New Jersey Law Enforcement
Commanding Officers Association
P.O. Box 121
Fairton, NJ 08320
(609) 774-3941
CAPITOL REPORT
by Scott Derby
(609) 774-3941
Scott.Derby@commandingofficersnj.org
State Legislation
On February 25, 2010, Democrat Assembly Speaker Sheila Oliver and Assembly Republican Leader Alex DeCroce announced the introduction of bipartisan legislation in the General Assembly concerning the pensions and benefits of public employees as follows:
Assembly Bill 2461
This bill would limit pension system enrollment to new full-time employees who work at least 35 hours per week for the state or 32 hours for local government and public schools; require all public employees with more than one government job to receive a pension for only one of those jobs, with only the highest-salaried position counting toward a pension; allow new employees earning at least $5,000 annually to enroll in a 401(k)-style plan; allow public employees with less than 10 years of service to switch from the pension plan to a 401(k)-style plan or to withdraw from the pension system; change the equation used to calculate pensions for new employees by dividing the number of years worked by 60, rather than 55, thus reversing for new workers the 9 percent (9%) benefit enhancement enacted in 2001; base pensions for new public employees and teachers on the five (5) highest salary years, rather than the highest three; base pensions for new law enforcement officers and firefighters on the three (3) highest salary years rather than the highest single year; impose a pensionable salary cap for new employees of the Police and Firemen’s Retirement System (PFRS) and the State Police Retirement System (SPRS). Salary earned under the cap – the base salary equivalent to the maximum wage contribution base for Social Security, or for 2010, $106,800 – would be counted toward PFRS or SPRS membership. Salary over the cap could be included in a 401(k)-type program; repeal 2003 legislation that allowed a law enforcement officer or firefighter to retire at any age with 25 years of service credit on a special retirement allowance of 70 percent of final compensation, if the retirement system reached a funded level of 104 percent; and eliminate the non-forfeitable right to pension benefits after five years in the system for new employees.
Assembly Bill A2460
This bill would require all public employees to pay at least 1.5 percent (1.5%) of their salary toward health benefits after the expiration of their current contract; require all newly-hired public employees to pay at least 1.5 percent (1.5%) of their base pension toward health benefits upon retirement; require that any changes negotiated by the state – such as higher co-pays – with its employees be applied to every government entity participating in state health benefits programs; prohibit multiple coverage in state health benefits programs; require new state workers to work at least 35 hours per week to qualify for health benefits; and require new local-government and public-school employees to work at least 25 hours per week to quality for health benefits.
Assembly Bill 2459
This bill would limit sick leave payouts for all new local-government and public-school employees to $15,000, just as it already is for state employees; prohibit local-government and public-school employees to carry over only one year of vacation time year-to-year; and eliminate the sick leave injury (SLI) program.
On February 22, 2010, the following bills were unanimously passed by the State Senate:
Senate Bill 2
This bill would make a number of changes to different State-administered retirement systems concerning eligibility, the retirement allowance formula, the definition of compensation, the positions eligible for service credit, the non-forfeitable right to a pension, the enrollment waiver, the prosecutor’s part of the Public Employees Retirement System (PERS), special retirement under the Police and Firemen’s Retirement System (PFRS) and employer contributions to the pension systems. The bill would shift the basis for membership in the Teachers’ Pension and Annuity Fund (TPAF) and the PERS from the amount of compensation to the number of hours worked weekly. After the bill’s effective date, any person in public employment for which the hours of work are fixed at fewer than 35 per week for State employees, or 32 per week for political subdivision employees, would be ineligible to become a new member of PERS and at fewer than 32 hours per week would be ineligible to become a new member of TPAF. When determining eligibility, hours during which a person does not work due to the person’s participation in a voluntary or mandatory furlough program would not be deducted in determining if a person’s hours of work are fixed at fewer than 35 or 32 per week, as appropriate, for the purpose of eligibility. Persons ineligible for TPAF or PERS because the hours of work were fewer than required for PERS or TPAF membership would be eligible for enrollment in the Defined Contribution Retirement Program (DCRP), whose membership compensation threshold the bill would increase to $5,000 from $1,500. Note: The DCRP is a 401(k)-style plan. In 2001, legislation enhanced the PERS and TPAF benefits for members and retirees by 9 percent (9%) with a change of the multiplier from 1/60 to 1/55. Veterans and disability benefits were similarly enhanced. This bill would return the multiplier for PERS and TPAF members to 1/60 and the other benefits to their pre-2001 level for persons who would become members of PERS or TPAF after the bill had been enacted, except that it would not apply to veterans and disability benefits. This bill would impose a maximum compensation upon which contributions would be made for PFRS and State Police Retirement System (SPRS) purposes for police officers, firefighters, and State Police officers who became members of those systems on or after the bill’s effective date. The maximum amount would be the amount of base salary equivalent to the annual maximum wage contribution base for Social Security, pursuant to the federal Insurance Contributions Act. For 2010, that amount is $106,800. Under the bill, a new member for whom this annual maximum would be reached in any year would become a participant of the DCRP [40lK-like plan] with regard to the remaining compensation, unless the member irrevocably elected to waive the participation. For the amount of compensation over the maximum compensation, 5.5 percent (5.5%) would be deducted as a contribution for the purposes of the DCRP. When a PFRS or SPRS member also became a participant in the DCRP, the life insurance and disability benefit provisions of that program would be available for that participant. This bill would change the definition of compensation to be used to calculate retirement benefits for members of the PERS, TPAF, PFRS, and SPRS, who became members after the bill’s effective date, as well as to calculate, in certain cases, pension benefits for surviving family members, when available, and death benefit payments to beneficiaries. The bill would provide that a member of the TPAF or PERS who is enrolled in the retirement system after the enactment date, would have the member’s retirement allowance calculated using the average annual compensation for the last five years of service, or for any five fiscal years of membership providing the largest possible benefit to the member or the member’s beneficiary. A member enrolled in the systems before the effective date would continue to have the member’s allowance calculated in the manner provided by existing law using the average annual compensation for the last three years of service or for any three fiscal years of membership providing the largest possible benefit to the member or the member's beneficiary. This bill would also change the provisions of the PFRS and SPRS to provide that a member enrolled in one of these retirement systems after the effective date would have the member’s retirement allowance calculated using the average annual compensation received by the member during any three fiscal years of membership providing the largest possible benefit. A member of the system before the effective date would continue to have the member’s allowance calculated in the manner provided by existing law using the compensation in the final year of service. This bill would affect the calculation of a family member’s pension benefit and the amount of a death benefit to a beneficiary whenever current law provides for the use of final compensation or final salary, as those terms would be redefined by the bill, for the purpose of that calculation. In some instances, the current law provides that the calculations for benefits be based on the compensation or salary received in the last year of service or at the time of death; in these instances, there would be no change as a result of this bill. For the purposes of the PERS and the TPAF, this bill would provide that a person would be eligible for membership in the retirement system based upon only one position and requires the retirement system to designate the position providing the higher or highest compensation for the person with such concurrent positions as the basis for eligibility for membership and the compensation base for contributions and pensions calculations. A member who left a designated position or acquires a different or additional position would receive a new designation by the retirement system, if appropriate. This bill would not apply to a person who, on the effective date of the bill, is a member of the retirement system and holds more than one office, position, or employment covered by the retirement system with one or more employers, while the member continues to hold without a break in service more than one of those offices, positions, or employment. Under the bill, contributions would be deducted only from the member's compensation for the position designated, and for the purpose of calculating the member's retirement benefit, only that compensation would be considered. Service in a position other than the one designated would not be deemed creditable service for the purposes of the retirement system. This bill would remove public employees who became members after the bill’s effective date of the TPAF, the Judicial Retirement System (JRS), the Prison Officers' Pension Fund, the PERS, the Consolidated Police and Firemen's Pension Fund, the PFRS, and the SPRS from the law that provides vested members with a non-forfeitable right to receive benefits, as provided under the laws governing the retirement system or fund, upon the attainment of five years of service credit in the retirement system or fund. This bill would permit a person who commenced service in a position that made the person eligible to be a member of the TPAF, the JRS, the PERS, the PFRS, or the SPRS, or a person already enrolled but with less than 10 years of service credit, to choose either to be enrolled in the relevant retirement system or enrolled in the DCRP established pursuant to N.J.S.A. 43:15C-1, et al., with regard to that particular position by irrevocably waiving all rights and benefits which would otherwise be provided by the relevant retirement system. In addition, this bill would permit a person commencing service, or with less than 10 years of service credit, to choose to withdraw entirely from enrollment in any State-administered retirement system. In this regard, this bill would exceed the recommendation but would serve the recommendation’s goal by providing a person with the flexibility to choose a course most consistent with his or her personal situation and financial goals while also reducing the costs to public employers. This bill would also close the Prosecutors Part of the PERS to new members. The Prosecutors Part was added to PERS in 2001. With the enactment of this bill, all prosecutors taking office after the bill’s effective date would be enrolled in the “regular” PERS system, except that a county prosecutor appointed by the Governor with the advice and consent of the Senate would be enrolled in the DCRP, which is a 401(k)-style plan. “Prosecutor” is defined in the law as a county prosecutor, first assistant prosecutor or assistant prosecutor; the Director of the Division of Criminal Justice in the Department of Law and Public Safety; an assistant director, deputy director, assistant attorney general or deputy attorney general in that department and assigned to that division; or a criminal investigator in the Division of Criminal Justice in the Department of Law and Public Safety not eligible for enrollment in the PFRS. This bill would eliminate the provision in the PFRS that would permit a member of the PFRS to retire, at any age after 25 years of service credit, on a special retirement allowance of 70 percent of final compensation after the retirement system reaches a funded level of 104 percent. This bill would provide that, with regard to any provision of this bill made applicable to a person who became a member of a State-administered retirement system on or after the bill’s effective date, that provision would not apply to a person who at the time of enrollment in the retirement system on or after that effective date transferred service credit, as permitted, from another State-administered retirement system or fund of which the person had been a member immediately prior to the effective and continuously thereafter, but would apply to a former member of the retirement system granted a retirement allowance and reenrolled in the retirement system on or after that effective date after becoming employed again in a position that made the person eligible to be a member of the retirement system. This bill would require the State, beginning July 1, 2011, to make in full the annual employer’s contribution, as computed by the actuaries, to the TPAF, the JRS, the Prison Officers' Pension Fund, the PERS, the Consolidated Police and Firemen's Pension Fund, the PFRS, and the SPRS. The State would be in compliance with this requirement provided the State made a payment, to each State-administered retirement system or fund, of at least 1/7th of the full contribution, as computed by the actuaries, in the State fiscal year commencing July 1, 2011 and makes a payment in each subsequent fiscal year that increases by at least an additional 1/7th until payment of the full contribution were made in the eighth fiscal year and thereafter. This phase-in would be for the purpose of allowing the State to make gradual adjustments to the annual appropriations act.
Senate Bill 3
This bill would require, after the bill’s effective date and the expiration of any applicable binding collective negotiations agreement, that active employees of the State, local governments, and boards of education would contribute 1.5 percent (1.5%) of base salary toward the cost of health care coverage under the State Health Benefits Program (SHBP) and the School Employees’ Health Benefits Program (SEHBP). Employees of the State, local governments, and board of educations who became a member of a State or locally-administered retirement system on or after the bill’s effective date would be required to pay in retirement 1.5 percent (1.5%) of their pension benefit toward the cost of health care coverage under the SHBP and the SEHBP. For State and local government employees and retirees and for board of education employees, this amount would be in addition to any other amount required through the collective negotiations process for employees with a majority representative for collective negotiations and, for those without such a representative, through the application of the terms of a collective negotiations agreement upon them. The contribution required for new State employees in retirement would not be waived for a retiree who participated in the New Jersey Retirees' Wellness Program. This bill would provide local governments, including local boards of education, with the ability to limit, through collective negotiations agreements with their active employees, the choice of plans offered by the SHBP or the SEHBP. This bill would require that changes in the provision of health care benefits through the SHBP and the SEHBP included in collective negotiations agreements between the State and its employees be applied to local government employees including public-school employees at the same time and in the same manner as to State employees. This bill would provide that, after the bill’s effective date, enrollment in the SHBP would be limited to a person who: 1) is a full-time appointive or elective officer of the State or local government whose hours of work are fixed at 35 or more per week, a full-time employee of the State, or a full-time employee of an employer other than the State whose hours of work are fixed by the governing body at not less than 25 per week; or 2) an appointive or elective officer, an employee of the State, or an employee of an employer other than the State who has or is eligible for health benefits coverage in SHBP on that effective date and continuously thereafter. This bill would similarly limit enrollment in the SEHBP to persons employed full-time whose hours of work are fixed by the governing body at not less than 25 per week. This bill would incorporate a recommendation of the Joint Legislative Committee on Public Employee Benefits Reform that was partly implemented by the enactment of P.L. 2007, c.92 and P.L. 2008, c.89. This bill would implement the recommendation that the waiver incentive be set at 25% of the amount saved by the employer and goes further to cap the amount at $5,000. This would apply to waivers filed after the bill’s effective date. This bill would prohibit multiple coverage in the SHBP and the SEHBP in accordance with the rules and regulations promulgated by the State Health Benefits Commission and the School Employees’ Health Benefits Commission. This bill would make changes that would affect those public employees who do not receive health care benefits coverage by the SHBP or the SEHBP. Specifically, this bill would require employees of a local board of education, a county, a municipality, and a county college to pay 1.5 percent (1.5%) of their base salary for the health care benefits coverage provided by their employers, notwithstanding any other amount required additionally by contract with such employers. This bill would also require a local employee who becomes a member of a State or locally administered retirement system on or after the bill’s effective date to pay in retirement 1.5 percent (1.5%) of their monthly allowance, including cost of living adjustments, for health care benefits coverage. This bill, as amended, would change the health care benefits waiver amount for employees of a county, municipality or county college from 50% to 25%, or $5,000, whichever is less, of the amount saved by the employer because of the employee’s waiver of such coverage. This bill was further amended to: 1) require employees of a local board of education, a county, a municipality, and a county college to pay 1.5 percent (1.5%) of their base salary for the health care benefits coverage provided by their employers, notwithstanding any other amount that may be required additionally by contract with such employers; 2) require a local employee who becomes a member of a State or locally administered retirement system on or after the bill’s effective date to pay in retirement 1.5 percent (1.5%) of their monthly allowance, including cost of living adjustments, for health care benefits coverage; and 3) changes the health care benefits waiver amount for employees of a county, municipality or county college from 50% to 25%, or $5,000, whichever is less, of the amount saved by the employer because of the employee’s waiver of such coverage. These changes would affect those public employees who do not receive health care benefits coverage by the SHBP or the SEHBP.
Senate Bill 4
This bill would make various changes concerning payments to public employees for unused sick leave, sick leave for injury while in State service (SLI), and accidental and ordinary disability retirement for members of the Public Employees’ Retirement System (PERS) and the Teachers Pension and Annuity Fund (TPAF). This bill would also limit to one year the amount of vacation leave that certain local government and school district officers and employees would be permitted to carry forward, under most circumstances. This bill would provide that supplemental compensation for accumulated unused sick leave payable to any local government or school district officer or employee cannot exceed $15,000 and can only be paid at the time the officer or employee retires. This restriction would apply only to officers and employees who commence service with a local government or a school district on or after the bill’s effective date. Current law limits to $15,000 the maximum amount that may be paid to a State employee for accumulated unused sick leave when the employee retires. There is, however, currently no such limit with regard to local government and to school district officers or employees, except with regard to certain high level local government and school district officers. This bill would provide that local government and school district officers and employees would be allowed to carry forward vacation leave for only one successive year, except that vacation leave that could not be used because of an emergency declared by the Governor would accumulate subject to certain limits. This restriction would apply only to officers and employees who commence service with a local government or a school district on or after the bill’s effective date and only after the expiration of a current contract applicable to such officer or employee. Current law limits vacation leave carry forward for State employees and employees of local governments that have adopted civil service. There is, however, currently no such limit with regard to other local government and to school district officers or employees, except with regard to certain high level local government and school district officers. This bill would terminate the SLI program for State employees who are injured or who become ill directly as a result of State employment after the bill’s effective date, which is 60 days after enactment or after the expiration of current collective negotiations agreements. This bill would eliminate accidental and ordinary disability retirement for members of the TPAF and PERS who become enrolled in the retirement system on or after this bill’s effective date. Instead, members of each system enrolled after that date will be eligible for disability insurance coverage similar to that provided by the State currently to individuals enrolled in the Defined Contribution Retirement Program (DCRP), which is a 401(k)-style plan. This bill would provide that, with regard to any provision of this bill concerning disability retirement in the PERS and the TPAF made applicable to a person who becomes a member of a State-administered retirement system on or after the bill’s effective date, that provision would not apply to a person who at the time of enrollment in the retirement system on or after that effective date transfers service credit, as permitted, from another State-administered retirement system or fund of which the person was a member immediately prior to the effective date and continuously thereafter, but would apply to a former member of the retirement system granted a retirement allowance and reenrolled in the retirement system on or after that effective date after becoming employed again in a position that makes the person eligible to be a member of the retirement system. This bill is in line with recent prior enactments in this regard.
These Senate bills will now be forwarded to the General Assembly for consideration or reconciliation with companion legislation in that chamber of the State Legislature.
Assembly Bill 2234 (A2234), which passed the General Assembly on September 25, 2008, by a unanimous vote of 79-0, now has a sponsor in the State Senate: Senator Ray Lesniak. On January 20, 2009, Association Executive Vice President Joseph Sooy and I met with Senator Lesniak at his district offices in Union, NJ, asking him to consider sponsoring companion legislation in the State Senate. I am pleased to report that Senator Lesniak has since become the primary sponsor of Senate Bill 2576 (S2576). A2234/S2576, if enacted, would outline the procedures for conducting urine analyses to test State law enforcement officers for the presence of drugs, or controlled dangerous substances. For example, it would direct that all specimens be collected, handled, transported and stored in accordance with prevailing industry standards, etc.
Since late December 2008, Association Executive Vice President Joseph Sooy and I have been meeting with prominent state legislators to advance the Association’s legislative initiatives and priorities.
On December 30, 2008, Governor Corzine announced that he would postpone public disclosure of his administration’s proposed budget for fiscal year 2009-2010 until March 10, 2009. The postponement, which must first be approved by the state Legislature, would not affect the constitutional deadline of June 30, 2009, for state legislators to approve the budget. Senate President Codey supports the measure.
On December 6, 2008, Executive Vice President Joseph Sooy and I attended a reception hosted by the Governor at Drumthwacket (Governor’s official residence), along with the presidents from PBA Local 105, NJLESA (state sergeants’ union), STFA (state troopers’ union), etc. Currently, Executive VP Sooy and I are scheduled to meet with several state legislators within the next thirty (30) days to discuss the Association’s legislative initiatives and priorities.
On October 16, 2008, Governor Corzine addressed an emergency joint session of the state Legislature regarding the state’s economic and fiscal situation. Executive Vice President Joseph Sooy and I were present.
On September 15, 2008, Executive Vice President Joseph Sooy and I attended a hearing before the Assembly Law & Public Safety Committee in support of Assembly Bill 2234 (A2234). A2234 would outline the procedures for conducting urine analyses to test State law enforcement officers for the presence of chemicals, drugs or controlled dangerous substances, or metabolites of drugs or controlled dangerous substances. It would also give state law enforcement officers the right to have their urine samples split in two so that the sample can be tested not only by the State but also by a private State-certified laboratory. To ensure the integrity of the tests, A2234 would provide for the securing and sealing of the samples in the officer’s presence and would direct that all specimens be collected, handled, transported and stored in accordance with prevailing industry standards and in accordance with those practices utilized to insure the continuity of evidence. A2234 would also stipulate that random urine analyses may not be conducted more than once in a 30-day period in any state law enforcement agency. Most importantly, A2234 would incorporate the following into state law:
“Whenever the results of a urine test conducted by the State Toxicology Laboratory differ from those of a private State certified toxicology laboratory, no charges shall be filed against the subject officer and any pending charges shall be dismissed. The officer shall be reinstated immediately, and all rights and benefits restored. No record of any charges or any allegation of charges relating to the urine analysis, other than a statement that the results were negative, shall be placed in the officer’s personnel file, official work history or any other compilation of employment or personnel information without the written approval of the officer.”
On September 25, 2008, A2234 passed the General Assembly by a unanimous vote of 79-0. As A2234 now moves to the State Senate, we will closely monitor its progress and keep the membership informed of any legislative developments. On October 14, 2008, Association Executive Vice President Joseph Sooy, Sgt.-at-Arms Jeffrey Saville, Associate Vice President Craig Stellman, and I met with Senator John Adler, Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, in part to ask that he consider supporting and/or sponsoring A2234. NOTE: On March 5, 2007, Executive Vice President Joseph Sooy and I testified at the hearing before the Assembly Law & Public Safety Committee concerning Assembly Bill 3663, which was the same bill as A2234 in the previous legislative session. On January 20, 2009, Association Executive Vice President Joseph Sooy and I met with Senator Lesniak at his district offices in Union, NJ, asking him to consider sponsoring companion legislation in the State Senate. I am pleased to report that Senator Lesniak has since become the primary sponsor of Senate Bill 2576 (S2576).
In April 2008, Executive Vice President Joseph Sooy and I attended hearings before the Assembly Budget Committee and the Senate Budget & Appropriations Committee concerning the State’s proposed budget for fiscal year 2008-2009. The general theme echoed during the hearings was the mantra of doing more with less. Additionally, committee members recommended or endorsed the expansion and increased use of halfway houses, other private facilities, parole services, as well as alternatives to incarceration, to reduce the state prison population. They also argued for softening the prison terms of so-called “nonviolent” criminal offenders. The cost of the criminal-justice system has persuaded some lawmakers and public-policymakers to seek cost savings at the expense of public safety rather than explore other areas of government spending to achieve fiscal responsibility.
Introduced on May 12, 2008, and referred to the Assembly Law & Public Safety Committee, A2699 would establish a mandatory six-month period of post-release supervision for all state prisoners. “More than 4,000 inmates are released each year who are not subject to any parole supervision. Many of these inmates are not eligible for parole either because they refused to participate in their own rehabilitation or because they were considered likely to violate the conditions of their parole if released. … This bill addresses that problem by providing that all inmates who have been denied, or who avoided, parole would be released to parole supervision six months prior to the date their court imposed sentence is to expire.” NOTE: A2699 was withdrawn from consideration on June 12, 2008.
Introduced on May 19, 2008, and referred to Assembly Law & Public Safety Committee, A2762 would authorize “the court to waive or reduce the minimum term of parole ineligibility or place on probation a person convicted of distributing, dispensing, or possessing with the intent to distribute a controlled dangerous substance while on or within … 1,000 feet of school property or a school bus.” On May 22, 2008, the bill reported favorably out of committee with amendments. The committee’s minority noted, “The bill makes it easier for these offenders to avoid mandatory jail time … . However, it is our position that the bill does not go far enough in … protecting the public … . … We question the effectiveness of legislation that would put these people back on the streets with no further supervision, monitoring or guidance from knowledgeable, trained professionals in the probation, law enforcement and rehabilitation fields. Most disturbingly, the bill contains no additional or enhanced penalties for the worst offenders, those who commit drug crimes on school property or, in the course of their crime, use or threaten violence, carry a weapon, or resist or elude a police officer.” Its companion measure in the state senate is S1866, which has been referred to the Senate Judiciary Committee. NOTE: A2762 cleared the General Assembly on June 23, 2008, by a vote of 49-27-3.
Introduced on May 22, 2008, and referred to the Assembly Judiciary Committee, A2864 would restore the death penalty for persons convicted of certain murders where “(1) the victim was a law enforcement officer or correction officer and was murdered while performing his official duties or was murdered because of his status as a law enforcement officer or correction officer; (2) the victim was less than 14 years old and the act was committed in the course of the commission of a sex crime; (3) the murder occurred during the commission of the crime of terrorism, or (4) the defendant was convicted, at any time, of another murder.” To date, twenty-two (22) state legislators have signed onto the bill.
Federal Legislation
On March 4, 2010, the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee reported out with an amendment Senate Bill 1132, which would, if enacted, make it even easier for retired law enforcement officers to carry concealed firearms nationwide and across state lines.
Concerning the Patient Protection and Affordable Health Care Act, H.R. 3590, the Association is closely watching the status of the excise tax on employer-provided health benefits. The Association opposes this provision, which would inflict a 40% tax on health insurance companies, administrators, and self-insured employers that offer and administer so-called high-cost, or “Cadillac” health plans. Currently, the excise tax would be imposed on health insurance plans with annual costs higher than $8,500 for single coverage and $23,000 for family coverage. The thresholds would be higher for retirees older than 55 years of age or individuals engaged in high-risk occupations, e.g., including law enforcement officers, paramedics, fire fighters, etc. Despite the higher thresholds, comprehensive health insurance plans and health insurance plans that cover predominantly public safety personnel would be hit by this tax, for it is based on the total cost of the plan regardless of what it covers or why it costs so much. The Association is concerned that public safety personnel will be forced to pay the excise tax in the form of wage cuts, higher premiums, increased out-of-pocket costs, and reduced benefits. Amending the bill to address this excise tax is still a possibility, but it would be difficult, given that an amendment would need 60 votes to pass in the U.S. Senate. It seems more likely that the excise tax can be eliminated or modified during conference negotiations between the U.S. House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate; for the House-passed health care bill, H.R. 3962, does not include such an excise tax. Additionally, there is substantial opposition to it in the House.
The Government Accountability Office (GAO), the investigative arm of the U.S. Congress, was asked by U.S. Senator Mary Landrieu (Democrat of Louisiana) to look into the Public Safety Officers’ Benefits (PSOB) program’s claim management process. Specifically, Senator Landrieu asked the GAO to examine the extent to which claimants receive PSOB program benefits, any issues raised by state and local agencies about the program and the claims process, and the degree to which the PSOB program follows recognized government standards and guidelines for effective program management. On October 29, 2009, the GAO released the report of its findings. It found that while all education claims and more than three-quarters (¾) of death claims opened in the years 2006, 2007 and 2008 were closed and approved as of April 2009, only about a third of disability claims initiated during that same period had been determined. While education and death claims were processed, on average, in under a year, disability claims took between 17 and 26 months. That is an unacceptable amount of time for an officer and his family to wait for these much-needed benefits. It is noteworthy that State parole officers, as well as adult and juvenile correction officers, are, and have been, eligible for the federal PSOB program. Additionally, the GAO found that even as state and local agencies are aware of the PSOB death benefit for officers killed in the line of duty, a surprising majority of those agencies do not know of the disability and education benefits available through the program. The GAO report also noted that most agencies face challenges in trying to establish eligibility for claimants. These challenges, in turn, equate to what the PSOB Office considers incomplete claims, which slow down the claim determination process. The lack of education and outreach from the PSOB program to its constituents in the public safety community is primarily to blame for these issues. While the PSOB program has made significant steps towards improving the processing of claims and communicating with claimants on the status of their claims, it does not have a system for performance measurement. The GAO concluded that this lack of performance monitoring in the areas of claims processing, outreach, and claimant assistance diminishes the PSOB Office’s ability to effectively pinpoint and fix problems. On December 16, 2009, Senator Landrieu introduced the First Responders Support Act of 2009 (S. 2885) in the U.S. Senate, and Congressman Charlie Melancon (Democrat of Louisiana) introduced it in the U.S. House of Representatives as H.R. 4338. The proposed federal legislation, if enacted, would improve and expand the PSOB program by increasing benefits, expediting claims, and helping the program with its education and outreach to the public safety community.
The U.S. Department of Justice’s Office of Justice Programs (OJP) announced on December 1, 2009, the availability of a new single, searchable online document of current funding opportunities and new initiatives from OJP. The OJP Fiscal Year 2010 Program Plan features the latest and most complete information about the resources available, as well as guidance on how to apply for funding and assistance. The Program Plan is divided into ten (10) thematically organized chapters, each of which represents both an issue that cuts across OJP bureaus and offices and a challenge identified by the criminal and juvenile justice fields. It also contains valuable information regarding resources available to the criminal and juvenile justice communities. Included is information regarding both competitive and non-competitive programs, opportunities for training and technical assistance, and other resources. The program plan is available online at: www.ojp.usdoj.gov/ProgramPlan.
On October 28, 2009, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) announced its decision to push back the enactment date of the normal retirement age (NRA) regulations from January 1, 2011 to January 1, 2013.
The COPS Hiring Recovery Program (CHRP) is a competitive federal grant program that provides funding directly to law enforcement agencies having primary law enforcement authority to create and preserve jobs (i.e., hiring and rehiring local law enforcement officers and state police) and to increase their community policing capacity and crime-prevention efforts. There is no local match requirement for CHRP, but grant funding will be based on current entry-level salary and benefits packages. Therefore, any additional costs for higher salaries or benefits for particular individuals hired will be the responsibility of the grantee agency. CHRP grants will provide 100% funding for approved entry-level salaries and benefits for 3 years (36 months) for newly-hired, full-time sworn law enforcement officer positions (including filling existing unfunded vacancies) or for rehired officers who have been laid off or are scheduled to be laid off on a future date as a result of budget cuts. In addition, there is no cap on the number of positions an agency may request, but awards will be limited to available funding. At the conclusion of federal funding, grantees must retain all sworn law enforcement officer positions awarded under the CHRP grant. The retained CHRP-funded position(s) must be added to the grantees law enforcement budget with state and/or local funds over and above the number of locally funded positions that would have existed in the absence of the grant. What is more, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 appropriates an additional $1 billion to the U.S. Department of Justice’s Office of Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) for the CHRP. Approximately 5,500 additional sworn law enforcement officers will be added to agencies across the country through funding provided by this program. The grant program is open to local law enforcement agencies and state police nationwide. On December 13, Congress passed the Fiscal Year 2010 Omnibus Appropriations Act, H.R. 3288, a spending package comprised of six (6) of the seven (7) remaining fiscal year 2010 appropriations bills, including the Commerce-Justice-Science bill (H.R. 2847). The Justice portion of the appropriations measure provides significant funding for state and local law enforcement assistance programs, particularly for the CHRP. The fiscal year 2010 appropriations measure includes $298 million for the CHRP. Excluding the $1 billion appropriated for the CHRP under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, this is the highest funding level the CHRP has seen in over six years. For the fiscal year 2010 COPS hiring grants, the COPS Office will continue to waive both the 25% local match and the $75,000 per officer salary cap, allowing the hiring grants to provide 100 percent funding on approved salaries and benefits for 3 years (based on an entry level salary). Additionally, the COPS Office has indicated it will give priority to those agencies that applied and qualified for funding under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act but did not receive grant funds. For the major Justice Department state and local law enforcement grant programs, the spending package would appropriate: $511 million for Byrne-JAG; $30 million for the Bulletproof Vest Partnership Grant program; $170 million for COPS interoperable communications grants; $4.4 million for Meth Hot Spots; $12 million for the Mentally Ill Offender Treatment and Crime Reduction Act (MIOTCRA); and $161 for DNA and forensics programs. On December 16, 2009, the U.S. House of Representatives passed a $150 billion jobs-creation bill — the Jobs for Main Street Act of 2010 (H.R. 2847) — that includes approximately $1.18 billion for the CHRP. This funding would be in addition to the $298 million appropriated to the CHRP for fiscal year 2010. The U.S. Senate is not expected to take up the legislation until January, where it will be an uphill battle to pass such a large spending bill during an election year. It is noteworthy that the CHRP does not apply to state parole officers or adult or juvenile correction officers, notwithstanding their sworn law enforcement status here in New Jersey.
On October 21, 2009, Congress passed the Ryan White HIV/AIDS Treatment Extension Act of 2009, which includes a provision that protects emergency responders from occupational exposure to communicable diseases. The bill requires emergency response employers to have a Designated Officer to field calls from employees regarding exposures to communicable diseases. The Designated Officer must collect the facts of the circumstances surrounding how the employee may have been exposed to an infectious disease and obtain the disease status of the person that was attended, treated, assisted or transported by the public safety employee. Additionally, under the legislation, if it is discovered that the person has an infectious disease, it must notify the Designated Officer of the disease and the date which the person was transported by the employee(s). The legislation became Public Law 111-087 on October 30, 2009.
On October 1, 2009, Congressmen Christopher Murphy (Democrat of Connecticut) and Ted Poe (Republican of Texas) introduced the “Help Find the Missing Act (Billy’s Law),” H.R. 3695, a bill that would address and fix the gaps in our nation’s missing persons systems. Though federal law mandates that state and local law enforcement report missing children, there are no such requirements for adults or unidentified bodies. Compounding this problem is the fact that state and local law enforcement agencies, medical examiners and coroners often do not have the resources, personnel or training to report these cases. Furthermore, even when missing adults and remains are reported, finding a match can be a significant challenge because existing federal, state, local and nonprofit databases for missing and unidentified bodies are not connected. H.R. 3695 would address these issues by authorizing the U.S. Department of Justice’s National Missing Persons and Unidentified Persons System (NamUs) and connecting it to the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s National Crime Information Center (NCIC). This would make missing persons and unidentified remains databases more comprehensive, as well as streamline the reporting process for state and local law enforcement. Additionally, the proposed federal legislation would provide incentive grants to assist state and local law enforcement in reporting missing persons and unidentified remains to NCIC, NamUs, and the National DNA Index System (NDIS). These provisions would not only increase accessibility to NamUs but also facilitate data sharing between NamUs and NCIC.
On October 6, 2009, the U.S. Senate passed Senate Bill 251 (S. 251). Titled the Safe Prisons Communications Act of 2009, S. 251 will, if enacted, amend the federal “Communications Act of 1934 to permit targeted interference with mobile radio services within prison facilities.” In other words, the bill will direct the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to initiate rulemaking and ultimately allow states the right to purchase a device authorized by the FCC to jam, or block, the use of illegal cell-phone activity in prisons. The bill will now move to the U.S. House of Representatives for consideration.
On May 21, 2009, U.S. Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT) introduced the “Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act Improvements Act of 2009,” S. 1132. If enacted, this important federal legislation will help ensure that H.R. 218, now the federal law which currently permits active and retired state and local law enforcement officers to carry concealed firearms nationwide, will be easily, fairly and broadly implemented. S. 1132, cosponsored by U.S. Senator Jon Kyl (R-AZ), seeks to address the difficulties retired law enforcement officers are facing when trying to obtain the necessary credentials to qualify for the national right to carry.
The “Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act Improvements Act of 2009” will reduce the number of years a retired or separated law enforcement officer has to serve in order to qualify to carry, from 15 years to an aggregate of 10 years or more. The legislation will also designate new qualification procedures that will make the process easier for a retired or separated law enforcement officer to meet the requirements of firearms training.
The Association is presently scheduling meetings with federal lawmakers and candidates for Congress to discuss the new IRS regulations that are to be promulgated pursuant to the Pension Protection Act of 2006. A normal retirement age for qualified pension plans will be 55-62; however, for retirement plans in which substantially all of the participants in the plan are qualified public-safety employees, a normal retirement age of age 50 or later will suffice. However, the IRS has announced that it will postpone its regulations until January 2011. Executive Vice President Joseph Sooy, Sgt.-at-Arms Jeffrey Saville, Associate Vice President Craig Stellman, and I met with Senator John Adler, Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee and the Democratic nominee for the U.S. House of Representatives in New Jersey’s 3rd Congressional District, on October 14, 2008. Additionally, on October 24, 2008, the Association, along with officials from the NJLESA (state sergeants’ union), met with Congressman Frank LoBiondo; and the Congressman reaffirmed that he and his colleagues in Congress were committed to resolving the issue permanently, not just until January 2011.
H.R. 1890, also known as the Public Safety Act, would ensure that the incarceration of inmates is not provided by private contractors or vendors and that persons charged with, or convicted of, an offense against the United States shall be housed in facilities managed and maintained by federal, state or local governments. The bill, with its twenty (20) cosponsors, has been assigned to the House Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security. To date, Congressman Frank LoBiondo is the only member of New Jersey’s Congressional delegation who’s listed among its cosponsors. It’s quite disconcerting that of New Jersey’s thirteen (13) members in the U.S. House of Representatives, there is but one Congressman who has lent his name to support this important piece of federal legislation, which has been drafted to address the threat to public safety posed by prison privatization. It is worth noting that Congressman LoBiondo co-chairs the House Republican Labor Caucus and has consistently provided support to the law enforcement community since he was first elected to Congress nearly fourteen years ago.
S. 2010, also known as the Private Prison Information Act, would require prisons and other detention facilities holding federal prisoners or detainees under a contract with the federal government to make the same information available to the public that federal prisons and detention facilities are required to do by law. The bill, sponsored by Senator Joseph Lieberman (I-CT) and cosponsored by Senators Hillary Clinton (D-NY) and Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI), has been referred to the Senate Judiciary Committee.
H.R. 3710, also known as the Office of Correctional Public Health Act, would amend the Public Health Service Act to establish the Office of Correctional Public Health (OCPH) within the Office of Public Health and Science and would also appropriate matching grants to states to provide both correction and parole officers with screenings, immunizations, and treatment for hepatitis A, B, and C and other infectious diseases. The bill has been referred to the House Subcommittee on Health.
To date, there has been no further action on H.R. 688/S. 449, the State and Local Law Enforcement Discipline, Accountability, and Due Process Act, or H.R. 3440, the Law Enforcement Officers Procedural Bill of Rights Act. Both pieces of federal legislation would amend “the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 to set forth the due process rights, including procedures, that shall be afforded a law enforcement officer who is the subject of an investigation or disciplinary hearing.” The following federal lawmakers from New Jersey are cosponsors of H.R. 688, S. 449, or H.R. 3440:
Senator Robert Menendez (D-NJ)
Congressman Frank A. LoBiondo (R-2)
Congressman Jim Saxton (R-3)
Congressman Christopher H. Smith (R-4)
Congressman Frank Pallone Jr. (D-6)
Congressman Mike Ferguson (R-7)
Congressman Bill Pascrell Jr. (D-8)
Congressman Steven R. Rothman (D-9)
Congressman Rush D. Holt (D-12)
Congressman Albio Sires (D-13)
