The Oklahoma Senate Committee on Retirement and Governmental Affairs on Thursday passed a bill raising contribution limits for Tulsa and Oklahoma counties' defined‑benefit retirement plans, approved a measure that bars organized on‑duty protest or political advocacy by public employees, and advanced a string of pension and personnel bills to the legislative actuarial for fiscal analysis.

Senate Bill 434, sponsored by Senator Rader, would raise the overall contribution cap for Tulsa and Oklahoma counties' local defined‑benefit employee retirement system to 22% and allow an employee to contribute up to 20% of salary and receive an employer match. Michael Willis, Tulsa County clerk and administrator of the Tulsa County employee retirement system, told the committee the current statutory cap limits the county’s flexibility and that the county seeks parity with other pension systems. "My name is Michael Willis. I'm the Tulsa County Clerk. I'm the administrator of the Tulsa County's employee retirement system," Willis said, explaining the county is currently capped at an overall contribution rate of about 18% and seeking to increase the cap to 22% to gain flexibility.

Willis estimated that moving the overall cap from roughly 18% to 22% could translate to about $1,000,000 in total contributions when both employer and employee matches are considered. Committee members pressed on whether the state would be required to contribute; Willis and the bill sponsor said the measure does not require state funding and is intended to change only the local contribution cap. Senators raised concern that counties already receive state assistance for roads, sheriffs and other programs and worried that increasing county retirement contributions could reduce funds available for current public services. After debate the committee voted; the clerk recorded the tally at 5 ayes and 2 nays and the chair declared SB 434 passed.

The committee also approved Senate Bill 481, sponsored by Senator Devers, which the sponsor described as intended to preserve "the essential neutrality of public service positions." The bill prohibits organized protests or political advocacy during employees’ paid work hours or the use of taxpayer‑funded equipment for that purpose, while preserving off‑duty speech rights. Devers invoked First Amendment and Pickering/Connick standards in describing the measure as a time‑place‑manner restriction to protect workplace efficiency and public trust. Opponents said the bill’s definitions were too broad and could sweep in community events or routine workplace activities; supporters replied the bill targets only on‑duty political activity and not lawful, curricular, or off‑duty expression. The committee recorded the vote as 6 ayes and 2 nays; the chair declared SB 481 passed.

Several other bills were advanced with limited debate, most to be sent to the legislative actuarial for fiscal analysis under the Oklahoma pension legislation procedures. Those included cost‑of‑living or contribution‑change measures for municipal and state pension systems, proposals to permit certain rehiring or transfer provisions, and an authorizing bill for the state treasurer's office to establish a dedicated depository building for unclaimed property. Senator Howard presented Senate Bill 1020 (listed in committee as "senate bill 10 20"), describing it as a request from the State Treasurer's Office to allow construction of a specialized state depository rather than continue leasing space under OMES. Senators asked about language on page 12 of the draft that they said looked like a broad exemption from property statutes; the sponsor said he would clarify limits and oversight. The committee recorded that SB 1020 passed with 6 ayes and 2 nays.

Other measures that the committee advanced to actuarial review or otherwise passed on Thursday included a series of 2% COLA proposals for various pension groups (teachers, police, firefighters, state employees, volunteer firefighter pensions), a municipal and county rehire/return‑to‑work series, and a request by the Oklahoma Firefighters Pension System to raise volunteer firefighter monthly payments (an example was raising a $150 monthly payment toward a higher fixed benefit cited in testimony). Many of those acted on were recorded as "sent to actuarial" and remain committee property pending fiscal analysis.

Votes at a glance

- SB 434 (Sen. Rader) — Increase county employee contribution cap for Tulsa and Oklahoma counties (raise overall cap to 22%; employee may contribute up to 20% and receive employer match). Committee outcome: Passed; recorded tally 5 ayes, 2 nays.

- SB 481 (Sen. Devers) — Prohibits on‑duty organized protests or political advocacy by public employees; preserves off‑duty speech and curricular duties. Committee outcome: Passed; recorded tally 6 ayes, 2 nays.

- SB 1020 (Sen. Howard) — Authorize State Treasurer to build a state depository for unclaimed property (exemption language discussed). Committee outcome: Passed; recorded tally 6 ayes, 2 nays. Sponsors agreed to clarify exemption language and oversight limits.

- Multiple pension/retirement COLA and retirement‑policy bills (examples: SB 8, SB 9, SB 174, SB 90, SB 134, SB 432, SB 4322/432? and others presented during the hearing) — Primary action: sent to legislative actuarial for fiscal analysis and remain committee property. Several of these were recorded with roll calls showing 7–8 ayes, 0–1 nays depending on the bill; final actuarial review will determine fiscal effect.

What happens next

Bills that were passed by the committee will proceed according to the committee’s notices — several will be placed on the Senate calendar and several will first receive actuarial reports before further committee or floor action. Measures sent to the legislative actuarial will return with fiscal estimates that the committee said it will review before voting on final passage.

Why this matters

The measures touch on employee retirement benefits, county fiscal flexibility and state oversight of public resources. Changes to contribution caps or new cost‑of‑living adjustments affect pension fund liabilities and employer budgets. The bill limiting on‑duty political activity triggers debate about the balance between employees’ free‑speech interests and government employers’ interest in an efficient, neutral workplace.

Ending note

Committee members asked sponsors to file clarifying language on several items (notably the treasurer depository exemptions and technical pension definitions) before the measures advance further. Many items remain pending actuarial review; fiscal analyses will determine whether and how the committee proceeds to final floor votes.