|
Imagine that you've worked as a police officer and paid into MPERS for 16.5 years and decide to change employers. No, you're not moving across the country. You're going to work for a municipal police department about 25 miles away from your old one.
You complete the onboarding process with your new employer, who fails to enroll you in MPERS as required by law. Eventually, the retirement system figures this out and calls out your new employer, who claims (despite what the law requires) that they want nothing to do with police retirement. You try to get them to enroll you in MPERS, but your new employer basically says "if you want retirement benefits, we have no job for you."
It turns out you really like working for this new employer, which pressures you into filing an affidavit (which is required to be made of your own "free will," but don't worry about that if you want to keep your job) "opting out" of MPERS, which in turn irrevocably cancels all your credit in MPERS and refunds your employee contributions (principal only, no interest). Now, you'll likely never be able to retire with anything other than Social Security benefits. And if you become disabled or killed in the line of duty, the lifetime benefits for you or your survivors will be severely decreased.
Sounds outrageous? Well, it actually happened and instances like this are still happening. Fortunately, the board of trustees is seeking to end it by providing in HB 36 by House Retirement Chairman (and MPERS trustee) Rep. Tony Bacala that no affidavits can be filed after December 31, 2024.
Here's the deal. The law requires ALL MPERS employers (and, contrary to what the Louisiana Municipal Assocation says, there are NO municipalities who legally have opted out of MPERS) to enroll their police officers in MPERS on the first date that they become eligible (typically, their first day of work). Now, EMPLOYEES of employers who entered into an agreement with the federal government before July 1, 1973 to provide Social Security benefits to their officers may voluntarily opt out by filing an affidavit with MPERS (made of their own free will, not by force of employer) but only after first being enrolled in MPERS.
The problem is that some employers do one of two things — 1) pretend MPERS doesn't exist or 2) pressure police officers to opt out of MPERS. HB 36 seeks to stop this by putting an end to affidavits after 2024.
What would this result in? Increased membership, a lower employer contribution rate than would otherwise be required, and more money for COLAs for retirees. Who could be against that?
MPERS is looking to help these officers and wants to hear from anyone who was pressured into filing an affidavit or told by their employer that retirement benefits are not offered to municipal police employees. If you know someone affected, please call our office at 225-929-7411 or email us at emily@lampers.org.
Here's what else HB 36 would do:
- Extend the maximum DROP period from 36 to 60 months, which would benefit some police officers while actually saving money for employers.
- Once the oldest unfunded accrued liability is paid off in 11 years, begin a transition from DROP to Back-DROP.
- For members who become employed (police-related or otherwise) by a municipality post-retirement, reduce the suspension of the member's retirement benefit from the first 12 months following retirement to the first 60 days (the original period was 24 months).
- Codify an Attorney General's opinion regarding non-police officer employees.
- Allow police chiefs who retire with at least 25 years of service and return to work as a police chief for a different municipality to continue to receive benefits by filing an affidavit to opt out of any additional benefit (but he and the employer will still have to contribute to MPERS).
- Provide application deadlines for survivor and optional beneficiary benefits.
Chairman Bacala also filed HB 43, which would do the following:
- Require MPERS employers to submit to the retirement system a fully completed membership enrollment form and a copy of the birth certificate and Social Security card for each member it employs and his beneficiaries within 90 days after employment.
- Provide that an employer that does not submit the required materials and physical examination within 90 days shall pay a fine of $100 per day per member whose documents have not been submitted, subject to a maximum of $2,000 per member. Provide for interest on unpaid amounts. Provide that no retiree or beneficiary shall receive benefits if the documents are not received, and fines not paid. Provide that an affidavit opting out of membership in the system, as authorized by present law, is not effective until the date that such documents are provided and fines are paid.
- Provide that if a police officer member of the board of trustees with no more than two years left in his term becomes a retiree of the system or is no longer a police chief, he shall continue to serve as a member of the board until the expiration of the term for which he was elected.
- Provides for employer reporting and penalties for failure to report.
- Provides for a fairer determination and payment for municipalities who partially dissolve their police departments.
If you support Chairman Bacala's HBs 36 and 43, please contact members of the House Retirement Committee, which will initially hear the bills. Committee members' contact info can be found on the committee's website.
You can also find your own representatives by using this tool. They would appreciate your input on these bills and those below.
| 
