Grants retroactive tier IV membership in the New York state and local employees' retirement system to Joshua David Olsen
This bill grants retroactive Tier IV membership in the New York State and Local Employees’ Retirement System (NYSLERS) to Joshua David Olsen. It deems him to have joined the retirement system on January 1, 1999, based on his earlier part-time employment with the Schenectady City School District and SUNY Albany, even though he is currently a Tier VI member employed by the state Office for People With Developmental Disabilities. The bill applies only if he files an application with the state comptroller within one year of the act’s effective date.
If approved, Olsen would receive Tier IV status and all associated rights and benefits, with no refund of his member contributions. The bill also specifies that all past service costs created by the retroactive membership change would be paid by the State of New York. The fiscal note estimates an immediate one-time past service cost of about $78,000 and an ongoing increase in state contributions of about $14,000 annually beginning in fiscal year 2027, though those costs could vary over time with salary and actuarial assumptions.
The bill would create a narrow, individualized exception to retirement system membership rules by changing Olsen’s membership date for NYSLERS purposes and granting him Tier IV benefits retroactively. It would not broadly amend retirement law for all members, but it would require the state to absorb the actuarial cost of the benefit adjustment and would preserve Olsen’s existing contribution payments without refund. The practical effect is to increase state pension liabilities and confer more favorable retirement benefits than those available under Tier VI.
The available record shows no committee transcript or vote history, so there is no documented debate or recorded opposition in the materials provided. The bill’s structure and fiscal note suggest it is a private pension correction measure intended to remedy an alleged missed enrollment opportunity not attributable to Olsen’s negligence. Overall, the bill appears procedural and remedial rather than controversial in the record available, though it does impose a direct cost on the state.
The main point of potential contention is the retroactive grant of a more generous pension tier to a single individual, which creates a state-funded financial obligation and departs from ordinary retirement system enrollment rules. Questions could arise about whether the failure to enroll in 1999 or 2002 was truly not due to Olsen’s negligence, and whether granting an individualized pension benefit is equitable compared with treatment of other employees. The bill addresses this by limiting relief to one named person and requiring the state to pay all past service costs, but those features also highlight the fiscal and fairness concerns.