Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Educational Incentive Program topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Audit urges ratable payments, finds union resistance to changing police educational incentive program
Summary
Audit staff told the Springfield City Audit Committee that the police educational incentive program uses a long‑standing November lump‑sum payout and auditors recommended ratable payments to reduce the city’s cost volatility.
Young Ngo, audit staff, told the Springfield City Audit Committee that the follow‑up review of the Police Department’s educational incentive program (EIP) reinforced earlier findings about documentation, timing and accounting treatment.
Background and why it matters: The EIP encourages sworn officers to obtain higher education. Auditors said about 300 officers received EIP payments in 2019 and reported total EIP payments of roughly $4,100,000 that year. State funding for the program was eliminated in 2010; Springfield’s negotiated approach maintains the benefit but reduced payments to 50% for officers hired after July 1, 2009.
Key findings and details
- Documentation and payment timing: Auditors found the department did not consistently retain degree copies and noted contract language lacked clear definitions for the base rate and payment dates. Historically Springfield paid EIP in a lump check in November; auditors recommended paying ratably throughout the year.
- Fiscal impact: Audit staff estimated that making EIP payments ratably through the year, rather than a November lump sum, could have saved the city about $230,000 because payments made in November often occur after annual wage increases.
- Operational details: The audit noted EIP payments were issued as live checks rather than direct deposit; auditors flagged the extra administrative burden and recommended defining the distribution method in the agreement.
Reactions and follow‑up
Bill Mahoney said the lump‑sum November payment is long‑standing and an expectation among officers; city negotiators raised the ratable model during bargaining but did not reach agreement in prior negotiations. Auditors said they had engaged other municipalities (Quincy and Brockton) that do make ratable payments.
Ngo said four audit recommendations were implemented, one was in process, and four were not implemented because they related to payroll system changes or were rejected in bargaining. The committee requested updated figures on current participation and costs; auditors said they would update the analysis and report back.
Ending
Audit staff will provide an updated analysis of current participation, payments and potential savings. Any contractual change to payment timing or method would require collective‑bargaining agreement with the union.
