When retirements play hide-and-seek with tax money

Succession planning and public celebration typically accompany executive retirements. They provide for an orderly leadership transition and public acknowledgment of a job well done.

 

So, two simple questions arise whenever top government employees leave their jobs in hastily announced retirements — and receive more than the customary coffee-and-cookies going-away reception in return for signing customized contracts containing waivers, releases and promises not to criticize.

 

What exactly are we paying for?

 

And why?

 

The recent “retirements” of David Dostal, the Cedar Rapids police chief, and Scott Ourth, Polk County’s director of general services, illustrate why these questions and answers are important.

 

Dostal, 57, who was paid about $190,000 annually, announced earlier this month he is retiring, effective January 1, after serving as chief for the past two and a half years. He has been a police officer in Cedar Rapids for nearly 35 years.

 

When Dostal became chief in 2024, Mayor Tiffany O’Donnell praised his advancement through the ranks of the police department, his selection over top national police leaders and his commitment to leading with integrity.

 

Nothing said then suggested any doubts about his qualifications or ability to oversee the department. But these facts do:

 

Although his retirement does not take effect until January 1, Dostal’s last day of work will be October 1. From October 2 through December 31, he will be on paid administrative leave and will continue receiving city health insurance.

 

Within 10 days after his retirement date, Dostal will receive a lump-sum severance payment of $191,096 — equal to six months’ salary plus his accrued, unused time off.

 

While Dostal’s departure is portrayed as a voluntary retirement, he was handed a copy of the retirement agreement on September 1 and was given 21 days to accept or reject it. 

 

In addition, the agreement binds both Dostal and city officials from making any “derogatory, disparaging, or negative remarks … likely to cause harm to the reputation, business, or interests of the other.”

 

Does that sound like a typical retirement arrangement?

 

Meanwhile, in Des Moines, Scott Ourth, 67, a former Warren County state legislator, has been employed by Polk County for four years. His annual salary was $158,700. His retirement took effect September 22, although his last day at the office was weeks earlier, on July 31.

 

Ourth’s retirement was sweetened by payment of six months’ salary for what the county called a “department head benefit,” plus a $2,000 payout for sick leave. He also will have county-paid health insurance for 12 months after retirement.

 

As with Dostal, Ourth and Polk County agreed in writing “not to make any public statements which materially disparage the other party” unless required by court order.

 

Those arrangements deserve scrutiny in light of two additional facts not mentioned in the retirement agreement:

 

Ourth is the subject of two sexual-harassment lawsuits filed against Polk County by two female county employees. And his deputy, Thomas Alessio, was fired by Polk County earlier this summer over unspecified “inappropriate behaviors and conduct.” Alessio, unlike Ourth, received no compensation on his way out the door beyond his earned wages.

 

Make no mistake, like private employees, public servants should get paid what they earned, including retirement payments calculated under established rules and policies.

 

But when a government employee leaves with tens of thousands of dollars in additional taxpayer-funded compensation for unexplained reasons — particularly after only a few years in their current position — it is appropriate to ask why. That question becomes even more important when the agreement restricts what the former employee and employer can say about each other.

 

At that point, a retirement package stops being merely a personnel matter and becomes a public accountability issue.

 

If the departing executive receives compensation beyond what was earned on the job, the public deserves to know the circumstances and rationale for the agreement, including the reasons for any mutual promises to say only good things about one another.

 

Not every detail of a government employee’s life should become public. But the justification for spending public money should not be hidden behind the words “personnel matter” or a ginned-up excuse of retirement.

 

Normal retirement benefits are earned as part of long-term compensation and retention plans. A lucrative settlement negotiated outside programs available to all employees is different.

 

The public deserves enough information to determine whether the additional payments represent a legitimate obligation or an extraordinary exercise of administrative discretion.

 

City and county governments are not private corporations. Their money belongs to the public, and their leaders and employees are entrusted with the public’s confidence.

 

Taxpayers are rightly uncomfortable with the idea their tax money might be used to purchase silence about the circumstances surrounding any public employee’s departure, especially when the employee is a highly compensated leader who leaves precipitously.

 

The public should not have to wonder whether a large payment was made because an employee was exceptionally valuable, because the government exposed itself to legal liability, because elected officials made a mistake, or because those in charge simply wanted a controversy to go away quietly.

 

“Personnel matter” should not become a magic phrase that turns government expenditures into private secrets and public doubt.