A case of "double dipping"

Mayor Tomas Regalado vetoed a "double dipping" incident last week at City Hall. 

The City Commission voted 3-2 to allow four retired employees to come back to work for the City, which would of course allow them to receive a salary and also keep their City pension. 

This sounds crazy when you think about it. At first glance I agree with the Mayor, especially since it was only available for four high paying jobs. But what's the difference if the people went elsewhere to work. While it is a case of double dipping, it's a legal case. Isn't it?

District Commissioner Marc Sarnoff proffered the bill and Commissioners Michelle Spence-Jones and Willy Gort voted in favor, Commissioners Francis Suarez and Frank Carollo voted against it.

From the Miami Herald report, "Some critics speculated the bill was crafted for a pair of outgoing senior assistant city attorneys who are set to retire at the same time as City Attorney Julie Bru at the end of September. Under the new law, if either Assistant City Attorney Maria Chiaro or Warren Bittner got Bru’s job, their yearly compensation would exceed $350,000."

The report went on to say, "Sarnoff denied the bill was crafted for any one individual. He said it was necessary because the city needs experienced personnel in the four positions at issue.Several residents and the city’s fire and police unions spoke out against the change."

I can understand that the city needs experienced personnel, but why not reach out for some fresh blood? But then again, if the four people got jobs in another municipality, how is that different? They did their time here and now they want to work again. 

I am torn on this issue, I don't know what the answer is. Both sides make good points. While I usually agree with the police and fire unions, how many careers does a cop or fireman have? So many work 20 years then go on to other careers, isn't this similar to double dipping?

What do you think?