Grants retroactive membership with Tier 1 status in the New York state teachers' retirement system to James J. DeMarco.
Summary
This bill grants a special, retroactive retirement benefit to James J. DeMarco. It deems him to have been a member of the New York State and Local Employees’ Retirement System beginning July 17, 1969, based on his seasonal employment with the New York Power Authority, and awards him Tier I status even though he is currently a retired member of the New York State Teachers’ Retirement System. The bill is narrowly tailored to one individual and applies notwithstanding any other law to the contrary.
The measure also requires DeMarco to file an application with the head of the New York State Teachers’ Retirement System within one year of the bill’s effective date. If enacted, his pension would be recalculated retroactively, with payments adjusted back to his retirement date of December 7, 2007. The bill takes effect immediately.
Impact
The bill creates a one-person exception to retirement system rules by overriding ordinary membership and tier classification provisions for public employee pensions. It would effectively change DeMarco’s retirement membership date and tier status, requiring the New York State Teachers’ Retirement System to recalculate benefits and make retroactive payments. According to the fiscal note, the added liability is estimated at $98,200 and would be borne by employers in the system.
Sentiment
No committee transcript or vote record is provided, so there is no direct evidence of debate or opposition in the available materials. The bill’s introduction, amendment, and recommittal history suggest it moved through the legislative process in a routine way, and the fiscal note frames it as a discrete, individualized pension correction rather than a broad policy change.
Contention
The main point of potential contention is the bill’s special treatment of a single retiree, which may raise fairness and precedent concerns because it overrides standard retirement system rules for one person. Another possible issue is the fiscal impact, though the estimated cost is relatively modest. No specific objections or supporters are identified in the provided record, and there are no transcripts showing disagreement.