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.
HB 1077 makes a narrow definitional change in North Dakota law governing the Public Employees Retirement System. Specifically, it amends subsection 11 of section 54-52-01 of the Century Code to clarify who qualifies as a “national guard security officer or firefighter.” The bill states that the term means a participating member who is employed by the North Dakota National Guard as a security police employee, a security officer employee, or a firefighter employee.
The measure appears to be a technical update requested by the Adjutant General and handled by the House Government and Veterans Affairs Committee. By refining the definition, the bill helps determine which National Guard employees are covered under the referenced retirement-related classification and ensures the statute matches current job titles and organizational structure. The bill does not create a new program or benefit, but it can affect eligibility and administration under the state retirement system for the affected Guard personnel.
HB 1077 amends North Dakota Century Code section 54-52-01, which contains definitions used in the state retirement system, by expanding and clarifying the categories of National Guard employees included as “national guard security officer or firefighter.” The practical effect is to align statutory language with current National Guard positions—security police, security officer, and firefighter employees—and to reduce ambiguity in applying retirement-related provisions to those workers.
The bill appears to have been viewed favorably and as noncontroversial. It passed the House overwhelmingly, 90-4, and the Senate unanimously, 47-0, with no recorded committee transcript debate or opposition in the provided materials. The voting pattern suggests broad agreement that the change was a routine clarification rather than a substantive policy shift.
No major points of contention are evident in the available record. Because the bill is a narrow definitional amendment requested by the Adjutant General, any discussion would likely have centered on whether the revised language accurately captures the intended National Guard positions and their retirement-system treatment. The absence of committee transcripts and the strong vote margins indicate little or no opposition from legislators or affected stakeholders.