ASSEMBLY BILL #A10252-A SAME AS SENATE BILL #S7990
APPROVAL MEMORANDUM - No. 34 Chapter 585
MEMORANDUM filed with Assembly Bill Number 10252-A, entitled:
"AN ACT to amend the retirement and social security law, in relation to the mandatory retirement age of police officers and firefighters who have elected to contribute to the New York state policemen's and firemen's retirement system"
APPROVED
Outside of New York City, most police officers participate in the pension plan set forth under Retirement and Social Security Law Section384-d. Under this plan, an officer must retire at age 62 or transfer toa different retirement plan that would require more years of work toreceive a comparable benefit. As a result, for almost all such officers,62 has become the de facto retirement age unless a lower mandatory ageis provided for by law for a specific locality.
This bill would raise the age at which an officer can participate in aSection 384-d plan to 65, provided that an officer over the age of 62 is"capable of performing the duties" of the position. I am highly sympathetic to the policy that underlies this bill. Older workers have muchto contribute. They have years of experience and training, and the Stateand localities should be wary before compelling them to leave publicservice prematurely. Further, while it is important to make certain thatofficers are physically fit to perform their jobs, advances in medical
technology mean that many individuals can perform demanding tasks at a
later age than was once the case. For these reasons, I approve thislegislation.
Nonetheless, several concerns have been raised about this bill bylocal governments and advocacy groups, and they warrant serious consideration. After a careful review, however, I have determined that theseconcerns do not warrant disapproval of this bill.
First, some have characterized this bill as a "pension enhancement." Ido not believe that is an accurate characterization. Undoubtedly, officers who work longer will be able to accrue more pension credits, andthus receive higher benefits. Those same officers, however, will alsoneed to forego their pensions during the years they remain on the force,resulting in a savings to the pension system. Thus, the fiscal note tothe bill indicates that it will not require added pension contributionsby localities. Further, the pension system has graciously provided dataon those officers who presently continue to work past the age of 60,which indicates that the number of individuals likely to be impacted bythis bill is quite limited. I am very concerned in this time of extremefiscal constraint to avoid placing additional financial burdens onlocalities, but I do not believe that this bill will create suchburdens.
Second, a concern has been raised that this bill will allow officersto work two twenty-year stints for different police forces to therebyreceive two separate pensions. I am grateful to those who are exploringthese issues. Since pension benefits are constitutionally protected, theState must be vigilant as to potential unintended impacts on the pensionsystem. Nonetheless, after careful consideration of this complex question, I have concluded that this bill will not have this result. Section384-d does not grant any additional benefit when an officer accrues 20years of service. Thus, under present law an officer can already take asecond pension under this section; the bill does not add to that. I notethat the pension system is unaware of any individual who has actuallydone that. That is because, for a variety of reasons, there is a significant financial advantage to a public employee combining pension creditsfrom different employers, so as to receive a single, higher pensionbenefit. In any event, I believe that this particular fear is not justified.
Third, local governments express the legitimate concern that disabledofficers, who receive full salary under General Municipal Law Section207-c yet are not able to carry out the duties of their position, willbe able to remain on a police force for three additional years underthis bill. Last year, my predecessor vetoed a similar bill for just thisreason. As noted above, however, the sponsors have recognized thisissue, and have added language to address it.
Finally, I note that this bill would leave in place any mandatoryretirement age that a locality may have under a different statute, thuspreserving local autonomy and prerogatives. This is different fromanother bill I vetoed today (A.10508/S.7332), which raised the mandatoryretirement age for every police officer in the State to 65. That billalso did not address the Section 207-c concerns noted above. As thatveto indicates, I believe any effort to allow officers to work longer,even if warranted by the important policy considerations I havedescribed, must be carefully scrutinized for unintended consequences andcosts. After such a careful review, I have concluded that this bill isworthy of enactment.
The bill is approved. (signed) DAVID A. PATERSON
______