State agencies representing prosecutors and defenders said the changes would entice more employees to stay.
(Freedomz, Adobe Stock)
Hoosier prosecutors and public defenders on Monday pitched lawmakers on pension upgrades to boost recruitment and retention amid the state’sattorney shortage.
The interim committee also hinted that a recently approved, long-term plan for pension bonuses — in which some retirees receive 13th checks and others get cost-of-living adjustments (COLAs) — is anything but set in stone.
The Indiana Prosecuting Attorneys Council’s Chris Daniels said prosecutors’ offices around the state are “becoming so overwhelmed” that they “can’t handle” caseloads.
Daniels said prosecutors struggle to keep their deputies because of low pay, unlimited caseloads and “emotionally heavy and stressful” subject matter.
Experienced prosecutors, he said, often leave public service for higher-paid private sector work or to become judges. Elected prosecutors, chief deputies and others vest in their pension at eight years and get another benefit boost at 12 years; Daniels said there’s little incentive to stay longer than that.
He asked lawmakers to offer Prosecuting Attorneys’ Retirement Fund (PARF) members a COLA comparable to what judges receive.
“Every place in code, the benefits given to the judges are identical to the benefits given to the prosecutor,” Daniels said. “Where we see a significant difference, though, is in the pension plan.”
Judges earn almost $76,000 in pension benefits per year, on average, according to hispresentation. Prosecutors earn just $28,000 annually, on average — with the COLA as the “key” difference-maker.
Daniels, who is the council’s senior traffic safety resource prosecutor, also pushed for several changes proposed in unsuccessful 2022legislation.
That’s where Commission on Court Appointed Attorneys spokesman Andrew Cullen focused his efforts.
He asked lawmakers to let chief public defenders and state public defender agency leaders join PARF. That would only include chiefs and chief deputies who don’t have private practices and who are paid in accordance with the commission’s standards.
That would add about 50 people to the fund, according to the most recent fiscalanalysisproduced for 2022’s House Bill 1605. The move, which was retroactive, would’ve cost about $5 million.
“We haven’t had a situation where folks are being released from jail because there is no public defender. We haven’t had a situation where there is no public defender to a point on a regular basis,” Cullen said. “But we are starting to see that become a reality more and more that with the severe lawyer crisis.”
“What we continue to believe is really important for our side of the equation is simply to let full-time chief public defenders participate in the PARF retirement plan,” he added.”
Cullen noted that this interim panel — the Pension Management OversightCommittee— endorsed the change in 2022. The bill sailed through its original chamber on a 94-1 vote and got past the Senate’s pension committee, according to alistof actions. But the Senate’s finance-focused Appropriations Committee never heard the bill, dooming it.
Possible changes to long-term plan
The interim committee also reviewed seven bill drafts, including two by Rep. Jeff Thompson, R-Lizton, that would reshape a recently approved plan for benefit boosts.
Last session’sHouse Enrolled Act 1004establisheda hybrid mechanismoffering annual 13th checks to public employees retired before July 1, 2025. Those retired after that date would get 1% COLAs.
Thompson described a worrisome “cliff” in which Hoosiers making the same salary retire a month apart and accumulate drastically different post-retirement increases 20 years down the line. It’s because 13th checks are one-time payouts, while COLAs compound over time. He estimated a “several thousand-dollar” difference.
“So, I’ve asked, ‘Is there a way to avoid that cliff?’ And at least I think there is,” he said.
One draftwould replace the 13th check with a flat amount: $4 per year of service. It would be capped at $120, or 30 years of service, annually.
Theother draftoffers two formulas: $3 per year of service, or 0.75% of the retiree’s annual retirement allowance, including post-retirement increases. A retiree would get the larger of the two options.
“Most of the models would do this: the employees with the lowest pension benefits would get a higher percent increase, but probably the lesser dollars. And those with a high benefit would get more dollar increase, but a lower percent,” Thompson said. “… You avoid that cliff when you do that.”
“When you go to the grocery store, I don’t care if you’ve got a high benefit or a low one. The grocery increase is the same, because we all eat, don’t we?” he concluded.
Thompson said that despite running numerous models for his idea, he didn’t plan to file his drafts in the upcoming budget-writing session. He publicly encouraged others to take an idea and “run with it” instead.
“I’ve got enough on my plate right now, and I don’t need to be doing everything,” Thompson told the Capital Chronicle as explanation. As House Ways and Means chair, he is his chamber’s chief budget architect.
“There’s a multiplicity of ways to do things, like I said, an infinite way. Let other people get involved,” he added. “It doesn’t all have to be from me. Other people are smarter and might do a better job. Let them run with it!”
Public retiree and employee groups were apprehensive.
Retired Indiana Public Employees Association leader Jessica Love pushed lawmakers to execute the hybrid plan, noting that it needs an implementation date and budget authorization, although the money needed is held in supplemental reserve accounts.
“Chair Thompson, I understand you are not planning to file the presented language,” Love said. “But if anyone is planning to go back to the drawing board, that will require careful analysis and consideration, and we would definitely want to be part of any discussions.”
Gail Zeheralis, government relations director for the Indiana State Teachers Association, said lawmakers “need to be real careful” but encouraged “trying to find a balance” between the checks and COLAs.
She suggested a “catch-up” provision, which resets retiree’s base amounts, as another way to avoid the discrepancy Thompson had described.
Indiana Capital Chronicle is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Indiana Capital Chronicle maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Niki Kelly for questions: info@indianacapitalchronicle.com. Follow Indiana Capital Chronicle on Facebook and X.
