House EDNA subcommittee recommends against expanding House Bill 637 to cover pre‑2023 retirees, 3-2

The House Executive Departments and Administration subcommittee voted 3-2 to recommend Inexpedient to Legislate (ITL) on House Bill 637, a proposal to extend retirement-benefit adjustments tied to Senate Bill 57 (2023) to employees who retired before that statute took effect.

The vote came at a subcommittee work session in which the chair said the Senate had knowingly adopted a prospective change in 2023 and that extending the benefit to earlier retirees had been a policy choice rather than an oversight. "It was not an oversight. It was a policy decision," the subcommittee chair said during the session.

The bill under review was presented as an attempt to "make whole" employees who the bill's sponsors say were unintentionally excluded by language tied to Senate Bill 57. Committee discussion and public testimony focused on two central issues: whether the original 2023 change was deliberately prospective and the fiscal cost of applying the change retroactively.

Representative Howard, who opposed the ITL recommendation, argued the committee should honor expectations created when employees joined the retirement system. "I can't say that I can support the ITL motion and I will be, looking for an OTP," Representative Howard said, framing her view around contract and fairness concerns.

Public commenters who spoke to the subcommittee included Bob Blaisdell of the State Employees Association and Karen Erwin, who said she initiated the bill and described herself as one of the retirees affected. "I am the one that initiated this this year, this bill. I am one of those that got captured in this," Karen Erwin said, adding that the bill language used the term "retiree members" and that the retirement system's fiscal note interpreted that term to mean active members only.

Committee members and staff cited several fiscal figures during the discussion. The chair summarized fiscal estimates tied to the original enactment: a current-year state cost of about $1,400,000 and approximately $5,740,000 to municipalities, and an actuary projection of a $45,000,000 increase in actuarial accrued liability that would be amortized over no more than 20 years. The chair said those amounts and the decision to include the provision in the 2023 budget reflected a deliberate policy choice by the Senate.

Supporters of HB 637 told the subcommittee they view the proposal as correcting a drafting or interpretation problem in how the retirement system treated the term "retiree members" for the fiscal note. Karen Erwin said the language as written appeared to encompass all retirees and that the retirement system's fiscal interpretation left out people who were already retired.

Bob Blaisdell, representing the State Employees Association, urged the committee to consider the record of public testimony and the customary practice that subcommittee work sessions include conversation with members of the public. "I'm a bit confused ... it's a work session for not only legislators, but also from the public," Blaisdell said, asking for the committee to allow public input before taking a vote.

After hearing testimony and debate, the subcommittee moved the ITL recommendation, which was seconded and then carried on a recorded vote. The roll call posted during the session showed Representative Sellers, Representative Slatje and Representative Veil voting yes; Representative Howard and Representative DeVries voting no. The chair announced a 3-2 recommendation to report HB 637 Inexpedient to Legislate out of the subcommittee.

The subcommittee chair said members would schedule another subcommittee hearing likely after the next floor session to consider other bills on the committee's docket; the chair closed the work session following the vote.

Votes at a glance

- Motion: Recommend Inexpedient to Legislate on House Bill 637 (recommendation to not advance the proposal to extend SB 57 changes to retirees who retired before the statute's effective date). - Vote: 3 yes, 2 no (Sellers — yes; Slatje — yes; Veil — yes; Howard — no; DeVries — no). - Outcome: Subcommittee recommends ITL (approved recommendation).

What remains

The subcommittee record and the Senate hearing record were cited by members as the places to resolve whether the omission was a drafting oversight or an intentional, prospective policy. Committee members said fiscal questions could be further examined in subsequent hearings. No final action on the underlying policy has been taken; the ITL recommendation is the subcommittee's advice to the full committee or House, not a final legislative disposition of the issue.