In 2008, the North Carolina Police Benevolent Association (PBA) interviewed numerous candidates who were seeking election to seats in the North Carolina General Assembly. One of the key issues addressed in these candidate interviews concerned a loophole with disability retirement benefits that had been brought to the attention of the PBA.

Currently, under the Local Governmental Employees’ Retirement System for Local Law Enforcement Officers there is a disability provision. After five years of credible service, if an officer becomes totally and permanently disabled and cannot perform his/her job, as approved by the Medical Review Board, he or she becomes eligible for disability retirement benefits. If an officer becomes disabled as the direct result of an involvement in an accident that occurred while he or she was performing his/her duty as an officer, he or she needs only one year of credible service to qualify. This disability benefit is calculated using the same formula as a service retirement benefit. However, there isn’t a disability retirement provision for officers who become seriously injured on duty during their first year on the job.

On January 26, 2009, a PBA legislative committee met in Cary to set the 2009-2010 legislative agenda for the North Carolina PBA. The committee agreed that closing the loophole for first year officers who must medically retire as a direct result of injuries while performing their duties should be a top priority.

Rep. Margaret Dickson, who represents Cumberland County, was approached by the PBA and readily agreed to work on the issue. She was joined by Rep. Marian McLawhorn, Rep. Grier Martin and Rep. Laura Wiley as primary sponsors on House Bill 697. Thirty one additional House members from both sides of the aisle joined the bill as co-sponsors. HB 697 truly created an atmosphere of overwhelming and bipartisan support. The North Carolina Fraternal Order of Police, North Carolina Association of Police Chiefs, and the North Carolina Sheriff’s Association also joined with the PBA in supporting HB 697.

On March 23, 2009, HB 697 was heard in the Homeland Security, Military, and Veterans Affair Committee. The committee voted unanimously to give a favorable report. The bill was then referred to the Pensions and Retirement Committee that is chaired by Rep. Russell Tucker. Rep. Tucker represents Duplin and Onslow counties. During this time, Rep. Tucker started to stonewall the bill. As committee chairman, he has the discretion on whether to allow a bill to be heard before his committee. Rep. Dickson, Rep. McLawhorn, and Rep. Wiley made numerous requests for him to hear the bill before the crossover deadline of May 14, 2009.

During the last several weeks before the deadline, PBA representatives and members also reached out to Rep. Tucker and requested that he allow the bill to be heard. These members included first year officers that could potentially be affected by the passage of HB 697. Inquires were made of Rep. Tucker about his opposition.

A former county manager, Rep. Tucker stated that cities and counties were against the bill because of the cost factor and that the bill would treat police officers and firefighters differently than other local and county workers. He also stated that the North Carolina Association of County Commissioners was concerned about the bill. A very revealing part of these discussions with Rep. Tucker was the fact that he had spoken with the NC Association of County Commissioners and alerted them to this bill. Tucker then repeatedly referred to the opposition by the NC Association of County Commissioners as a reason for not allowing the bill to be heard before his committee.

The PBA understands that concerns can develop with a piece of legislation. The committee format is designed to allow proponents and opponents to be heard on a particular bill. Such is the democratic process. HB 697 should have been heard by the Pension and Retirement Committee where concerns could have been presented and heard by the entire committee. The committee could have then voted accordingly. The PBA and bill sponsors simply requested a fair hearing of the bill. However, Rep. Tucker chose, to use his power and personal bias to kill a critical piece of legislation for police officers. In the end, HB 697 did not meet the crossover deadline and will not be eligible for consideration until the next legislative session.

Between now and the next legislative session, the real and distinct possibility exists that first year officers could be critically injured and not be able to continue their careers. These officers and their families would have to face an uncertain future without the benefit of a disability pension. Rep. Tucker’s actions have directly contributed to this possibility. The PBA hopes he will never have to answer to an injured officer or the family who finds themselves in this situation.

The crossover deadline is a critical time in the process of legislation. A bill has to move through committee(s) to proceed to the House or Senate floor for a vote. The bill then has to be passed by one body or the other before the deadline or the bill will die. 

A legislative actuarial note was attached to this bill.  According to the note the estimated cost would be 0.01% of   the payroll for all law enforcement officers in the Local Government Employees’ Retirement System.  This estimation is the lowest that can be used when there is the possibility of costs to the system.