Subcommittee backs sending HB 702 to full committee after split on allowing retirees more special-duty hours

A subcommittee of the Executive Departments and Administration debated House Bill 702, which would change how "extra and special duty" pay is treated for retired state employees who return to work. Supporters said the bill would allow retirees to take more special-duty assignments without losing retirement status; opponents warned it could create an inequitable treatment of work that counted toward retirement for employees hired before July 1, 2011, but did not for those hired after that date.

The bill applies to state retirees who work special- or extra-duty shifts such as traffic details. Proponents, including municipal representatives and a witness from the New Hampshire Police Association, said allowing retirees to accept more detail work would help municipalities fill staffing gaps at no direct cost to the state. Opponents, including the subcommittee chair, argued that many pre-2011 employees had extra duty included in their retirement calculations and that exempting the same hours for retirees would be inconsistent and could increase long-term retirement liabilities.

Subcommittee members discussed whether the change would amount to "double dipping" for some retirees and whether it would be fair to treat employees who were hired before and after the retirement-rule change differently. Lawmakers also questioned whether the bill would indirectly raise municipal fees for private entities paying for special-duty details.

After discussion and a brief caucus, the subcommittee voted 3—2 to recommend that the full committee find the bill "inexpedient to legislate" (ITL). The panel recorded that opposition and support were mixed among law-enforcement organizations and municipalities. The bill will now go to the full committee with the subcommittee's ITL recommendation.

The subcommittee did not make any amendments; its action was a recommendation to the full committee.