Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Judicial Retirement Reform topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee advances retirement changes aimed at bolstering judicial recruitment and fund solvency
Summary
Senate Bill 150 (judges' retirement) and Senate Bill 151 (magistrate retirement) earned due‑pass recommendations after sponsors said the changes would improve plan solvency and help recruit experienced attorneys to state benches.
Senate Bills 150 and 151, two related measures to change judges' retirement contributions and vesting, received due‑pass recommendations from the Senate Judiciary Committee.
Sponsor Sen. Stefanik said the bills seek three goals: improve the solvency of judicial retirement funds without new appropriations, align vesting with other state plans and add a targeted service‑credit incentive to attract experienced attorneys. "Those are our objectives here," Stefanik said of the package.
Under SB150 (Judge's Retirement Act changes), sponsors proposed increasing judge and employer contribution rates so the fund would reach full funding over a longer amortization period rather than remain perpetually underfunded. The bill would lower vesting from eight years to five and add an enhanced service‑credit rate (4% service credit for the first ten years on the bench) designed to make short‑to‑mid‑term service more attractive to senior attorneys contemplating a judicial career.
SB151 would apply comparable contribution and vesting changes for magistrate judges, but it does not include the enhanced 4% initial service‑credit provision because magistrates can be appointed at a younger age and are not uniformly required to be attorneys.
Adam Williams, deputy director at PERA, told the committee the increased contributions would increase plan assets; the PERA board had not adopted a formal position on the bills at the time of testimony. The sponsor said the proposals are designed to be budget neutral and avoid new general‑fund appropriations.
Committee members discussed recruitment, long‑term solvency targets and whether a 100% funding goal is necessary. Some senators praised the package for improving the applicant pool and for aligning judicial compensation and retirement with recruitment goals; others cautioned against an absolute 100% solvency target as an inflexible fiscal goal.
Committee action: The committee approved due‑pass recommendations for both bills (SB150 and SB151). A motion to pass was made on the record and adopted by voice vote; no roll call was recorded in the hearing transcript.
Ending: With committee approval, SB150 and SB151 will move forward for further legislative consideration; sponsors said they expect the changes to improve recruitment and the long‑term funding position of judicial retirement plans.
