Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the State Marshals Insurance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Appropriations panel advances bill to extend state employee health benefit parity to state marshals amid legal questions
Summary
The Appropriations Committee voted to advance legislation to give state marshals parity with state employee health benefits, but members flagged uncertainties about whether marshals are legally state employees and whether ERISA issues apply. A fiscal note put the cost at about $1.7 million.
The Appropriations Committee voted to move forward with a bill to extend parity in state employee health insurance to state marshals. The committee advanced Senate Bill 15-26, described in committee as “an act concerning health insurance benefits for state marshals,” to the floor after debate about legal and fiscal implications.
Committee members, including Representative Nuccio, said they were not yet persuaded that the state marshals covered by the bill are state employees for purposes of federal ERISA and state benefit law. Nuccio said she lacked “total confirmation” on whether marshals are considered state employees and therefore would vote no unless those questions were resolved. Another member asked for the date of the Attorney General opinion cited in committee; staff said the opinion was from February 2009.
Supporters pointed to a long-standing practice under which many state marshals have obtained state group coverage at their own expense and said the bill would change the employer share so marshals would pay the same portion as other state employees. Representative Walker moved the bill to the floor; Representative Nolan seconded the motion. Committee staff reported a fiscal estimate for the benefits change of about $1,700,000 for the current budget window.
Representative Gonzales clarified a frequently cited distinction: court marshals (who are state employees and receive benefits) versus the independent state marshals who serve papers and carry out other statutorily mandated process-service functions and historically have not been treated as state employees. Committee members discussed that distinction when weighing whether the bill would create new employer obligations across multiple categories of marshals.
The committee voted on the measure by roll call and advanced the bill to the next stage. Several members requested additional legal and ERISA analysis be circulated; staff said the Attorney General opinion and related materials would be distributed to members.
What happens next: the bill was reported out of committee and will proceed to the floor for further action and possible consideration with the budget. Committee discussion made clear at least some members expect more documentation (legal opinions and ERISA analysis) before final passage.
