AN ACT to amend and reenact subsection 3 of section 54-52-01 of the North Dakota Century Code, relating to the definition of correctional officer for purposes of the public employees retirement system.
Summary
HB 1177 amends North Dakota’s public employees retirement law by expanding the definition of “correctional officer” in section 54-52-01 of the Century Code. Under the bill, the term continues to cover a participating member employed as a correctional officer by a political subdivision, but it also expressly includes an individual employed by a correctional facility who is enrolled in, but has not yet completed, a correctional officer course approved or certified by the North Dakota Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation.
The practical effect is to allow certain correctional-facility employees who are in the training pipeline to be treated as correctional officers for purposes of the Public Employees Retirement System (PERS). This change affects retirement eligibility and membership classification under state law, and it may benefit local correctional facilities and employees by aligning retirement coverage with the realities of hiring and training in the corrections workforce.
Impact
The bill narrows in on one statutory definition within chapter 54-52 of the North Dakota Century Code and does not broadly restructure the retirement system. Its main legal impact is to expand who qualifies as a “correctional officer” for PERS purposes, potentially bringing additional employees under the retirement classification while they are still completing required training. The affected parties are political subdivisions, correctional facilities, and employees enrolled in approved correctional officer training programs.
Sentiment
The bill appears to have been broadly supported. It passed the House 90-1 and the Senate 47-0, indicating strong bipartisan agreement and little visible opposition. The absence of committee transcript material suggests there was no recorded controversy in the available context, and the near-unanimous votes point to a consensus that the change was a modest, targeted adjustment to retirement eligibility rules.
Contention
No major points of contention are evident in the available record. The only visible dissent was a single negative vote in the House, but no explanation is provided. Any concern would likely center on whether trainees should receive the same retirement classification as fully certified correctional officers, but the overwhelming vote margins suggest that any such concern was limited and did not materially affect passage.