Louisiana House Bill HB325

Louisiana 2011 Regular Session

• Introduced: 4/14/11
• Refer: 5/3/11

Caption

Relative to the La. State Employees' Retirement System (LASERS), allows certain individuals to rescind their originally selected retirement option under certain circumstances (OR NO IMPACT APV)

Impact

If enacted, HB 325 would introduce flexibility for DROP participants, thereby potentially enhancing their financial outcomes upon retirement. By allowing revocation of the originally selected retirement option, the bill permits participants to switch to the more advantageous maximum benefit option under conditions deemed acceptable. This change would have the effect of increasing the monthly retirement income for qualifying participants, who may have initially chosen a reduced benefit to account for a beneficiary.

Summary

House Bill 325 aims to amend the Louisiana State Employees' Retirement System (LASERS) by allowing certain participants in the Deferred Retirement Option Plan (DROP) to revoke the benefit option they selected upon entry into the plan. This provision enables participants who meet specific criteria, such as being unmarried at the time of revocation and having initially chosen lower benefit options, to revert to the maximum benefit allowance. The bill outlines a structured approach to revocation while ensuring that participant accounts remain unaffected retroactively.

Sentiment

The sentiment towards HB 325 appears cautiously optimistic among supporters, who believe that the ability to revoke an option will provide necessary relief for those who may feel they made a hasty decision under initial circumstances. However, concerns have been voiced regarding potential implications for the overall financial stability of the retirement system and the fairness of allowing certain individuals to change their options post-selection.

Contention

Notable points of contention include the conditions under which participants can revoke their options. Critics may question the fairness of allowing revocations only for those who meet particular marital status criteria, which could be seen as discriminatory towards participants in different personal situations. The debate surrounding HB 325 is likely to focus on the balance between providing participants with more choice and ensuring the sustainability of retirement benefits for all members.