> It's realized after retirement, as I said earlier. I don't know whether you genuinely believe that money received after retirement doesn't count, but I think

> It's realized after retirement, as I said earlier. I don't know whether you genuinely believe that money received after retirement doesn't count, but I think I'll stop repeating myself now :) It doesn't count in annual take-home. The original article implies (through singling out) that these "poop patrol" employees are somehow being disproportionately enriched, when the reality is that their take-home is ordinary for civil servants in SF (and below the city's average take-home). Being below the average take-home makes sense, in turn, given that the position is pensioned. But the article makes this staid arrangement sound like graft.