Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Correctional Redeposit topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Witnesses describe personal difficulties and agency opposition over HB 3-12 allowing correctional officers to redeposit prior service
Summary
HB 3-12 would restore the ability of some correctional officers transferred into CORES to redeposit previously withdrawn service credit; an affected employee recounted conflicting agency guidance and lost retirement timing, while the State Retirement Agency opposed the bill on equity grounds.
A sponsor introduced HB 3-12 to allow correctional officers who were legislatively transferred into the correctional officers’ retirement system (CORES) to redeposit previously earned credit from the employees’ or teachers’ systems.
Catherine Elizabeth Perrin described her personal experience: she began state service in 2004, had a four-month break in 2012, and sought to purchase prior service after that break but was told conflicting directions by SRPS staff. “I received a call as well as a written document from SRP deputy director, Mr. Brown. He stated that he had the legal department look at my request, and there was no bylaws or accept accepting it since I had a 4 months break of state service,” Perrin said, describing stress and the prospect of losing service credit that would reduce her retirement eligibility.
Perrin’s partner William Dixon corroborated her account of conflicting information from SRPS. The sponsor framed the bill as restoring eligibility to redeposit withdrawn contributions and interest as if the employee had not been legislatively transferred, arguing this aligns with prior transfer intent and supports retention in CORES.
Anne Gothorp, representing the State Retirement Agency and board of trustees, testified in opposition, saying the bill would create inequities within CORES and be inconsistent with provisions of the State Personnel and Pensions Article and prior legislative transfers. She offered to answer questions about the agency’s written testimony, which details the agency’s concerns.
Committee members thanked witnesses and said they would consider amendments and fiscal impacts; the transcript does not record a final committee vote.
