Public Retirement & Social Security Programs-Joint

Good morning chair sees a quorum if you have any with any of you that want to signed up to speak for a bill please make sure you sign in. The glad to have everyone this morning. S. the couple of comments the. We will not be. Hearing. H. B. thirteen oh six or S. B. seventy seven today so. Just make those announcements up front. All right. Co chair do you have anything to share. We say no. Good morning. What was okay. All right. At this time will proceed to house bill eleven eight eleven eighty six representative Collins you're recognized to present your bill. with the committee's permission I'd like a clean record and Jennifer and we would to join a separate. That's great if you would both of you please introduce yourself to the committee. Jennifer leave a general counsel pre clearance all right. Clint Rhoden Arkansas teacher retirement system. You're recognized to present your bill thank you Mr chair so this was the bill that we discussed last week this is where the two existing types beneficiaries the spouse and the disabled dependent child this bill would say that instead of it being one of the other they can be a beneficiary it could be both is so we amended it and it's already engrossed but I'll basically talk about the first with the amendment does it does three things basically in response to your feedback first it adopts Senator Hickey suggestion that we more directly to refer to what kind of dependent child is eligible to be a beneficiary it's less a substantive change in more just making extra clear that we're doing what we intend to do. Second it changes what happens in the somewhat unlikely event that a spouse and multiple disabled dependent children or designated as beneficiaries before the bill said all beneficiaries would have equal shares so if there were a spouse and two disabled dependent children then each would have gotten a third but with this amendment in the same situation it would go to fifty percent the spouse and the remaining fifty would be split among the disabled dependent children so in that scenario where there's to mold to disable dependent children each would get quarter and finally it removes the possibility of qualifying as a disabled dependent child based on a determine let determination letter from social security ministration you members thought that might open the floodgates to more disable dependent children being eligible that really wasn't the intent so we just took that part out altogether so now the only possible qualification is being adjudicated mentally or physically incompetent by a judge she is the same as in current law. I'm happy to answer any questions or talk more about the bill as a whole I just but we did discuss last week's honestly to you guys. Any questions of the committee all right center plating you're recognized thank you Mister chair I just wanna say I appreciate you working on that language Jean and listening to the concerns thank you. Any other questions. All right do we have anyone in the audience would like to speak I don't have anyone signed up for against. All right. All right we have a motion to pass can you. All right let me the whole that per second would you like to close for your bill I'll close for the bill I'll take their motion all right so now take that motion second all right got a motion and a second any discussion. All those in favor say aye. He opposed same sign. motion carries our bill passes congratulations. Thank you Mr. All right if you want to proceed to house bill eleven eighty seven. house bill eleven eighty seven is also from the teacher retirement system this bill clarifies that T. drop dispenser eligible for the same lump sum death benefit that other active and retired members are eligible for to drop is the program were members work past the retirement age you contributions are handled under a different set of rules for those additional years the teacher participants are definitely members of the system so the assumption would be that they would be included for this benefit by because they occupy kind of if place between active and retired this bill just make sure that we are specifically mentioning them in code so there's no question that they are included for the lump sum death benefit other than that it's just language reorganization and taking out some superfluous language that that was redundant no fiscal impact of this one because it is what the system is already does and I have an answer any questions all right any questions of the committee. I don't have anyone signed up anyone in the audience that would like to speak for against the bill. All right would you like to close for your bill close the bill and I move to pass all right we have a motion do pass do I have a second. All right got a second any discussion all those in favor say aye all right in the opposed all right your bill has passed congratulations thank you very much thank you. All right at this time will move on to Senate bill one seventeen Senator Hammer you're recognized. And. As I understand you have an amendment first. Yes yes Sir. Okay let us get that passed out and then we'll take up your amendment. Maybe we want to take up your. We'll take it up but we won't discuss. We've got a motion to prove the amendment we have a second. All right got a second. any discussion. All those in favor say aye. Any opposed. All right the amendment is approved. You may present your bill as amended thank you Mr chairman I'll give the initial run and then the father Clint to clean up anything I say or to add to anything that I didn't get said basically what we want to do is allow of teachers have been out of the system that would like to come back into the system resume teaching to be able to purchase the years they've been out we've cut it down to a four month or to come back into the teachers are yes separation period will cut that separation period from six months down the four months that's as close as we get of to the Irish guidelines without stepping over the line and bring the Irish into our business per our actuary sitting here behind me and so we want to be able to shorten that that gap period from being out six months down Fortner struck mature all the for Clint to clean up anything else said that maybe been inaccurate. All right thank you Committee Clint Rhoden teacher retirement system of so yes Is Senator Hammer said we're this was a built we started looking at last summer actually this is an this is an issue that the superintendents have brought to me Many years I I always keep getting questions is there anyway to shorten the six month separation pay and a nationally you know we study this for like say a couple years and our initial an indication was now we think that's probably as good six short as we can get it but as we kept asking questions of the tax attorneys et cetera and we learned that the IRS doesn't actually have a set number of months that you have to separate they just have this facts and circumstances that you have to have a bona fide termination from employment. And it and it would it could change for every circumstance out there so with that guidelines you know we look at our circumstances for separation period you know we ran three months up the flag pole just to see it you know start a conversation of. That that conversation got injured where four months is or could be viewed as a reasonable separation from service considering that most retirees retire in July one they wouldn't be eligible to come back to service until November one that would is in the middle of the school year or may look middle of the first semester it's a little bit more difficult to hold the position open artificially. For in that circumstance so that's why we settled essentially on this for months separation period so like I say of compromise between the retirement system and the superintendents to maybe try to get some educators back into the system. Mr had you know several reach out to means they want to go to three months want to go down to forty five days those kind of things if we could without inviting the attention of the R. S. we would but again we felt that this was as close as we could get to that line without stepping over it because less we want to do is have the R. S. come back in and mess up somebody's retirement system or mess up our retirement system so with all the experts that were consulted on this we felt that four months where we could land it's not weird like to be a really like to be closer but we're too much closer than we were before the started if we are able to get this through. All right. We have a question representative Collins you're recognized for a question. Thank you order any systems or other states that have four months or less and we and you may not know but I don't know if we had any real world examples where this was been tried. Thank. Yes Sir the calls up so we've we've done research I mean this separation period is it's at I know of systems that have anywhere from three months which like we said we we don't think really works for our system and a lot of systems have it all the way up to one year being super careful so it's it's all across the board and like I say that's because the IRS doesn't have a set number of months it is facts and circumstances bona fide separation of employment and. So anyway so hopefully that answers your question. Per share I just checked with Jodie and he said it's all over the board it in see anything less but as Clint said it's it's upwards of a year so it's all over the board. Okay do we have any other questions. All right do we have I don't have anyone from the audience signed up to speak but do we have anyone that would like to speak. Okay Senator Hammer would you like to close for your bill thank Mr you know the intent is that if we can maybe give some teachers ideas of of coming back in and we don't get the benefit of it that was really what drives most of this is just try to open up a piece of the puzzle in the puzzle to try to get teachers to stay and to recruit him back into the field if they choose to leave decide retirant's not for them they wanna get back in sooner that's what it's about and with that Mister chairman I'd make a motion to pass. All right. As amended as amended okay there we go all right so we have a motion do pass as amended do I have a second. All right got a second any discussion all those in favor say aye any opposed. Congratulations senator your bill has passed thank you Mr chairman members of committee. All right now we will move on to Senate bill number seventy eight Senator Hickey you're recognized to present your bill. Okay he's a. Your editor. Would you introduce you have your guest introduce yourself. Any faster with a purse. All right Senator you're recognized to present your bill yes members this is Senate bill seventy eight what this does just to give you a little bit of inside we currently have a statute on a book that says that if the judge if if they run after their age seventy that they forfeit their retirement benefits of course we don't have that to happen very often but we do have it to happen we're judges bills like that the that's our calling and that's their duty and they're going to continue to to do that. Even at the cost of losing their retirement so what this bill does however is I think there possibly could be in some unintended consequences maybe like maybe somebody. Whatever they stay at whatever they set up the statute they may have designed it this way I don't know but personally I don't feel that is correct right so what this bill would do is it would leave the age the age requirement in but what it would do is the way that we've got it set up I bet this was an oversight. We have it that if what if what if the judge ran and won it was in the system they would have to continue to contribute although they have no possibility of ever receiving those funds back in addition to what this bill does is I went one step further because I thought it was correct that in the event that a judge did that that not only would they did not have to continue to put in but just the principle of what they've put in over the years that they could receive it back that would not be any earnings or any interest you know there to or anything of that nature just a just as a fairness thing. Been in France for most of my life I mean I've seen investments and things like that were you know you might get a penalty on the interest or things of that nature I'm not saying they're not out there but you know this right here shows that you would lose any and everything you put in you know for the service so this is just the bill to attempt to correct that. All right the. Do we have any questions of the committee representative right you're recognized thank you Mr chairman Senator jim to make you saying as simple as we can do we go right to a list just say a teacher is actually getting into the draw to draw. Jack. Senator Rapert is that this particular bill I think you're right I so easy to do this particular one is just as it relates to the judge or justice there is a language in here too so that you can see the work justice was added I think that we've considered a mall judge but just to make sure that we were specific and detailed enough that it was all inclusive we did put that sentence and that was my fault rather I went from from one to two and actually would at the bottom of the site. No problem thank you replace your router yes. do we have any other questions. All right I do not have anyone signed up from the audience the would be open to anyone from the audience speaking. All right. Senator do you want to close for your bill come close thank you all right. We've got a motion to I have a second all right we got a motion and a second any discussion all those in favor say aye. Imposed. Your bill has passed congratulations thanks committee. Do we have any other comments for the committee. We all like the nine o'clock. Yeah I think that's I think that's a win okay we'll. We will love plan to be back here next week at nine o'clock there being no further business we're adjourned.