Legislature considers changes to prosecutors’ and judges’ retirement funds

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

In the House of Representatives, a bill that would change features of the Prosecuting Attorneys Retirement Fund is eligible for a third reading vote. In the Senate, a bill calling for a study of judges’ pensions is ready for second reading Monday as well.

House Bill 1057, authored by Rep. Jud McMillin, R-Brookville, changes the PARF to incorporate features in the 1985 Judges’ Retirement System. Specifically it would limit the contribution period to 22 years and allows the participant to designate his or her children as beneficiaries.

Also, the bill would require that a disability be proved to the satisfaction of the Indiana Public Retirement System. Currently, a participant will qualify for disability benefits if he or she qualifies for Social Security Disability.

A fiscal analysis of the HB 1057 notes that expenditures will increase an estimated $2.2 million with the additional retirement, death and disability benefits.

Senate Bill 527 would urge the legislative council to assign the Pension Management Oversight Commission the task of studying the retirement, disability and death benefits currently provided to judges and full-time magistrates. The study would include the cost of the benefits as well as whether the current method of funding is adequate.

If the PMOC is assigned the topic of review, the commission shall issue to the legislative council a report of its findings and recommendations and include any recommended legislation.
The bill was authored by Sen. Phil Boots, R-Crawfordsville, and passed the Senate Pensions and Labor Committee with unanimous support.



Post a comment to this story

We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Heritage, what Heritage? The New Age is dawning .... an experiment in disordered liberty and social fragmentation is upon us .... "Carmel City Council approved a human rights ordinance with a 4-3 vote Monday night after hearing about two hours of divided public testimony. The ordinance bans discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity, among other traits. Council members Rick Sharp, Carol Schleif, Sue Finkam and Ron Carter voted in favor of it. The three council members opposing it—Luci Snyder, Kevin Rider and Eric Seidensticker—all said they were against any form of discrimination, but had issues with the wording and possible unintended consequences of the proposal." Kardashian is the new Black.

  2. Can anyone please tell me if anyone is appealing the law that certain sex offenders can't be on school property. How is somebody supposed to watch their children's sports games or graduations, this law needs revised such as sex offenders that are on school property must have another non-offender adult with them at all times while on school property. That they must go to the event and then leave directly afterwards. This is only going to hurt the children of the offenders and the father/ son mother/ daughter vice versa relationship. Please email me and let me know if there is a group that is appealing this for reasons other than voting and religion. Thank you.

  3. Should any attorney who argues against the abortion industry, or presents arguments based upon the Founders' concept of Higher Law, (like that marriage precedes the State) have to check in with the Judges and Lawyers Assistance Program for a mandatory mental health review? Some think so ... that could certainly cut down on cases such as this "cluttering up" the SCOTUS docket ... use JLAP to deny all uber conservative attorneys licenses and uber conservative representation will tank. If the ends justify the means, why not?

  4. Tell them sherry Mckay told you to call, they're trying to get all the people that have been wronged and held unlawfully to sign up on this class action lawsuit.

  5. Call Young and Young aAttorneys at Law theres ones handling a class action lawsuit