Changes to Nebraska State Patrol survivors' retirement benefits ignite legislative fight

Yahoo

05-05-2025

Recruits for the Nebraska State Patrol in a 2022 class photo. (Courtesy of the Nebraska State Patrol)
LINCOLN — One state lawmaker's continued efforts to boost benefits for Nebraska State Patrol troopers, a largely consensus issue, ignited a rare fight among legislative allies.
The fight flared up last week in the Nebraska Legislature after State Sen. Eliot Bostar of Lincoln and his ally, State Sen. Beau Ballard of Lincoln, struck a deal to add a proposal to increase survivors' benefits in the case of a trooper's death from 75% up to 100%.
In the case of dependent children without a surviving parent, it would bump benefits up to 100% until the child turns 19 years old.
Bostar has said the measure addresses a 'fairly cruel reality' when an officer dies and families are hurt again. He pointed to collegiate research out of Iowa and New York that troopers, because of the line of work, can have shorter life spans than spouses in different fields of work.
'It seems wrong to ask folks to do a job that will reduce their longevity while then punishing their family financially,' Bostar told the Nebraska Examiner last week.
Ballard, who chairs the Legislature's Nebraska Retirement Systems Committee, called the measure 'common sense' and said it was 'weird' that public safety officials weren't fully compensated for their work.
Ballard said Bostar's measure is a 'piece of that puzzle' to recruitment and retention. The State Trooper Association of Nebraska and multiple retired troopers supported the measure.
Bostar's Legislative Bill 76, as introduced, would also have raised maximum annual cost-of-living adjustments for Patrol members' retirement benefits. A narrower version, just related to survivors' benefits, was amended into Ballard's Legislative Bill 645, related to school retirement, on April 24 in a 39-0 vote, without issue. At that time, the increased benefits would have taken effect this July 1.
But four days later, Ballard filed an amendment struck with Bostar to kick the benefits bump two years out, moving it out of this already difficult budget cycle.
An actuarial study estimated a $3.3 million annual cost, which Bostar has denied is the true amount and is the largest estimate he's ever gotten in pushing similar legislation. Even so, the amendment was adopted 41-0, and LB 645 moved on once again.
The flare-up came last Wednesday after Ballard rose on a procedural motion to say that, absent any other legal changes, the provisions of Bostar's measure could not apply retroactively to existing spouses. He cited his committee legal counsel, the legal counsel of the related retirement state agency and the actuarial report.
'Any surviving spouse currently receiving 75% survivors' benefits will continue to receive 75% survivors' benefits,' Ballard said, withdrawing his motion, thus ending debate on LB 645.
Without an immediate chance for anyone to respond, LB 645 passed 45-2.
Bostar confronted Ballard after the vote, saying it was 'bull—' that an average loss of four troopers a year could lead to such a high price tag.
'How much you think their pensions are? $10 million?' Bostar told Ballard off the side of the floor near a table where reporters regularly sit. 'It doesn't add up.'
Bostar told his colleague that it was the legal counsel or actuaries 'lying to your f— face, and it means you lied on the mic, and I'm going to say that.'
The Retirement Committee legal counsel, Ballard and Bostar moved a few feet away to a side corner off the legislative floor where a reporter could hear the counsel tell Bostar that the state could be 'f— sued' if Bostar rebuffed Ballard and said his interpretation was the law was retroactive, possibly muddying the waters on the legislative intent if later challenged in court.
But Bostar got on the microphone 10 minutes later and told his colleagues that he 'fundamentally' disagreed with the legal interpretation that Ballard cited.
'Because there is no other way for the math to work on the numbers that were handed down by the actuaries, by NPERS [Nebraska Public Employee Retirement Systems], it must apply retroactively,' Bostar said. 'Otherwise, the number wouldn't be $3 million. There is no other mathematical way for this to make sense.'
'While we're putting things on the record,' Bostar continued, he said he believes that all surviving spouses should 'rightfully' have their benefits increased to 100%
'That is what we paid for. That is what the actuaries clearly calculated,' Bostar said.
The actuaries wrote that their understanding of legislative intent is that the changes would not apply retroactively, to which Bostar said the math still didn't pan out and that it was 'text on a page.' He said if the law wasn't retroactive, he could have made the change to do so, but that it has always '100%' been his intent and understanding for the change to apply to all families.
An average of four troopers will unfortunately die in a year, Bostar said, but at least one won't be married, and another might die after their spouse has already passed.
That would require annual retirement benefits for the remaining two troopers to be more than $6 million each year, Bostar said, but they're just 'not that generous.'
State Sen. Danielle Conrad of Lincoln, who has not always seen eye-to-eye with Bostar or Ballard, praised Bostar as debate continued on a different underlying measure. She said she could not express her gratitude 'sufficiently' for Bostar's leadership in helping first responders not only have fair wages but also a 'dignified and appropriate retirement.'
Ballard had no immediate comment on the disagreement with Bostar, though both indicated they would continue to work on the measure.
'I'm committed to doing everything that I can to ensure that this gets implemented,' Bostar said. 'It's a wrong that we need to right.'
SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX