ILNews

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.
 

 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
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

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. I need an experienced attorney to handle a breach of contract matter. Kindly respond for more details. Graham Young

  2. I thought the slurs were the least grave aspects of her misconduct, since they had nothing to do with her being on the bench. Why then do I suspect they were the focus? I find this a troubling trend. At least she was allowed to keep her law license.

  3. Section 6 of Article I of the Indiana Constitution is pretty clear and unequivocal: "Section 6. No money shall be drawn from the treasury for the benefit of any religious or theological institution."

  4. Video pen? Nice work, "JW"! Let this be a lesson and a caution to all disgruntled ex-spouses (or soon-to-be ex-spouses) . . . you may think that altercation is going to get you some satisfaction . . . it will not.

  5. First comment on this thread is a fitting final comment on this thread, as that the MCBA never answered Duncan's fine question, and now even Eric Holder agrees that the MCBA was in material error as to the facts: "I don't get it" from Duncan December 1, 2014 5:10 PM "The Grand Jury met for 25 days and heard 70 hours of testimony according to this article and they made a decision that no crime occurred. On what basis does the MCBA conclude that their decision was "unjust"? What special knowledge or evidence does the MCBA have that the Grand Jury hearing this matter was unaware of? The system that we as lawyers are sworn to uphold made a decision that there was insufficient proof that officer committed a crime. How can any of us say we know better what was right than the jury that actually heard all of the the evidence in this case."

ADVERTISEMENT