An Act To Amend Title 29 Of The Delaware Code Relating To Education Employees' Retirement And Disability Pensions.
Summary
HB113 amends Delaware’s pension laws for certain education employees by denying the State’s contribution to a service or disability pension, and denying interest on the employee’s own contribution, when the employee has been convicted of specified child-sex offenses and the conviction is tied to conduct carried out in connection with their employment. The bill applies to individuals employed by the Department of Education, school districts in the state school system, the University of Delaware, Delaware State University, and Delaware Technical and Community College.
The bill also preserves survivor protections: if an affected individual dies, the survivor may still receive survivor benefits under the pension chapter, so long as the required application was completed and the withdrawal benefit was not taken. In practical terms, the measure creates a pension forfeiture consequence for certain criminal convictions involving abuse of children in an educational employment setting, while leaving dependent benefits intact.
Impact
HB113 would amend Title 29 of the Delaware Code, specifically the education employees’ retirement and disability pension provisions, to add a new disqualification rule for state pension contributions in cases involving certain convictions under Title 11 child-sex offense statutes. It would affect pension administration for covered education-sector employees and require the Executive Secretary to act upon written certification from the employer or former employer. The bill does not eliminate all retirement-related rights; it targets the State-funded portion of the pension and related interest, while preserving survivor benefits under existing law.
Sentiment
The available materials suggest broad punitive intent and a generally straightforward policy rationale: to prevent public pension contributions from benefiting education employees convicted of serious crimes against children committed in connection with their jobs. No committee transcript or recorded vote is provided, so there is no evidence of organized opposition or detailed debate in the supplied record. The synopsis frames the bill as a targeted accountability measure rather than a broader pension reform.
Contention
The main point of potential contention is the scope of pension forfeiture and the conditions that trigger it. The bill applies only when the conviction is for specified offenses, the conduct is connected to employment, and the conviction occurs after the effective date, which may raise questions about retroactivity, proof, and administrative implementation. Another possible issue is whether denying the State’s contribution and interest is an appropriate or sufficient sanction, though the provided record does not show explicit disagreement from any particular group or legislator.