State budget fails to equalize retirement benefits for rangers, environmental officers. The push for parity with other areas of law enforcement dates back to 2017 and has been vetoed by Gov. Hochul three times
By Gwendolyn Craig
Forest rangers and environmental conservation officers hoping the $237 billion state budget would include funding for setting their retirement eligibility on par with other law enforcement colleagues were disappointed.
The proposal to lower pension eligibility from 25 years to 20 impacts more than 1,200 state employees. It has been the topic of bipartisan legislation, passing the state Legislature four times, but vetoed by the governor just as many. Both state Assembly and Senate budget plans included funding for the change, but it was nixed during final negotiations with Gov. Kathy Hochul. It’s a blow to the agencies, union representatives said, who are struggling to keep their numbers and draw more people to their fields.
At least two environmental conservation officers have left to join the New York State Police, said Matthew Krug, director of environmental conservation officers and investigators for the New York Police Benevolent Association.
Most municipal officers, state police and county sheriff’s deputies receive 50% of their final average salary after 20 years of service. Rangers, environmental conservation officers, regional state park police and State University of New York police, are eligible for that after 25 years.
Arthur Perryman, DEC forest ranger director at the PBA, said recruitment is also a challenge. This spring’s forest ranger academy in Wanakena was slated to train 25 future rangers, he said, but the DEC enrolled just 13 eligible participants. While Perryman doesn’t believe the retirement disparity is the only reason, he said students are weighing benefits to make their decisions. Some potential recruits examine other public law enforcement employers, including the federal government, that offer more attractive pension deals.
“You can’t fault people for doing that. Even if they’re really set on a career as a forest ranger, they can look at the feds, and the feds have a 20-year retirement,” Perryman said. “They might go that route.”
A 7-year fight
Lawmakers first introduced legislation to address the retirement disparity in 2017. Former Gov. Andrew Cuomo vetoed it in the 2019-2020 legislative session. Hochul subsequently vetoed it three more times.
The bill called for additions to the state’s “Retirement and Social Security Law to allow environmental conservation officers, forest ranger, regional state park police, and university police officers to receive a 20-year retirement plan similar to the New York State Troopers and the vast majority of municipal police officers.”
In 2021, Hochul said she vetoed the bill because she thought the benefit should be part of the collective bargaining process.
Krug and Perryman said the pension benefit cannot be negotiated during collective bargaining. In meetings with the governor’s staff, Krug said he’s mentioned this but did not receive a response. Krug said environmental conservation officers have been over a year without a contract. In his 16 years as an environmental conservation officer, Krug said he has been under contract for a total of 3 ½ years.
Lee Adler, a labor lawyer who teaches at Cornell University School of Industrial and Labor Relations, also believed it could not be part of the collective bargaining process and called Hochul’s behavior in her first veto “not appropriate.” Since the legislation discusses amending the retirement and social security law, Adler said it “is at best inaccurate” to suggest the union could work it out in collective bargaining. If the law differentiates between police officers, “then the change must occur by legislation,” Adler said.
Gov. Hochul’s vetoes
Hochul also vetoed the bill because of the “unfunded costs to the State.” In her following two vetoes, she did not mention collective bargaining, but said there was no funding for the change. The cost, she wrote, should be addressed in annual budget negotiations.
A Hochul spokesperson did not respond to the Explorer’s inquiry on the retirement matter including the differing notions of contract negotiations.
After going through the legislative process and the budget process, Perryman and Krug are unsure what more can be done.
“We came up short again with the governor,” Perryman said. “It’s very frustrating because we’re being told these things, we deliver on those things, and are denied again.”
State Sen. Dan Stec, R-Queensbury, said he was “disappointed but not surprised it was not included in the budget.”
Next steps
Lawmakers are still hoping to pass the retirement legislation for a fifth time before the end of session in June.
The latest bill calls for a one-time contribution for past service costs of $70.3 million, if enacted this session. The legislation estimates the state will increase its annual contributions by $6.6 million ending March 31, 2025. After that, the cost is expected to average about 3.9% of salary annually.
Rangers, environmental conservation officers and others would receive 50% of their final average salary after 20 years of employment, with a cap of 70% after 32 years of service.
State Assemblyman Billy Jones, D-Chateaugay Lake, called it “unfortunate and frustrating” that the retirement measure didn’t make it to the final budget. As a member of the Government Employees Committee, Jones said he “will continue to push for this as will many of my colleagues.” Stec said he would continue to support the bill.
State Assemblyman Matthew Simpson, R-Horicon, said he would be meeting with environmental conservation officers next week.
“I’m going to do all that I can to make sure that that bill is not dead,” Simpson said.
Top photo: DEC Forest Rangers reaching the bottom of the technical section of an ice climber rescue on the North Face of Pitchoff, off the Jackrabbit trail in Lake Placid. Photo by Eric Teed
Adirondack policy, in plain speak
Sign up for Gwen’s weekly “Adirondack Report” newsletter
New York State department of corrections is also 25 years and not 20. The department is also going through a massive personnel shortage combination of people leaving and new people not taking the job.
Compare to the private sector where pensions are largely a thing of the past for businesses in competitive sectors. Convert to a 401k-based system and lower the cost of government.