federal Agents from the FBI, Secret Service and Immigration and Customs Enforcement. It also included other professionals such as Lawyers, Certified Public Accountants and Airline Pilots, as well as a large number of Law Enforcement Officers from other agencies, including local police departments from inside and outside of RI, along with a number of Troopers from other State Police agencies and a large number of highly qualified and experienced military veterans from every branch of service. Each one of these individuals having made important life decisions when considering a career with the RISP. based in-part but very importantly on an honest understanding of the terms of retirement as they existed at the time of hire. I can promise you that none of us ever conceived of the idea that the State of RI could, and more importantly would, do to us what was done under the RIRSA.

The following are some of the “unintended consequences” of the RIRSA as it was applied to the State Police.

Disparity Between Classes

When RIRSA went into effect on July 1, 2012, as far as retirement eligibility, RIRSA only affected those Troopers who would not be vested in a pension as of July 1, 2012. Meaning, for example, retirement requirements for members of the 1990 Academy class remained unchanged. (RIRSA also did not affect Troopers hired prior to 1990). For members of the 1992 Training Academy, my class, we straddled the line, so it actually depended on whether or not you “bought back” your Academy service time. If you did, then you were vested on our Academy start date of March 30, 1992, under the “old rules”. If you chose not to or were unable to afford to buy back your Academy time, then the Academy graduation date applied, (August 14, 1992). Those individuals were then subject to all the new retirement provisions under RIRSA. Going forward, the RIRSA lowered the credit for each year of service time completed, which extended the service time for retirement differently for each Academy class, and sometimes, differently for individual members of that class.

And again, because of the uniqueness of our Agency, this strict implementation caused a number of unanticipated but serious issues. For example, some members of the 1992 Academy class had taken extended maternity leave, as allowed by law. These individuals did not lose their seniority during their leave, but since they did not make pension contributions during this leave time, they subsequently lost enough service time so as to fall under the new RIRSA requirements. I can promise you these Troopers never anticipated anything like RIRSA when they were engaged in family planning. Is that fair to them? How then to fix it?

Early Promotional Penalty:

So along with pension reform also came the elimination/freezing of longevity pay increases. Longevity for members had been addressed and was included within the collective bargaining agreement between the Troopers Association and the State. (The loss of longevity basically cut the salary for a new Trooper by 20% over the length of their career). Prior to RIRSA, Sworn Members of all ranks would receive the following longevity increases; 5% at 5 years, an additional 2.5% at 8 years, 2.5% at 11 years, 5% at 15 years, 2.5% at 20 years, and 2.5% at 21 years, for a total 20% longevity after completion of 21 years of service. This was a fully anticipated part of a Trooper’s overall salary. One that was known to, considered by and then counted on by a potential applicant when preparing for a career with the State Police. The statute freezing/eliminating longevity did allow for longevity raises to continue if the employee was covered by a ‘valid, unexpired contract that included longevity increases’ in it, which the contract between the RITA and the State did include. However, the Trooper’s Association contract only included, and therefore only covered, sworn members being of the rank of Sergeant and below. Lieutenants and above were no longer eligible for the increases.

Case in point, I was promoted to the rank of Lieutenant on February 12, 2012, 46 days shy of my 21st anniversary with the Division, at which time I was eligible to receive my final longevity increase of 2.5%. Upon my promotion to Lieutenant, I immediately lost membership in the Trooper’s Association and therefore eligibility for coverage under the provisions of the collective bargaining agreement, including longevity increases. As a result, I was no longer eligible for and did not receive my final longevity increase of 2.5%. Other members in my situation but receiving promotion to Lieutenant after March 30th, 2012, would have and did receive the final 2.5% longevity increase prior to promotion. This created a situation in which junior members of a rank would by default earn more than those promoted earlier. There were many scenarios similar to, and more severe than the one described here. Some sworn members, depending upon their date of promotion to Lieutenant, lost 5% longevity…making 5% less than junior officers simply by having been promoted sooner. (this 5% ultimately translated into a lesser overall pension amount). We ‘affectionately’ dubbed this absurd inequity ‘the early promotion penalty’. This issue was well known at the time by the State Police Administration, the Governor’s office and the entire GA, but was never addressed. Remember, Troopers can’t complain out loud, so…there was no overt pressure to fix it.

Ageing Out:

A little know fact about the RI State Police is that sworn members, with the exception of the Colonel/Superintendent, must retire upon reaching age 62 (RIGL 42-28-22). As I stated earlier, prospective applicants base their decisions on a range of factors. In this profession, the requirements for retirement are now very near top of the list of issues applicants consider. Life expectancy may have gotten longer, but the duties, responsibilities and expectations of law enforcement officers has not gotten easier. Quite the contrary. So how old is too old? (as an aside, I’ll ask you to ponder the question as to the reasons why Troopers must retire at age 62 in the first place?). With either the 20/25 or later the 2007 25/30-year requirement for retirement, at least a prospective applicant could rely on those parameters, do the math, and see if the State Police was right for them. That’s only fair.

However, the RIRSA, as applied to the State Police, took none of this into consideration. There were many members of the Division who now could no longer max-out their pensions, as they would first age-out by reaching age 62. In fact, some Troopers would only just barely make it to 50% eligibility before ageing out. Others would make it to various percentages short of 65%.

There was at least one Trooper whom, after implementation of RIRSA, would actually reach age 62 PRIOR to accruing enough service time to reach 50% pension eligibility! You should certainly inquire of the State Police as to how this issue was resolved (I believe it resulted in yet another amendment to 48-2-28-22), and how many others were, because of inclusion in RIRSA, precluded from achieving their maximum pension benefit. The guarantee of which they had no reason to believe would ever be intentionally taken away.

Five Year Look-Back:

Prior to RIRSA and generally speaking, a member retired at a known percentage of their current salary, regardless of how long that individual had been receiving that salary. There were additional calculations made for Uniform members and those in Administrative positions, but the parameters were understandable, and a prospective retiree could have confidence in the final pension number they received. The equation was straight forward, understandable and fairly easy to verify and confirm as accurate. Again, then came RIRSA, which imposed what is generally a 5-year ‘look-back’ when calculating the pension eligibility and annual benefit a retiree is entitled to receive. This is an absurd, unprecedented standard for a professional Law Enforcement agency.

Your State Police is a para-military organization which operates under a strict command structure of which rank is an integral part. A Trooper’s career path is their own to choose to the extent they can. Many, but not all, seek a path of upward promotion, which of course includes an increase in salary and change in salary structure. (For example, a Detective Sergeant as compared to a Uniform Sergeant). RIRSA now requires a 5-year ‘look-back’ at a Trooper’s salary when calculating a pension benefit. Depending on seniority and rank at the time RIRSA went into effect, and because it applied to current members as opposed to just new hires, and because of the complexity of the calculation, many members receiving a retirement benefit as well as current members contemplating retirement have little confidence that the accuracy of the pension benefit calculated on their behalf is accurate, and no way to really confirm that it is. Promotions, combined with transfers of assignment occur frequently and complicate a pension calculation. More on this towards the end.

Losses In Employee Retention as an Inevitable ‘Unintended Consequence’:

So, there has been some reporting of late regarding the lack of recruitment numbers for Law Enforcement agencies needing to hire. Applicant numbers are down across the board, to a level some police administrators describe as critical. Certainly, a good portion of this is directly attributable to the anti-police sentiment and ‘defund the police’ type rhetorical nonsense we’ve all been hearing over the past several years. Lower recruitment numbers are a predictable result of this recent anti-police environment.

However, as I have described throughout this testimony, the Rhode Island State Police have historically attracted the best-of-the-best. Applicants, and ultimately Troopers, came from diverse backgrounds with sometimes disparate but unique, individual and collectively valuable skills, knowledge and abilities. Each successful Trooper has dedicated years simply preparing for the year-long application process. Often having to go through the entire selection process multiple times before ever being selected to what was once a highly coveted seat in a Training Academy. Therefore, each sworn member of the Division, having gone through an exhaustive selection process, a highly intensive, 6 month live-in Training Academy, months of scrupulous, detailed review of performance, plus a full 12 months of probation, a RI State Police Trooper is a valuable commodity, one in which the State has invested a great deal of time, effort and expense to recruit, train and equip so they may effectively perform the very necessary duties and responsibilities of a RI State Police Trooper. Therefore, each and every Trooper is a valuable asset to the State.

Historically, very few RI Troopers ever resigned their position with the State Police, particularly for that of a different Law Enforcement agency. In fact, there were so few, we knew by name the ones that had

One of the most foreseeable and certainly negative consequences of State Police inclusion in RIRSA, would be employee retention.

According to records provided by the State Police (pursuant to an official APRA request submitted by me), between the calendar years 2012 through 2023, inclusive, a total of twenty-two (22) sworn members of the State Police resigned their position prior to accruing enough service time to qualify for a pension.

Additional inquiries (not involving the RI State Police as an agency) revealed that the 22 Sworn Members who resigned from the Division between 2012 and 2023 left for the following positions,

Ten (10) went to the Massachusetts State Police.

Four (4) went to the FBI.

One (1) went to the D.E.A.

One (1) went to a local Fire Department

One (1) returned to a local police department in Massachusetts from whence he came.

Five (5) returned to the private sector and are no longer in Law Enforcement.

It is important to note that five (5) of these State Police resignations involved members assigned to the Detective Division. Assignment to Detectives indicates a heightened level of seniority, along with additional experience, abilities and training. The loss of such experienced Troopers is again unprecedented, and should serve as a warning as to the seriousness of the causes that lead to these resignations.

It is important to realize that the number of RI Troopers that have resigned their position is only a portion of the number looking to do so. Meaning, neither the Massachusetts State Police nor the FBI selected all the RI Troopers that applied. At least not this time. My understanding is there are significant numbers of Troopers still actively pursuing opportunities with other Law Enforcement agencies. This amount of loss will eventually prove unsustainable and potentially catastrophic to the operations of our State Police.

In Closing:

Prior to offering this testimony, I solicited input from a number of former colleagues, both active and retired, and received a variety of feedback. Some were cynical and predicted my writing would be an effort in futility. (being a realist, unfortunately I reluctantly lean that way). Others were supportive, and offered suggestions as to what should be included in this testimony. Still others were angrier than I am about the overall effect this homogenization has had on the Division, citing the attrition numbers over the past dozen years of those Troopers that sought employment elsewhere, and the pathetic recruitment totals. Without exception, they all expressed no doubt that, although the Division may have other problems, the genesis of these critical issues began with the State Police inclusion in the RIRSA.

Prior to passage and implementation of the RIRSA, the funding level of the SPRBT was at or near 100%. A further provision in the RIRSA ‘paused’ all COLA increases for all State pension funds, until all of the various funds were at or above 80% funding level, regardless that some funds might already exceed the 80% funding requirement, such as the SPRBT. (Note: Our COLA was a flat $1500.00 per year, not compounded, for which one became eligible to receive after having been retired for 3 years). More senseless homogenization.

I reiterate that the Rhode Island State Police, having undertaken significant pension reform in 2007, and for other reasons articulated here, should never have been included in the RIRSA. To do so showed an alarming ignorance (or worse) of how the State Police are structured, how we operated as an agency, and the crucial, critical differences between the State Police and all other State agencies.

Personally, I don’t have much of a complaint here. I made it in just under the pension reform wire. Sure, I lost 2.5% longevity and an annual COLA, but I fared far better than those Division members who lost much more. Imagine dedicating years of your life in pursuit of a career with the State Police, then finally making it. You then spend years dedicating yourself in the service of the State and protection of the general public, in all situations. Nights, weekends, holidays, order-backs, hold-overs, special details, special assignments, a focus on discipline and constant training, with an understanding and expectation that you can retire upon reaching those certain milestones in place when you began your career. Instead, your expected longevity increases are gone. The State has added years to your required service time. Because of the loss of longevity and the 5-year lookback, your eventual pension number is significantly less than you were promised when you made your commitment to the State. Some of you will age-out at age 62, prior to the opportunity to max-out your pension benefit, as you might have planned much earlier while making your life decisions with your family. Or maybe, you were that Trooper who would now age-out at age 62 before even qualifying for a minimum pension benefit! I have no words to accurately describe the depths of this particular betrayal.

By including the State Police in the RIRSA, the General Treasurer, the Governor, and some of those in the General Assembly at that time and in their short-sightedness, somehow failed or refused to understand, acknowledge or appreciate the overall uniqueness of the Rhode Island State Police, or just simply ignored it. The result is an agency, who once boasted recruitment numbers in the thousands for each Training Academy, the applicants for which now number in the mere hundreds, making it virtually impossible to fill a traditional Academy class of 35 to 40 individuals and an additional a reserve list. The State Police now find it necessary to settle for whatever number they can muster for each class and graduate whomever they can.

I believe the State Police (RITA), is a party to the only lawsuit still pending in Superior Court regarding RIRSA. I believe the State should find a way to settle this lawsuit in a way that returns the State Police to a more reasonable retirement framework. Although it seems a mess, I’m sure that all parties could find reasonable common ground in which to right a wrong that should never have happened in the first place.

And a Challenge:

Finally, I strongly encourage you all to at least take a cursory look at RIGL 42-28-22, the statute that governs and defines the retirement requirements for members of the RI State Police. To any of those up for this challenge, according to the provisions of 42-28-22, I ask you to determine after how many years of service and at what percentage of salary the following Trooper might retire. Pick any amount of salary you choose to work with to make it easy. This example is not about the monetary amount, but the process of calculating the defined benefit amount earned, and when it might be enjoyed.

“A Trooper joins the Division in the year 2000 at age 36, having attended the Training Academy from January through June. In 2008, they transfer into the Detective Division, working a 99-hour bi-weekly schedule, in which overtime is replaced by compensatory time, and where they receive an additional stipend in their salary for being assigned to Detectives. In 2012, they are promoted to the rank of Corporal and transferred back to the Uniform Division as a Shift Corporal, where they work a three-and-three schedule. They also lose the Detective stipend. Six months later, they are assigned as the Barracks Prosecution Officer, which works an entirely different schedule from that of a Shift Corporal (five-and-two). In 2015, they transfer back into the Detective Division as a Corporal, and again receive the stipend. In 2017, they are promoted to the rank of Sergeant and assigned to the Training Academy on an Administrative schedule. They are then promoted to the rank of Lieutenant in 2020, and are assigned as Night Executive Officer, a position in which they still serve. In 2021, this Trooper also purchased 2 years of military service time, but did not buy back their Academy time.” Following the provisions of RIGL 42-28-22 as amended, when is this Trooper eligible to retire, and at what percentage of their salary? How many longevity increases did they receive, and how many did they miss? This is not at all an uncommon-type scenario. I hope you give it a try.

Once you have hopefully at least taken a look at the statute, I ask you, do you actually believe that when Raimondo, et al, were pounding the square peg of State Police retirement benefits into the round hole of RIRSA, that anyone ever took a serious look at the State Police operational, promotional or retirement system to see if this inclusion was necessary, made any kind of sense at all, or would even be workable? The answer is crystal clear…by all accounts they did not, and as evidenced by the results, they simply could not have done so.

I thank you for hopefully having taken the time to read and consider this testimony in its entirety, and for your service on this Board. I offer this information for any consideration it may deserve. I am at your service, should you have any questions or require additional information.

Submitted via online webform