Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Pensions Ers topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee drops proposed judges’ pension cut, advances other ERS changes with direction to clarify cost impacts
Summary
The committee deleted a provision that would halve the retirement multiplier for judges and advanced other employees‑retirement system changes — including reducing Tier 2 vesting from 10 to 5 years and proposals affecting sheriffs — while asking the Employees’ Retirement System and Budget to provide fiscal details.
The House Committee on Judiciary & Hawaiian Affairs moved Senate Bill 935 (SD2, HD1) to Finance after deleting section 1, which would have reduced the retirement allowance multiplier for judges for service earned after June 30, 2025.
Judiciary leaders, bar groups and judicial recruitment advocates strongly opposed the judges‑pension reduction. Administrative Director Rod Miley and retired Judge Kim told the committee the change would exacerbate an existing shortage of applicants for judicial vacancies — especially on the outer islands — and would be perceived as singling out the judicial branch. The Hawaii State Bar Association, West Hawaii Bar Association and the American Judicature Society submitted written testimony opposing the judges’ pension cut; the courtroom administrators and judges emphasized recruitment and retention harms.
The committee retained two other separate components in the bill: (1) a reduction in the Tier 2 vesting period from 10 years to 5 years, which the Employees’ Retirement System (ERS) board supports as a recruitment and retention tool, and (2) proposed benefit and contribution changes for sheriffs and deputy sheriffs, which ERS and Budget staff said may increase the state’s unfunded liability and need clearer costing and contribution adjustments.
ERS Executive Director Tom Williams told members the ERS board “strongly supports” reducing the Tier 2 vesting period and that the change could improve recruitment and plan stability. ERS raised “significant concerns” about enhanced sheriff benefits, noting potential retroactivity, the need for matching contributions and the effect on unfunded liabilities. The Department of Budget and Finance warned certain provisions could add to the State’s unfunded liability (noting the ERS liability stands near $14 billion in current remarks) and urged cost details.
The committee asked ERS and Budget to provide specific cost estimates for the sheriff‑related proposals and asked proponents of the vesting change to be ready to defend recruitment and retention projections at Finance. With the deletion of the judges’ multiplier reduction and requests for fiscal detail, the committee advanced the rest of the measure to Finance with clarifying amendments to some effective‑date language.
