Committee hears bill to raise line-of-duty disability pay for certain law enforcement retirees to full salary

Sen. Jack Bailey presented Senate Bill 647 to the Appropriations Committee, saying the bill "would provide a line of duty disability allowance to be paid to a member of the law enforcement officer pension system or the state police retirement system who is found to be disabled and unable to engage in any substantial gainful activity." He asked the committee for a favorable report and said the change would apply only prospectively, not retroactively.

Bailey described the policy intent as ensuring officers who suffer catastrophic line-of-duty injuries do not incur debt because current benefits — which he described as "2/3 of their compensation at the time of the injury" — do not account for payroll deductions such as health insurance. The sponsor said the bill is designed to offer a benefit equal to 100% of a member's compensation at the time of injury for those judged to be totally disabled, and that the bill includes a one-year delayed effective date to allow time for rulemaking and regulatory work.

Anne, present with the sponsor, said she was at the hearing for informational purposes and added that the agency was "not taking a position on the bill." Committee members probed whether the bill was limited to the two named pension systems or would be expanded to include other state employees such as transportation or fire personnel; Bailey said the bill, as drafted, applies only to the State Police Retirement System and the Law Enforcement Officers' Pension System and that he favored "crawl before we walk" expansion later, noting technical complications with carving out particular groups in other systems.

A public witness, Nicole McDonald, testified in opposition. She identified herself as having worked in the jail system and in health care and argued the bill "picks favorites with tax dollars," contending that other occupational groups (health care, transportation, education) bear a disproportionate share of workplace injuries. McDonald also asserted the law-enforcement system was still subject to federal oversight, saying the department was "still under a federal consent decree" and questioned whether the state should provide a lifetime 100% allowance to that group now.

Committee members asked follow-up questions about estimated costs and scope; the sponsor noted the bill's delayed effective date would allow regulators and the retirement agency to develop implementing regulations and that cost estimates could be developed during that period. The committee concluded testimony and prepared to vote later in the afternoon.

The bill would alter the benefit structure for a narrow set of pension systems and was presented to the Appropriations Committee for consideration; the committee scheduled a vote for 2:00 p.m. (time noted in the hearing).