NEWSLETTER WEEKLY – FIX THE LEO PROBLEM
The Federal Retirement Systems are not uniform across unique systems. All persons under the Civil Service Retirement System (CSRS) are not governed by the same guidelines and the same is true for the Federal Employees Retirement System (FERS). The Office of Personnel Management (OPM) has been involved in a number of attempts to bring uniformity or standardization to certain job classifications. While I agree the ambiguity should be taken out of situations where individuals are performing similar jobs, but are treated differently for retirement purposes; most specifically, Law Enforcement Officers.
This category of employees are perhaps the most challenged group as to how they fit into the CSRS and FERS retirement systems. LEOs are defined one way under CSRS and yet a different way under FERS. Who fits into those categories is also an aspect requiring much discussion. Law Enforcement Officers are required to retire from their classification at the age of 57, the age was previously 55. Due to the early retirement provisions, these employees also pay an extra .5 percent into the CSRS, 7.5% versus 7.0% for regular CSRS employees. Under FERS, LEOs pay 1.3% into the system as opposed to .8% for regular employees under FERS. The higher rates are required because of the mandatory early retirement age. They put in more earlier because they leave the service sooner. In other words, they have a shorter time period to fund their retirement accounts.
Those distinctions are understandable, but even with those distinctions, every employee who considers him or herself an LEO just might not be for retirement purposes. That is where the uniformity is needed. Some legislators have called for giving OPM the opportunity to develop a streamlined system that would virtually integrate the many bifurcated aspects of the rules and guidelines governing retirement provisions for Law Enforcement Offcers. Perhaps, the definition for law Enforcement Officers either needs to be expanded, narrowed or totally reevaluated.
Law Enforcement Officers provide a very valuable service to the nation. They should not have to wonder whether they fall under special category for retirement purposes. Any retirement system should be very clear and unambiguous leaving only a question of when is the best time for me to retire and how will I manage my benefits. There will always be a number of questions about retirement but none of those questions should revolve around having a misunderstanding of what benefits you are entitled to as a result of your employment.
As the responsibilities and the risks for law enforcement expand since the attacks of 9/11, it is even a greater reason for the issue of who is an LEO to be resolved. These brave men and women are inundated with the heavy task of protecting citizens, the nation’s borders and the highest office in the land. Worrying about whether they are covered under special provisions for retirement should be the last thing they have to contend with. Congress should be urged to give the Office of Personnel Management the latitude needed to integrate terms and policies including an expansion strategy that will uniformly define Law Enforcement Officers and provide them all with the kind of retirement security they deserve.
P. S. Always Remember to Share What You Know.
Dianna Tafazoli
