Louisiana House Bill HB1174

Louisiana 2012 Regular Session

• Introduced: 4/3/12
• Refer: 4/4/12
• Report Pass: 5/7/12
• Engrossed: 5/16/12
• Refer: 5/17/12
• Report Pass: 5/21/12
• Enrolled: 6/1/12
• Chaptered: 6/5/12
• Passed: 6/5/12

Caption

Establishes "Hazardous Duty" and "Non-Hazardous Duty" subplans in the Municipal Police Employees' Retirement System for new hires after Dec. 31, 2012 (EN DECREASE APV)

Impact

This legislation will directly affect the retirement benefits of new hires within the police department, categorizing them into two distinct plans. Each of these subplans will outline specific eligibility requirements, contribution rates, and benefit structures tailored to suit the nature of the job performed. For instance, hazardous duty employees may have access to enhanced retirement benefits due to the increased risks associated with their positions compared to nonhazardous duty employees. This could lead to improved retention of officers in hazardous roles, while potentially discouraging the hiring of those for nonhazardous roles if benefits are perceived as less favorable.

Summary

House Bill 1174, introduced by Representative Danahay, is designed to amend existing provisions within the Municipal Police Employees' Retirement System (MPERS) by establishing two new subplans: the Hazardous Duty Subplan and the Nonhazardous Duty Subplan for employees hired after December 31, 2012. The primary objective of this bill is to delineate specific eligibility criteria and benefits for members based on the nature of their duties. Members classified under hazardous duty positions will have different retirement terms compared to those under nonhazardous duties, reflecting the operational risks associated with their roles.

Sentiment

The sentiment surrounding HB 1174 appears generally supportive among constituents aware of the distinctions between job duties within the police force. Stakeholders argue that tailored retirement plans will help in catering to the unique circumstances police officers face thereby addressing both stress and safety concerns linked to their responsibilities. However, there may be concerns about the long-term financial sustainability and equity between the two groups, especially how these differences may impact morale and department recruitment.

Contention

Notable points of contention may arise regarding equity within the MPERS as officers performing similar functions could have differing benefits and retirement eligibility criteria based solely on the designation of their job as hazardous or nonhazardous duty. Critics may argue that this distinction could foster resentment among officers doing equal work without recognition for the hazards they encounter. Furthermore, the financial implications of maintaining two separate retirement plans could lead to scrutiny regarding resource allocation and potential budget impacts on the state retirement system.