Page 33 - WEST FOP BlueNote Nov-Dec 2017 Issue NEW FINAL

Continued From Page 31

for an officer to find all of this out while sitting on the side of a road or standing on a sidewalk somewhere. It’s
just not workable.”

The FOP received much positive media coverage. President Hagler was interviewed by a local TV station in

Charlotte, Sergeant-at-Arms Greg Brown was interviewed in Rocky Mount and I was interviewed in Raleigh. Numerous

newspapers and on-line news reports quoted from the Press Release.

The Chiefs of Police Association and FOP were the only two law enforcement organizations to speak out in

opposition.

House Bill 746 passed the House on June 8th and was sent to the Senate. It was referred to the Senate Committee

on Rules and Operations of the Senate on June 12, 2017 and has seen no action since that time.

Two bills very much of interest to law enforcement were introduced this Session, both purporting to allow for

retirement after 25 years of service. Neither bill is a version of a 25 year retirement with unreduced benefits which has

been introduced in the House and Senate six to seven times by the FOP over the past 15 years.

I had heard rumors of the bills and talk with the primary sponsor of each in the Senate, then in the House, prior

to introduction to explain the history of this endeavor and the goals of the Fraternal Order of Police on behalf of all law

enforcement.
The first to be introduced was Senate Bill 199 “Law Enforcement Officer Retirement/25 Years.” It is substan-

tially similar to the bills sought by the FOP in the past and would give law enforcement officers who are members of the
Teachers and State Employees’ Retirement System and the Local Governmental Employees’ Retirement System the

option to retire after completing 25 years of creditable service. (Currently, officers need to complete 30 or more years of

creditable service in order to maximize their retirement benefit.)

State law enforcement officers opting to retire after 25 years of creditable service would continue to use the
current percentage of 1.8% of the officer’s average final compensation to calculate their retirement pay. The number
arrived at by multiplying this percentage by the officer’s average final compensation would then be multiplied by the
officer’s years of service to get the officer’s retirement pay. Local law enforcement officers would continue to use the
current percentage of 1.85% of the officer’s average final compensation to calculate their retirement pay. However, the

monthly retirement benefit for an officer retiring with only 25 years of creditable service because the officer would be

working fewer years, and therefore would receive less retirement money per month.

The bill would also allow State and local law enforcement officers to collect their special separation allowance
after 25 years of creditable service. The officer would still receive 0.85% of the officer’s most recent annual compensa-
tion. The officer’s monthly special separation allowance benefit would be less because the officer would have worked

fewer years, but the officer would collect the benefit for five additional years. This bill was assigned to the Committee

on Rules and Operations of the Senate and saw no action thereafter.
House Bill 284, “25-Year LEO Retirement Option,” is in some ways similar to Senate Bill 199, “Law Enforce-

ment Officer Retirement/25 Years,” but this bill would also create a provision that would allow, but not require, any State
or local government employer to offer a lump sum payout of an officer’s special separation allowance to the officer if

the officer chooses to take a reduced retirement (such as the 25 year retirement option). The lump sum payout by the

employer would not be able to exceed the total amount of money the officer would normally receive in special separation

allowance payments had the officer stayed for a full 30 year retirement.

Both bills had been recently introduced at the time of the Spring Board meeting in Lexington, NC. After much

discussion and debate, the full Board affirmatively voted to support Senate Bill 199. After a number of conversations

with the primary sponsor of SB 199, it became evident to me that it would not make it out of the Senate Rules Committee

to be heard in any committee.

House Bill 284 was heard in the House Committee on Pensions and Retirement, then the House Appropriations

Committee. It passed the House on June 29, 2017 and was sent to the Senate. It was referred to the Senate Committee

on Rules and Operations of the Senate the next day and has seen no action since.
Swirling underneath all of this was the undercurrent (more like a dangerous riptide!) of overhauling the State’s

pension system.

Ending government pensions for future State employees and teachers would make it hard for the state to fill jobs,

numerous workers' representatives have warned State Senators as they discuss a proposal to limit retiree benefits. Some

Senate Republicans say the costs of having retirees on the State Health Insurance Plan and offering them a guaranteed

monthly income in retirement is too big a financial burden for the State. Legislators want to offer 401(k) plans rather

than pensions to future State employees, and stop giving them health coverage in retirement. The bill attempting to do so

covers state employees, teachers, and some local government employees hired after June 30, 2018. The idea is referred

to as a “defined contribution plan.” Continued On Page 39

www.ncfop.org 33