Louisiana House Bill HB229

Louisiana 2010 Regular Session

• Introduced: 3/29/10
• Refer: 3/29/10
• Refer: 4/29/10
• Refer: 5/3/10
• Engrossed: 5/12/10
• Refer: 5/13/10
• Report Pass: 5/24/10
• Enrolled: 6/9/10
• Chaptered: 7/8/10
• Passed: 7/8/10

Caption

(Constitutional Amendment) Relative to public retirement systems, requires a 2/3 vote to enact any changes to retirement provisions having an actuarial cost (EN NO IMPACT APV)

Impact

If passed, HB 229 would amend Article X, Section 29 of the Louisiana Constitution. The change would introduce a higher threshold for altering retirement benefits, making it more challenging for legislators to pass modifications unless there is a clearly identified funding source to cover any new costs associated with such benefits within a decade of enactment. This may enhance the financial stability of state retirement systems by preventing unfunded liabilities and ensuring that any enhancement to retirement benefits is backed by secure funding. However, it also could limit the flexibility of the legislature in responding to changing economic conditions and the needs of public employees.

Summary

House Bill 229 is a proposed constitutional amendment aimed at modifying how benefit provisions for public retirement systems in Louisiana are enacted. The bill mandates that any changes to benefit provisions that have an actuarial cost must be approved by a two-thirds vote of the elected members in both houses of the legislature. This requirement for a supermajority vote serves to ensure that significant changes to retirement benefits require a broad consensus among lawmakers, reflecting the importance of these provisions for public employees and retirees in the state.

Sentiment

The sentiment around HB 229 appears to be mixed among stakeholders. Supporters argue that requiring a two-thirds majority for actuarially costly benefit changes is a prudent fiscal measure that protects the integrity of retirement systems. Opponents may view the bill as unnecessarily restrictive, potentially hampering the legislature's ability to make timely adjustments to benefits that reflect changing social and economic landscapes. Overall, the discussion reflects broader concerns regarding fiscal responsibility versus the need for adaptive governance in managing public employee benefits.

Contention

Notable points of contention include the implications the bill has for local governance and the state's ability to manage its public employee benefits in an agile manner. Critics argue that such a high voting threshold might create barriers to beneficial changes, particularly in urgent situations where timely reform is required, while proponents emphasize the need for careful financial planning and accountability in public retirement systems. The debate encapsulates the ongoing struggle to balance fiscal prudence with the need to meet the welfare expectations of public service employees.