AN ACT to amend and reenact subsection 11 of section 54-52-01 of the North Dakota Century Code, relating to the definition of national guard security officer and firefighter.
Summary
HB 1077 amends North Dakota Century Code section 54-52-01, which defines “national guard security officer or firefighter” for purposes of the state retirement system. The bill expands and clarifies the definition so that a participating member may qualify if employed by the North Dakota National Guard as a security police employee, a security officer employee, or a firefighter employee. In practical terms, it updates the statutory language to reflect the categories of Guard personnel covered by this special retirement-related definition.
The measure is narrow and technical, focused on aligning state law with current National Guard job classifications. It does not create a new program, but it affects which employees are recognized under the existing definition and therefore may influence eligibility or treatment under related retirement provisions in Chapter 54-52 of the Century Code. The bill passed both chambers overwhelmingly and was filed with the Secretary of State, indicating it became law.
Impact
HB 1077 amends the definition section of the North Dakota public employee retirement statutes, specifically the term used for National Guard security officers and firefighters in section 54-52-01. By adding and clarifying the listed Guard employee categories, the bill may affect how certain National Guard personnel are classified for retirement-related purposes under state law. The practical impact is limited to the affected National Guard employees and any benefits or administrative rules tied to that statutory definition.
Sentiment
The overall sentiment around HB 1077 appears strongly favorable and noncontroversial. It passed the House 90-0 and the Senate 47-0, with no recorded committee opposition or debate in the provided materials. The unanimous Senate vote and near-unanimous House vote suggest broad bipartisan support for the technical clarification requested by the Adjutant General.
Contention
There is little evidence of substantive contention in the available record. No committee transcripts were provided, and the votes show no meaningful opposition. If any issue existed, it likely would have been limited to the precise wording of the definition and whether the statutory categories accurately capture the intended National Guard positions, but the legislative history does not show disagreement on that point.