Legally, there is nothing wrong with the practice known as double-dipping that allows a “retired” public employee to take another job in the public sector.

That’s part of the problem.

The Merriam Webster dictionary defines a double-dipper as “a person who collects both a government pension and a government salary.”

As detailed in the recent Telegraph series “The Double Dip,” about one in 10 retirees in the New Hampshire retirement system have gone back to work for a government entity – often the same one they previously worked for and sometimes just days after they retired.

One striking example is New Hampshire State Police Col. Robert Quinn. The head of the state police – who is “retired” as a trooper – took home $199,715 in 2013, including a $93,791 pension and a salary of $105,924. He’s been collecting retirement benefits since 2010.

Then there’s state Corrections Commissioner William Wrenn, who took home $215,949 in 2013 as both a retiree and a full-time worker for the state.

It’s all perfectly legal, and there are arguments to be made that the practice can be in the best interests of taxpayers when a public employee retires, collects a pension and then takes a second job – often “part time” (wink, wink) – in the public sector. Taxpayers get the benefit of an experienced employee without having to pay into the pension fund, since the employee is technically “retired.” Of course, a lot of workers might not retire were they not allowed to double dip, so the practice cuts both ways.

The problem is, it feels slimy when a public employee “retires” and goes right back to work in the same field. They may be in the minority, but it makes a mockery of the system by allowing a select class of workers – often from the ranks of law enforcement – to be rewarded like they’re some kind of royalty.

Unfortunately, double-dippers aren’t even the worst part of the state’s retirement system problem. That honor would go to the $4.5 billion unfunded liability in the retirement system, much of which will have to be made up by taxpayers. We have the Legislature to thank for that mess. Lawmakers slashed the state’s contributions to the system, putting the finishing touches on a bait-and-switch maneuver that was designed to entice municipalities and school districts to join the state retirement system by having the state pick up a large part of the tab. It worked, and local taxpayers got stuck with the bill when the state cut back on its share. It’s no accident that local contributions to the retirement system have more than doubled in the past 10 years.

But why should you care?

Because the more taxpayer money that gets sucked up by the system to pay for the retirement of cops, firefighters and teachers, the less there is to pay for things like cops, firefighters, and teachers. Not to mention wish-list projects like a new arts center, snowplows, infrastructure improvements and support systems for children, the elderly and the poor.

Lawmakers should bring an end to this shameful retirement gravy train by acting to restore public confidence in the system. They could begin by applying the same rules to public employees that apply to the private sector, where most workers aren’t allowed to tap their pensions without penalty until they turn 62.

Don’t expect workers to go along without a fight. The New Hampshire Supreme Court ruled last week that the Legislature was within its rights in 2011 when it raised the rate at which public employees already in the system were required to contribute toward their retirement. That decision didn’t sit well with the New Hampshire Retirement Security Coalition, a group of state and municipal employees – including teachers, police and firefighters – who blasted Wednesday’s court ruling, saying it “unfortunately allows public employers to renege on their promise of security in retirement.”

Renege?

Like when a cop “retires,” then shows up on the public payroll a few days later?