Bend officials have a perfectly reasonable explanation for their decision last year to slip then-police Capt. Kevin Sawyer more than $25,000 to go away.

Such payoffs “are not at all our standard practice,” City Manager Eric King told a Bulletin reporter this week. “There are individual circumstances. … We’re looking at our own risks and constructing an agreement that protects the city.”

Or, as City Attorney Mary Winters put it, employers sometimes offer severance packages to higher-level employees “if there’s any remote possibility of a claim against the city.”

We get it. As much as it must have hurt to hand Sawyer a big check, it might be cheaper in the long run than doing what most Bend taxpayers (and, no doubt, most Bend officials) would have preferred: grabbing his badge and kicking him to the curb. The decision was the right one.

But writing a big check doesn’t solve all of the problems the Sawyer saga has created for the city. Giving away public money is just the easy part.

The hard part is regaining the public trust that episodes like this one inevitably erode. We say “episodes” rather than “episode” because this isn’t the only time in recent memory that the conduct of a high-level police officer has embarrassed the city. And it isn’t the first time that such an employee, having embarrassed the city, retired suddenly, big check in hand.

Approximately two years ago, Deputy Police Chief John Maniscalco retired following an investigation into his response to a July 4 driving incident involving his girlfriend. A state probe found insufficient evidence to prove that Maniscalco had committed first-degree official misconduct. But Bend officials found the episode problematic enough to negotiate a separation agreement and hand Maniscalco a check for $53,300 — six months’ salary — on his way out the door.

To look at the small picture, the city’s handling of such episodes makes sense. Giving Maniscalco a check for $53,300 was cheaper than a number of possible alternatives. So was paying Sawyer $25,000.

To look at the big picture is to have an unsettling sense of deja vu — $50,000 for a deputy police chief, $25,000 for a captain. As retirement strategies go, getting yourself promoted in the Bend Police Department, then embarrassing your office isn’t half bad.

It seems to us that the best way to protect the public’s wallet is produce public safety leaders who behave in the way they’re supposed to. That way, there’s no need to pay anybody tens of thousands of bucks to scram.

So what, then, is the city doing to prevent Maniscalco/Sawyer payoffs in the future? We know one thing the city didn’t do: conduct an internal affairs investigation prior to pushing Sawyer out the door.

Why not? Because an FBI investigation targeting Sawyer and his wife “was all on personal business,” says King. “There was really nothing related to his employment.” Nevertheless, the city was obligated to put him on paid leave while the FBI did its work, and that long period of compensated idleness was going to cost a bunch anyway.

This attempt to split the personal and professional simply doesn’t wash. If the manner in which Sawyer conducted his personal business had no bearing on his professional life, then why was he placed on paid leave at all? And why was he shoved out the door? The fact is, it’s a professional matter when the FBI turns its magnifying glass on a police captain, period.

Sure, an internal affairs investigation would have cost money. But turning an uncomfortable light on Sawyer and his professional environment would, if nothing else, have reassured taxpayers that the city’s leaders are determined to identify and fix whatever problems the police department might have.

Earning the public’s trust is a whole lot harder than paying public officials to go away, but in the end government credibility has significant financial consequences, as well. Bend’s general fund woes are well known, and it’s no secret the City Council will probably ask residents to approve a tax hike in one form or another. Though it’s tempting to think that voters will say “yes” or “no” solely upon the basis of the city’s need for money, that’s not necessarily the case. Tax hikes give voters an opportunity to express their frustration — or support — for countless decisions involving their money over which they have absolutely no control.

Thus, paying Sawyer $25,000 now could cost the city millions later. Unless, that is, city leaders commit themselves to earning back the trust that some of their most senior employees have squandered.