Capitol Police Pay and Personnel Systems: Dual Systems Create Differences

GAO discussed the House of Representatives' and Senate's split administration of Capitol Police Force personnel matters. GAO noted that: (1) Force members on the House payroll could retire at a reduced annuity after 25 years of service, while the Senate required its Force members to complete 30 years of service; (2) proposed legislation sought to make the Capitol Police retirement requirements more comparable to those of other law enforcement agencies; (3) the House placed members taking involuntary leave on a leave-without-pay status, while the Senate provided personnel on involuntary leave with reduced pay to cover their share of basic benefits; (4) the Senate authorized 81 civilian positions within the Force, while the House did not authorize any civilian positions; (5) the Capitol Police Board estimated that civilians could occupy 114 positions in addition to the 81 civilian positions, and saving about $21,000 in the first year of civilian assignment; (6) all Force members had access to an internal employee grievance process, but House Force members could also address grievances through avenues available to all House employees; (7) differences between House and Senate treatment of Force members developed more as a result of differences between their pay and personnel systems than through specific concerns about Force personnel administration; and (8) little progress has been made toward unifying the Force into a more efficient organization.