Pa. House votes for tougher public pension forfeiture rules |

Pa. House votes for tougher public pension forfeiture rules

Associated Press
The dome of the Pennsylvania Capitol is visible in Harrisburg, Pa., Tuesday, Feb. 5, 2019.

HARRISBURG — Pennsylvania state lawmakers voted overwhelmingly Tuesday to make it harder for officials and government employees convicted of crimes related to their jobs to retain their public pensions.

The state House voted 194 to 1 to approve legislation that applies the pension forfeiture law to state and federal felonies and other crimes that could result in at least five years behind bars.

It also would forfeit pensions at the time a defendant pleads guilty or no contest, or is found guilty by a judge or jury.

Current law imposes pension forfeiture when a defendant is sentenced, leading to periods when someone who has lost their criminal case continues to receive benefits.

The bill passed the Senate unanimously last month. The bill was amended in the House, so another vote in the Senate is required for passage.

Democratic Gov. Tom Wolf supports the bill.

Part of the impetus for the bill was a decision in December 2017 by the State Employees’ Retirement Board to reinstate pension benefits of a former state Senate power broker who pleaded guilty to federal charges.

Former state Sen. Bob Mellow, D-Lackawanna, lost a $246,000-a-year pension after his 2012 plea to a conspiracy charge for using Senate staff to work on political campaigns.

His attorneys successfully argued to the pension board that Mellow’s case did not match up with state crimes that prompt pension forfeiture.

Categories: News | Pennsylvania
TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.