Proposal would raise retirement age to 70 from 65 for city police officers

For more than three decades, fate has struck Pittsburgh police at 65. By that age, they have to retire, or at least leave the city’s sworn force.

That would change under a proposal detailed for city council Wednesday by Wendell Hissrich, the public safety director. Put forth by Mayor Bill Peduto’s administration, the plan would raise the mandatory retirement age to 70 and should help keep experience in the ranks, Mr. Hissrich said.

He said some officers have voiced a wish to stay.

“We have numerous officers who’ve reached 65 and they’re going to work for other police departments,” Mr. Hissrich said. “If they want to stay here, why not keep them here in the city — and keep their experience and their knowledge and their training here in the city? That’s what’s behind this.”

Under tentative language, police who stay past age 65 wouldn’t need to meet any extra requirements. But the matter still faces review by city legal advisers, and any changes in policy would be vetted by the Fraternal Order of Police, Mr. Hissrich said.

He said dozens of members of the roughly 900-strong force face mandatory retirement by 2023. That group includes 25 officers, 11 detectives and 10 sergeants, according to the Department of Public Safety.

“We have to have those with experience, and we’re losing so many because of salaries” that are higher elsewhere, Councilwoman Darlene Harris said. She backed the administration’s proposal.

Still, other council members postponed a preliminary vote Wednesday to gather more details, including pension expenses

and other effects on the city budget. An initial vote could materialize in a week, when Officer Robert Swartzwelder, president of the Fraternal Order of Police Lodge No. 1, is expected to appear before council.

Officer Swartzwelder said he was withholding judgment until he learned more about the proposal’s intent and pension implications. The Rev. Ricky Burgess, who chairs council’s finance and law committee, said he was ambivalent as of Wednesday.

“We’re really voting for a budgetary impact,” he said. “I simply think, whatever that is, we should know what it is, agree to it and know what we’re committing to.”

Mr. Hissrich said he was not pursuing a similar policy change for city firefighters, who also face compulsory retirement by age 65. He signaled their union has not sought such a change. City paramedics and EMTs do not have a maximum retirement age.

Asked why the administration picked 70, Mr. Hissrich told the Pittsburgh PostGazette that “you have to draw a line somewhere.” He said he didn’t know why the city earlier made 65 the magic age.

“Do you want to make it 80? I don’t think so,” Mr. Hissrich said. “At some point, the workman’s compensation and everything is going to outweigh” the benefits.

Law allows public-sector employers to impose some mandatory retirement rules, largely with the idea of ensuring safety and sufficient service. At the National Fraternal Order of Police, President Chuck Canterbury said leaders believe local jurisdictions should bargain mandatory retirement ages.

“We advocate that police officers should be physically fit, and age 70 in some cases may be able to pass a physical fitness test,” Mr. Canterbury said in a statement. He said that “police officers’ bodies take a beating due to shift work, varying degrees of wear and tear, and the high stress level of dealing with traumatic incidents that cause undue stress, which has long-lasting physical effects.”

At Mr. Peduto’s office, chief of staff Dan Gilman called it “crazy” that Pittsburgh is kicking out ablebodied officers who don’t want to leave and effectively nudging them into other employers. Many can serve as mentors for younger officers, he said.

“Right now, we are forcing officers to retire who are in great health, great physical shape and some of our most experienced officers and detectives,” Mr. Gilman said.