Police, Firefighters Urge Mandatory Municipal Pensions and Broader PTSD Coverage at Labor Committee Hearing

Senator Julie Kushner convened the Labor and Public Employees Committee on Thursday as dozens of police officers, firefighters and union leaders testified in support of two bills aimed at stabilizing public safety staffing and expanding mental‑health coverage for first responders.

Stratford police officer Omar Jimenez told the committee, “I stand before you once again alongside my fellow officers to set to testify on the critical importance of a pension for police officers,” saying a lack of retirement security was driving colleagues to leave for municipalities that offer defined‑benefit plans. Union and line officers described a steady exodus from non‑pension towns and warned that smaller departments are left with inexperienced crews and reduced institutional knowledge.

Advocates said mandatory pensions would boost recruitment and retention. “Without a pension system in place, we risk long experience, losing experienced police officers and firefighters to other municipalities,” Anthony Zona, a 36‑year officer, testified. The Uniformed Professional Firefighters Association and other unions urged HB 6953, which would require municipalities to provide a defined‑benefit pension or comparable plan for police and fire personnel.

Municipal advocates and budget officials told a different story. The Connecticut Conference of Municipalities and other municipal representatives said retirement and benefit decisions belong at the local bargaining table and cautioned that precipitating a statutory mandate could create unfunded obligations for cities and towns. “Retirement benefits for employees should remain in the collective bargaining process,” Zachary McEwen of CCM said, noting employer contribution rates have climbed and the state and towns are working on Comptroller‑led reforms to make plans affordable.

The meeting also featured extensive testimony on HB 6954, which would add witnessing a “serious physical injury” to qualifying events for post‑traumatic stress injury (PTSI) workers'‑comp coverage. Dozens of first responders described repeated exposure to violence, suicides and assaults on the job and urged the committee to expand the current statute. Sergeant Frank D’Angelo recounted an officer‑involved shooting and the emotional aftermath: the officer “acted exactly as we expect our police officers … to act, swiftly and heroically,” yet did not qualify under existing PTSI criteria.

Insurers, business groups and some municipal representatives warned that broadening eligibility without clearer definitions could generate litigation and higher comp costs. “Allowing workers'‑comp benefits to any claimant who witnesses a serious physical injury would likely multiply disputes,” said Christina Baldwin of the American Property Casualty Insurance Association.

The committee heard pleas from families and coworkers that the existing process is slow and that delayed adjudication compounds harm for injured workers. Several speakers pressed for measured statutory language, training for clinicians, and clearer appeal processes so that proven cases of work‑related trauma are treated promptly and fairly.

The committee did not take a vote. Chairs said they would continue gathering information on cost, implementation, and possible guardrails to balance worker protections with municipal budgets.