Committee considers S.58 to align pay-step timing for some state sworn officers and firefighters

The Senate Committee on Government Operations on Feb. 20 took up S.58, a bill aimed at aligning pay-step timing for certain sworn state law-enforcement officers and state firefighters covered by Group C retirement so those employees can reach top pay steps before mandatory retirement.

Senator Pat Brennan, sponsor of the bill, told the committee that the Group C retirement system "was originally created by the legislature for Vermont State troopers in 1996" and that in later years other sworn officers and state firefighters were placed in Group C but under pay plans that take much longer to reach maximum step levels. Brennan said the mismatch leaves roughly a small group of state employees unable to reach the top pay step before they must retire by statute, producing lower final pay and smaller retirement benefits relative to peers.

Sophie of the Office of Legislative Counsel summarized the technical issue: many state step plans contain the same number of steps (15), but the length of time in each step varies across contracts. The Vermont State Police step schedule typically reaches the top step in about 14.5 years; other Group C employees under the Nonmanagement Unit (NMU) pay plan may take more than 20 years to reach step 15, while mandatory retirement often happens earlier for these employees. The proposed legislation would require a step-pay plan for covered positions that allows employees to reach the highest step by 18 years and 6 months of service and include transitional language requiring agencies to implement plan changes in the current contract period.

Committee members pressed on numbers and cost. Counsel and witnesses said the affected cohort is relatively small (Senator Brennan and staff cited "about a hundred employees" historically; the exact current count was not provided in committee). The committee asked about fiscal impacts, pension-system effects and whether the proposal would preempt collective bargaining. Sophie noted the bill contains a clause preserving collective bargaining over the number and length of steps and any conditions for advancement; the bill also includes a requirement for "impact bargaining" if the law is inconsistent with an active contract. Members noted the current NMU contract contains a provision to form a joint state-VSEA study committee (four representatives each) to examine methods and funding to extend the State Police pay plan to these bargaining-unit members; witnesses said that committee has not yet met.

Senators expressed sympathy for workers affected but also raised institutional questions: several members said pay-step timing and pension impacts touch broader pay-equity issues across state employment and that unilateral legislative fixes may risk undermining collective-bargaining processes. Members recommended the committee invite affected employees, union and management representatives, and pension staff to testify and suggested writing to the parties to ask about the status of the joint study committee and any planned timelines. No committee vote was taken.