Changes eligibility of Administrative Law Judges from DCRP to PERS.
Summary
Assembly Bill 1610 changes the retirement system treatment of Administrative Law Judges in the Office of Administrative Law. Under current law, these judges participate in the Defined Contribution Retirement Program (DCRP); this bill would move them into the Public Employees' Retirement System (PERS). It also requires that judges already participating in the DCRP be transferred into PERS within 90 days of the bill’s effective date, unless a judge affirmatively opts out by filing a waiver within 30 days.
The bill provides that transferred judges would receive PERS service credit for time previously spent in the DCRP, and their DCRP account balances would be moved into PERS. The State would be responsible for paying the unfunded liability associated with the transfer. The bill also amends the PERS eligibility statute to expressly include Administrative Law Judges, aligning them with certain other public employees already covered by PERS.
Impact
The bill would amend two retirement statutes: the DCRP eligibility law (P.L.2007, c.92) and the PERS membership law (P.L.1954, c.84). Its practical effect is to remove Administrative Law Judges of the Office of Administrative Law from DCRP coverage and place them in PERS, changing both their retirement benefit structure and the State’s funding obligations. It would also require administrative action by the Division of Pensions and Benefits to process transfers, service credit, and any opt-out waivers.
Sentiment
The bill text and available context suggest a straightforward, targeted policy change with no recorded committee testimony or votes in the provided materials. The sponsor’s stated purpose is to enroll Administrative Law Judges in PERS and transfer current DCRP participants, indicating support for a more traditional pension arrangement for this group. Because there is no transcript or voting history, there is no documented opposition or broader legislative sentiment in the supplied record.
Contention
The main policy issue is the shift from a defined contribution plan to a defined benefit pension system, which affects both retirement security for judges and long-term costs to the State. Potential points of contention include the State’s assumption of the unfunded liability, the fairness of changing retirement coverage for a specific class of judges, and whether Administrative Law Judges should be treated like other PERS-covered public employees rather than like other DCRP participants. The bill also preserves individual choice by allowing judges to opt out, which may reduce but not eliminate concerns about mandatory enrollment.