Senate committee hears bid to let police academy trainers keep law-enforcement retirement status

Tom Abelnauer, testifying for BSEA, asked the Senate Government Operations Committee on Jan. 30 to allow people who are members of retirement "group C" to retain that status if they take staff or trainer positions at the Vermont Police Academy rather than be reclassified into group F. "Just to clarify, this is to allow folks who are group c members ... to join the Vermont Police Academy as staff" and keep group C retirement status, Abelnauer said.

Abelnauer said the current rule requires group C members who accept certain academy positions to move into group F, which he said "creates significant disincentive for those folks with the most experience to take a position working with the police." He told the committee that BSEA members report difficulty recruiting top-level trainers because of that retirement treatment.

Committee members pushed for specifics about scale and cost. Abelnauer told senators the current cohort at the academy is "roughly, I believe, 16," and said the fiscal impact would depend on how many eligible group C members chose to retain that status. He asked the Joint Fiscal Office to analyze cost implications; the committee indicated it would solicit JFO and the state treasurer for input.

Several senators questioned whether training roles carry the same risks and service patterns that justified creating group C. "The role of the training no longer has those rigors or danger that would be associated with being out in the field," one senator said; Abelnauer responded that academy training includes use-of-force and firearms instruction and that the proposal aims to ensure training is delivered by the most experienced officers.

Senators also sought a statutory path forward. Witnesses noted that retirement-group definitions are set in statute and administered by the treasurer's office; Abelnauer agreed to provide drafted language for insertion into S.295 and to return with further detail. No vote or formal motion occurred during the hearing; committee members requested additional fiscal and administrative analysis before deciding whether to advance the change.

The committee paused for a planned break and signaled it would summon the treasurer and the Joint Fiscal Office for follow-up analysis. The matter remains at the hearing/discussion stage pending JFO cost estimates and proposed statutory language.