Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Pension Outside Income Cap topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Retirees, State Police Urge Raising Cap on Outside Income for Disability Retirees
Summary
Retired state troopers and the State Police Association asked the Joint Committee on Public Service to increase the $15,000 outside-income cap that penalizes disability retirees, saying the limit has not kept pace with cost-of-living increases and imposes hardship on injured retirees.
Retired Massachusetts State Troopers and law-enforcement advocates urged the Joint Committee on Public Service to raise the cap on outside income for disability and public-pension recipients, describing the current limit as outdated and financially punitive.
Sheila Cooper, a retired Massachusetts State Trooper, said she was forced to retire after a line-of-duty injury and now faces repayment demands after being notified almost two years late that she exceeded the allowable outside-earnings limit. “The cap in its current form penalizes those of us who still want to work in a limited capacity,” Cooper said. She asked the committee to consider changes that would let injured retirees earn more without forfeiture or retroactive repayment.
TJ Hannon, a retired master trooper, said the cap — described in testimony as a $15,000 figure above pension income — has not changed in 14 years despite substantial increases in the consumer price index. “All we ask for this committee to recognize is our sacrifices and bring fairness and compassion back to the system,” Hannon said, adding the cap makes it difficult to support a growing family.
Brian Williams, president of the State Police Association of Massachusetts, told the committee the association supports Senate 1908 to raise the cap and also urged consideration of legislation that would address State Police pension formula changes. Williams said departure of troopers to municipal departments and the private sector has been driven in part by better pension benefits and incentives elsewhere.
Supporters asked the committee to report Senate 1908 favorably. No vote was taken during the hearing; legislators and witnesses said any change should be carefully drafted to avoid unintended fiscal consequences.
