State Retirement and Pension System - Forfeiture of Benefits
Impact
Should House Bill 9 be enacted, it would significantly impact the Maryland State Retirement and Pension System by enforcing stricter measures regarding the retention of benefits for public employees found guilty of specific crimes. The legislation is intended to bolster public confidence in state institutions by ensuring that those who take advantage of their positions to commit crimes cannot benefit from public retirement systems. However, it does exclude any offenses that occurred before the effective date of the Bill, establishing a clear boundary for its applicability.
Summary
House Bill 9 seeks to establish a legal framework for the forfeiture of retirement benefits for public employees who are convicted of qualifying crimes. It defines qualifying crimes as certain offenses committed during the performance of their public duties. The bill outlines the processes for the forfeiture of these benefits, including conditions under which benefits can be reclaimed if a conviction is subsequently overturned. This aims to ensure that public employees who breach the public trust by committing serious crimes face significant penalties that are reflected in their retirement benefits.
Contention
The bill has drawn attention and debate regarding its implications on employee rights and due process. Critics argue that the forfeiture might disproportionately affect employees facing accusations, especially before a final adjudication, potentially punishing individuals before they have had their day in court. Proponents counter this by underscoring the importance of maintaining integrity within public service roles, emphasizing that public servants must be held to high ethical standards given their responsibilities.
Requiring a criminal conviction for civil asset forfeiture and proof beyond a reasonable doubt that property is subject to forfeiture, remitting proceeds to the state general fund and requiring law enforcement agencies to make forfeiture reports more frequently.
Requiring a criminal conviction for civil asset forfeiture and proof beyond a reasonable doubt that property is subject to forfeiture, remitting proceeds to the state general fund and requiring law enforcement agencies to make forfeiture reports more frequently.
Requiring a criminal conviction for civil asset forfeiture, remitting proceeds from civil asset forfeiture to the state general fund, increasing the burden of proof required to forfeit property, making certain property ineligible for forfeiture, providing persons involved in forfeiture proceedings representation by counsel and the ability to demand a jury trial and allowing a person to request a hearing on whether forfeiture is excessive.
Specifying that certain drug offenses do not give rise to forfeiture under the Kansas standard asset seizure and forfeiture act, providing limitations on state and local law enforcement agency requests for federal adoption of a seizure under the act, requiring probable cause affidavit filing and review to commence forfeiture proceedings, increasing the burden of proof required to forfeit property to clear and convincing evidence, authorizing courts to order payment of attorney fees and costs for certain claimants and requiring the Kansas bureau of investigation to submit forfeiture fund financial reports to the legislature.
Specifying that certain drug offenses do not give rise to forfeiture under the Kansas standard asset seizure and forfeiture act, requiring courts to make a finding that forfeiture is not excessive, restricting actions prior to commencement of forfeiture proceedings, requiring probable cause affidavit filing and review to commence proceedings, increasing the burden of proof required to forfeit property to clear and convincing evidence and authorizing courts to order payment of attorney fees and costs for certain claimants.