State Retirement and Pension System - Forfeiture of Benefits
Impact
The bill specifically applies to members, former members, and retirees of various state retirement systems, including police and teachers' pension systems. It seeks to ensure that public employees are held accountable for their actions while in service, thereby affecting how retirement benefits are managed in cases of misconduct. Importantly, the proposed law would apply prospectively, which means it won't affect benefits or decisions related to crimes committed prior to its enactment.
Summary
House Bill 98 addresses the forfeiture of benefits for public employees within the State Retirement and Pension System upon conviction of certain crimes. It establishes a structured process whereby benefits can be forfeited if a public employee is found guilty of, pleads guilty to, or enters a plea of nolo contendere for a qualifying crime. The legislation outlines the procedures for implementing such forfeiture and also details the processes for reversing a forfeiture if a conviction is subsequently overturned. This legislative change aims to enhance accountability and responsible governance among public sector workers.
Contention
A notable point of contention surrounding HB 98 is the concern raised by some stakeholders about potential impacts on employees' rights and their families. While the bill is designed to increase accountability, critics worry that it may unduly penalize employees whose convictions may later be overturned, affecting their financial security and that of their dependents. The discussion suggests a need for balance between holding public employees accountable and ensuring fair treatment in cases of wrongful conviction.
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.