A bill seeking limitations on post-retirement employment of state employees is being resurrected, reviving a debate over whether the practice saves the state money or is bad policy.

At issue is a long-standing arrangement in which a public employee retires and starts receiving retirement checks -- but is also re-employed at the same agency.

State law currently says that a retiree cannot be re-employed and continue to draw retirement until six months after the retirement date. State Rep. Glenn Donnelson, R-North Ogden, unsuccessfully sought earlier this year to extend that to a year, and his legislation would have added language defining "same agency" and "different agency."

The time period in his bill was amended to six months. It passed the state House of Representatives but was set aside by a Senate committee and ultimately died.

The Retirement and Independent Entities Interim Committee is scheduled to discuss his legislation again this afternoon at the Capitol in Salt Lake City.

Donnelson said allowing retirees to continue in their jobs blocks advancement for people lower on the career ladder.

"It holds people down who are looking for a promotion," he said.

He also argued that the practice isn't sensible.

"I could not work for IBM, retire, and come back and work for them" while still drawing retirement, Donnelson said. "When I retired from the LDS Church, I can't go back and work for the LDS Church."

An audit of the impact on the state retirement system is under way with findings due in October, he added. The financial impact is one of the topics on today's agenda -- if many employees retire early to take advantage of the re-employment option, it could cause unexpected expenditures for the retirement system.

"Depending on the recommendations of the audit, I'll decide what to change" in the legislation, said Donnelson. "Just to get it in, I decided to run the same bill. Before the session, I can make changes."

He acknowledged that some agencies are supporters of the practice because it can entice senior employees to stick around.

"I don't think it's as big a problem as they think they have," he added. "Why should the state be any different than private enterprise?"

Several groups testified against the bill when it was before the Legislature, including the Utah Chiefs of Police, the Utah School Board Association, the Utah Education Association and the state Department of Corrections.

The UEA's legislative watch list called the bill "unnecessary."

Teachers use the option frequently, said Vik Arnold, director of political action and government relations for the UEA, and it's helpful because of the state's ongoing teacher shortage. He also noted that teachers only have to wait six months if they stay in the same district -- if they change districts after retiring, there's no time restriction.

The option is also popular with law enforcement agencies because the retirement system allows them to retire after 20 years at 50 percent salary, said Department of Corrections spokesman Jack Ford.

"It actually saves the state money," he said. "They have experience, they have to come back in at a lower salary and the state doesn't have to contribute to their retirement."

He said that out of 2,200 corrections employees, "less than a dozen" are working for the department post-retirement.

"This has been going on as long as I can remember," Ford said. "You're getting experienced people in positions where they can use the knowledge and skills they've learned."