By Shavonne Walker and Mark Wineka
shavonne.walker@salisburypost.com

SALISBURY — To John Howard, his years with the Rowan County Sheriff’s Office are pretty straightforward.

He underwent basic law enforcement training in 2005 and was sworn in as an officer with the Sheriff’s Office in 2006. From that day to the present, Howard says, he has maintained arrest powers, been empowered to serve warrants, worked on drug busts and even written citations.

“I can pull my citation book and show you where I’ve written citations,” he said.

Howard refers to his badge: “The last time I looked, it says ‘deputy sheriff’ on here.”

Also from his first day with the Sheriff’s Office, Howard has worked almost exclusively as a transportation officer, getting prisoners from the detention center to courtrooms for hearing and trials. He has filled in as a bailiff on occasion. All these duties require a sworn officer, not a civilian, Howard said.

And as he fights for increased retirement benefits from the county, Howard stresses that he’s never worked a day in the jail during his 13 years with the Sheriff’s Office. That’s relevant because of the implications it will have for his compensation after retirement.

“I just want them to fix it and make it right,” he said.

From the county viewpoint, Howard is not being treated unfairly. County Manager Aaron Church released a statement Friday afternoon in connection to Howard’s claims saying the county “appreciates all law enforcement officers’ dedication and commitment to the safety of Rowan County citizens,”

“All Rowan County employees’ retirement compensation and benefits are provided equitably within the guidelines of federal and state law as well as local policies and ordinances in effect at the employee’s date of hire or as may be amended,” Church said in a statement provided to the Post. “All retirement eligibility requirements and benefits are explained thoroughly to each newly hired employee.”

Right for everyone else

Former Sheriff George Wilhelm hired Howard. And Howard said he has received approval from current Sheriff Kevin Auten to pursue the matter with county officials.

Howard said he also discussed his situation with former HR Director Boling before she retired and met with Church, but “it was absolutely not a good meeting.” Howard also had a brief meeting Friday at the County Administrative Building that included Church, Dees, Human Resources Director Kelly Natoli and Post reporters.

During his early years with the Sheriff’s Office, Howard was classified for pay purposes as a detention officer, or as a non-sworn officer. That affected what the county was contributing to his 401(k) retirement account. For non-sworn officers, the contribution was 3%; for sworn officers it was 5%.

Then came a 2015 lawsuit filed by former sheriff’s Deputy John Knight, who ended up receiving a $40,000 settlement from the county over retirement payments.

Knight had been a deputy and a sergeant in the drug unit from 1982 to 2004, when he was moved to the jail. For pay purposes, Knight was then classified as a non-sworn detention officer, though he maintained all the certifications required of a sworn officer.

In his suit, Knight contended that the reclassification cost him additional contributions to his 401(k) and a retirement allowance provided only to sworn officers, which he claimed he was all along.

“If you made it right for one, why wouldn’t you make it right for everyone else?” Howard asked in an interview with the Post.

Knight retired in 2013 and reached the settlement in 2015. In reaction to the suit, the Rowan County Board of Commissioners declared certain other law enforcement officers eligible for the retirement benefits, retroactive to 2013.

In doing so, they paid a lump sum of $5,554.41 to former Deputy Thomas Lane and payments totaling about $5,114 to former Deputy James Ferree. Lane and Ferree received money because they had retired in the previous two years, though they hadn’t filed lawsuits.

Meanwhile, commissioners also approved a personnel policy recognizing 21 county employees — including Howard — as sworn law enforcement officers, giving them the increase in county contributions to their 401(k) plans — from 3% to 5% — and access to the retirement allowance for sworn officers.

But the catch for Howard was that these changes became effective only in 2016 and moving forward.

Policy change

A Nov. 23, 2015, memorandum from former Human Resources Director Darlene Boling referenced this change as a “clarification for sworn law enforcement officer benefits in the Detention Center and reclassification of positions.”

“As a result of the board’s decision to recognize specific positions in the Detention Center as sworn officers, a change in policy is needed to clarify the benefits for sworn officers whether the positions are in the Sheriff’s Office or Detention Center,” Boling’s memo said.

Boling went on to define a sworn law enforcement officer as an employee who has the power of arrest, has taken the law enforcement oath under the authority of the state and is a certified law enforcement officer under the provisions of Chapter 17E of the general statutes.

“Sworn officers employed in positions in the Detention Center,” Boling continued in her memo, “will be reclassified to sworn positions eligible to receive sworn law enforcement retirement benefits including the N.C. Governmental Employees’ Retirement for Local Law Enforcement Officers, 5% 401-k contribution and eligibility for the LEO Special Separation Allowance.

“Only the positions approved by the Rowan County Board of Commissioners to be designated as sworn law enforcement positions will be eligible to receive LEO retirement benefits.”

Where it gets complicated for Howard is that he was classified as an officer at the Detention Center from 2006 to 2015. Again, he notes he never worked one day at the jail, was employed as a sworn officer at the courthouse and, over that 10-year period, the county contributions to his 401(k) were 3%, not 5%.

Also, the “personnel policy clarification” written in 2015 meant, from the county’s point of view, he has fallen under the provisions of the “Law Enforcement Officers’ Separation Allowance” only since 2016.

Under that personnel provision, the state provides to qualified retiring sworn law enforcement officers a separation allowance equal to 85% of their annual pay multiplied by the officers’ total creditable service. That retirement allowance is paid biweekly. Officers who qualify must have completed 30 years of service with the N.C. Local Governmental Employees’ Retirement System or reached 55 years of age and completed five or more years of creditable service.

Or if they have not reached 62, they must have completed a minimum of five years of continuous service as a law enforcement officer immediately preceding a retirement.

‘Hindering me from retirement’

The trouble for the 58-year-old Howard is the date at which the county considers his law enforcement officer experience to have started. Right now, he does not qualify for the officers’ separation allowance because he doesn’t have the five years of continuous service since 2016. Howard said he thinks his separation allowance should be based on his years of service since 2006.

“I want to retire now, but I can’t retire,” Howard says. “They’re hindering me from retirement.”

County Attorney Jay Dees says there is a big difference between the Knight case and Howard’s claims. In simplest terms, Knight was eligible to retire and Howard isn’t.

Howard has three years and needs five to qualify for the separation allowance, Dees said.

And, Dees said, Howard knew he was considered a non-sworn officer in pay status before 2016.

“We’re confident we’re not treating him any differently than anyone else,” Dees said.

He also emphasized that the county cannot reclassify Howard retroactively and could not pay a lump sum into the state retirement system.

Meanwhile, Church said he and the county commissioners, when it comes to approving a budget, approve only a certain number of positions in the Sheriff’s Office and aren’t privy to how they are classified.

‘Won’t make it right’

Howard said he’s unsure how his 401(k) plan compensation might be different because of the 10 years in which he was classified as a detention officer, though it’s certainly lower than it would have been if he received the 5% contribution.

Why did Howard wait until now to make his concerns public?

“The rumor mill was (county officials) were going to make it retroactive and make it right, but they chose not to,” Howard said.

And why not hire an attorney and pursue the matter in court? Howard said he hasn’t ruled that option out.

“We shouldn’t be having this conversation,” he says. “It’s sad people we count on and vote for won’t make it right.”

Contact Mark Wineka at 704-797-4263 and Shavonne Walker at 704-797-4253.