Consider this:
A former city police detective who is serving two years in prison for his role in a marriage fraud ring could soon receive a retirement benefit funded by taxpayers.
[...]
If a city or agency certifies that an employee has committed malfeasance in office before he or she retires, the employee can lose his or her payments under the traditional retirement plan based on years of service, Chenault said. The state can’t withhold pension payments for misconduct if an employee retires under disability, which is the issue in Virginia Beach.
The article refers to this as a quirk in the law and Virginia Beach is looking for a legislator to carry the bill in the General Assembly to correct it.
I can see applying the malfeasance standard to a regular pension, provided that the employee’s actions were somehow related to the job s/he performed. I can also see similar situations where disability pensions would be denied. I’d be concerned, though, that the law be drafted in such a way as to not deny a pension for a completely unrelated incident.
So, dear readers, what do you think? Should the law be changed to allow for the denial of disability retirement benefits?
Inquiring minds want to know 
Don’t like new laws.
If it is law, would it not also cover private pension plans? Should the state pension board not set policy for this? Obviously, there would be input from all, the legislators, the pensioners, the future pensioners, etc.
This should be policy, whatever is decided, not law, IMHO.
Posted by Doug Knack | Monday, October 18, 2010, 9:56 amNo, it wouldn’t cover private pension plans, only the state plans. Do we want non-elected folks (pension board) setting public policy?
Posted by vjp | Monday, October 18, 2010, 9:11 pmthat’s my point, why is there law covering public pension plans, it should be covered by policy. The board is charged with other administrative duties in handling the plan, isn’t it? Or is is just a board to say you serve on a board.
Posted by Doug Knack | Tuesday, October 19, 2010, 1:56 pmShould be changed. Reduce the pension by the amount of the fraud (spread out over time).
Posted by Coby W. Dillard | Monday, October 18, 2010, 11:46 amWhat fraud?
Posted by vjp | Monday, October 18, 2010, 9:12 pmReduce the pension by whatever it costs to keep him in jail.
Posted by warren | Monday, October 18, 2010, 12:39 pmHe’s not in jail in Virginia. So, the reduction should be zero?
Posted by vjp | Monday, October 18, 2010, 9:12 pmTentatively support the idea but want to reserve final judgement until I see how any new language prevents the city or state from denying pensions for unrelated circumstances.
Posted by Silence Dogood | Monday, October 18, 2010, 1:25 pmHe earned that disability while serving the citizens so he should keep it. Onc he is out of prison, he’ll need that 27,000 a year to live on. The City of VB attacks anyone and will use any excuse to save a dime while spending tens of millions on projects. $27,600 a year is chump change in the City’s 1.8 billion annual budget.
JMO: No need to change state law when the issue isn’t a major problem in the state. This is a minor two year bump on the road. He’ll do his time and pay for his crime. No need to pile on…
Posted by William Bailey | Monday, October 18, 2010, 10:05 pm