Authorizes the county of Dutchess to offer an optional twenty-five year retirement plan to certain deputy sheriffs employed by such county

◆ The sponsor's argument

Why Robert Jackson says this is needed

For more than twenty-five years, there has been a 60,4*on/1ct when advising eligible new Dutchess County Sheriff's Office employees of their right to elect to be covered by the provisions of Retirement and Social Security Law section 551 instead of being covered by the provisions of Retirement and Social Security Law section 89-p. As evidenced by the list of names and hire dates listed in this legis- lation, this disconnect has been going on for years, depriving eligible members in the Dutchess County Sheriff's Office of their right to elect the provisions of section 551. Deputies employed by the Dutchess County Sheriff's Office have a job which often involves a certain level of risk to their safety. Current- ly, a substantial portion of Deputies are enrolled in the section 89-p Retirement Plan rather than the section 551 Retirement Plan at no fault of their own. While both plans' service retirement benefit provided by both plans is almost identical, the "Line of Duty Disability" benefit under section 89-p pales in comparison to the benefit provided under section 551. These Deputies risk their safety daily and if they suffer an injury on the job that results in a permanent inability to perform their duties, they will not be able to continue providing for their families. If enacted, this bill would allow those deputies currently enrolled in this section 89-p plan the opportunity to enroll in section 551 plan, thereby making them eligible for this increased disability retirement benefit and offering them some protection in the unfortunate event that this occurs. The failure of the employees listed in this legislation to elect the section 551 benefits was not their fault. They simply were not notified of the election and thus, could not act in a timely manner. This legis- lation would end the cycle of failed notification and lost election opportunities that has continued for over twenty-five years.

This is the sponsor's own case for the bill, quoted from their memorandum. It is not Agora's description of what the bill does.