New York’s Governor, Kathy Hochul, recently vetoed a bill focused on enhancing the pension benefits for distinct law enforcement personnel such as park rangers, university police, and others. The governor cited the significant financial ramifications for the state government as the defining reason behind her decision. The bill, which was supported nearly unanimously and passed by the Democratic-majority Legislature in June, was intended to permit specific state law enforcement agencies to access retirement benefits after completing 20 years of service, as opposed to the existing prerequisite of 25 years.
The intentions of the bill were clear; it was primarily targeted towards promoting equal pay and encouraging these law enforcement agencies to recruit and retain new officers. However, Governor Hochul shot down the proposal, pointing to the financial obligation it holds for the state agencies. She mentioned an approximate $67 million needed to offset retroactive pay for the officers, a constraint which has led her and former governors to dismiss such alterations.
Hochul, a member of the Democratic Party, stated in her veto memo that this bill has been vetoed four times over the last five years due to the consequential unwarranted costs that come with such pension augmentation. She wrote, ‘The hike in pension would significantly burden the state with unbudgeted costs.’ According to her, this would require the state to bear a past service cost of $66.7 million, and an annual employer contribution would increase by $6.0 million.
Governor Hochul’s decision has triggered strong reactions from Jim McCartney, head of the Police Benevolent Association of New York. He expressed sharp criticism for Hochul’s ‘authoritarian actions,’ calling them ‘the most condemnable behavior’ ever exhibited by government officials, and a marked violation of public confidence.
Frustrated by Hochul’s stand, McCartney mentioned how their persistent efforts to support the governor’s public safety, environmental, and inclusion agendas have seemingly gone unnoticed. In his words, her conduct clarified her position as ‘anti-police, anti-labor authoritarian.’ McCartney’s argument raised questions about what Hochul’s fellow Democrats in the state legislature would think of her decision, especially considering their clear support for their members and their specialized tasks, which have proven lifesaving on numerous occasions.
Legislators advocating for the proposed changes highlighted a critical point; New York state troopers and nearly 97% of municipal police officers enjoy a 20-year retirement plan, which allows them to receive 50% of their final average salary. They are also provided an additional benefit, referred to as ‘1/60th’. This denotes that for each year of employment exceeding 20 years, they receive an extra 1.66% (or 1/60th) of their final average salary.
As a hypothetical scenario, an officer with a 20-year retirement benefit plan who serves for 21 years would receive a pension equating to 51.66% of their final salary. By similar calculations, if an officer with the same plan works for 22 years, they would get a pension amounting to 53.33% of their final salary. The lawmakers included these examples in a summary to clarify the intentions behind the bill.
The bill was also aimed at rectifying this discrepancy and ensuring parity among different law enforcement officers. It proposes that the Agency Police Bargaining Unit should be authorized to have a 20-year retirement plan, thus creating a level playing field.
The Police Benevolent Association points out the ‘absence of retirement equity’ as a critical factor causing recruitment shortfalls. There has reportedly been an uptrend in experienced officers’ resignations, attributable to them being scouted by agencies that acknowledge their value and provide suitable compensation.
The discord between Governor Hochul and the state’s influential police unions is likely to intensify with the rejection of this plan. The unions have been locking horns with the Democratic governor on a range of issues, such as crime rates, funding for the police, and other aspects of law enforcement.
Following the rejection of the plan, the PBA’s McCartney wasted no time in vilifying Governor Hochul anew. He underscored the criticism for her seeming lack of support for law enforcement initiatives. As per his statement, her veto of the bill and her stance on law enforcement have left many questioning the governor’s intentions and her commitment to supporting New York’s law enforcement agencies.