AN ACT to amend and reenact subsection 1 of section 54-52-05 of the North Dakota Century Code, relating to employee participation in the public employees retirement system; to provide for retroactive application; and to declare an emergency.
SB 2227 amends North Dakota law governing participation in the Public Employees Retirement System (PERS) for employees of participating political subdivisions and governmental units. The bill clarifies that eligible employees generally must be enrolled in the retirement plan within the first month of employment, and it adds procedures for employees who were eligible but not enrolled to be enrolled immediately upon notice of eligibility unless they waive prior participation in writing to avoid past-service contributions.
The bill also addresses post-retirement reemployment. A retiree who returns to work for a different participating employer may permanently waive future participation in both the retirement plan and retiree health program, keep retirement status, and avoid future employee and employer contributions. A retiree who returns to the same employer, but is appointed by an elected state official to an unclassified state position, may not rejoin the retirement or retiree health programs and may retain retirement status for the duration of that official’s term until a successor is appointed. The act is retroactive to December 14, 2024, and is declared an emergency measure, indicating immediate effect and application to recent situations.
The bill amends section 54-52-05 of the North Dakota Century Code, which governs enrollment and participation rules in PERS. Its practical effect is to tighten and clarify mandatory enrollment timing, address missed enrollment for eligible employees, and create specific waiver options for retirees who return to public employment. It also affects contribution obligations for both employees and participating employers, and it extends to the retiree health program where referenced.
The bill appears to have been broadly supported and noncontroversial. It passed the Senate unanimously and the House by a strong margin, suggesting general agreement that the changes were administrative clarifications or technical fixes rather than major policy changes. The emergency clause and retroactive date also indicate a desire for immediate certainty in how the retirement rules apply.
No committee debate or transcript was provided, and the recorded votes show limited visible opposition. The only notable areas that could have prompted discussion are the retroactive application date, the emergency designation, and the treatment of retirees who return to work, especially the ability to waive future participation and the special rule for reemployment in the same office under an elected state official. However, the vote totals suggest these issues did not generate significant resistance.