HACC v. STATE EMPLOYEES'RETIREMENT SYSTEM
Decision Date | 29 April 2003 |
Citation | 821 A.2d 1255 |
Parties | HARRISBURG AREA COMMUNITY COLLEGE, Petitioner, v. PENNSYLVANIA STATE EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT SYSTEM, Respondent. |
Court | Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court |
Elizabeth A. Maguschak, Hazleton, for petitioner.
Brian E. McDonough, Harrisburg, for respondent.
BEFORE: COLINS, President Judge, SIMPSON, Judge, and MIRARCHI, Senior Judge.
OPINION BY Senior Judge MIRARCHI.
The Harrisburg Area Community College (HACC) appeals from an order of the State Employees' Retirement Board (Board) directing the HACC to remit to the State Employees' Retirement System (Retirement System) payment of contributions for its current employees' purchase of credit for their previous uncredited state service. The ultimate issue on appeal is whether the HACC is required to pay contributions for its current employees' purchase of credit for their previous service rendered to various state agencies under the State Employees' Retirement Code (Retirement Code), as amended, 71 Pa.C.S. § 5101—5956, and the regulations promulgated thereunder. We affirm.
Under Section 5102 of the Retirement Code, 71 Pa.C.S. § 5102, the HACC's employees are eligible to become "active members" of the Retirement System as "State employees" which is defined to include, inter alia, "any officer or employee of ... [c]ommunity colleges." Section 1913-A of the Public School Code of 1949, as amended, added by Section 1 of the Act of July 1, 1985, 24 P.S. § 19-1913-A, also provides that "[a]ll ... employes of the community colleges in the Commonwealth shall be eligible for inclusion in ... the Pennsylvania State Employees' Retirement System...." Section 5303 of the Retirement Code, 71 Pa.C.S. § 5303, allows every active member of the Retirement System to purchase credit for "previous state service" which is defined as "[s]ervice rendered as a State employee prior to his most recent entrance in the system." Section 5102 of the Retirement Code.
In 1998 and 1999, Judy Blazi, Dorothy Gilloway and Kenneth Zimmerman became active members of the Retirement System when they were employed by the HACC. In 1999 and 2002, they purchased credit for their previous uncredited state service rendered to the Department of Education; the Department of Health and Welfare and the State Police; and the Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission, respectively. The Retirement System then sent the HACC invoices for the employer's contributions for its employees' purchase of credit in the amount of $7837.92.1 The HACC refused to pay the amount in the invoices and appealed to the Appeals Committee of the Retirement System. After the Appeals Committee denied the appeal, the HACC appealed to the Board.
To support its appeal, the HACC relied on 4 Pa.Code § 245.7(b), which provides that "the Board will bill for the appropriate employer's contribution, by itemized invoice, that agency in which an employe is currently employed for previously uncredited State service." The HACC argued that the HACC is not an "agency" under Section 245.7(b) and that it was not, therefore, required to pay the employer's contributions for its current employees' purchase of the previous state service. In so arguing, however, the HACC did not dispute its obligation to pay the employer's contributions to the retirement benefit funds for the service rendered by its current employees to the HACC.
After a hearing, the hearing examiner found, inter alia, that the HACC receives less than one third of its operating funds from the Commonwealth's General Fund and that the majority of the HACC's funds are provided by the twenty-two sponsoring school districts and students' tuition payment. The hearing examiner concluded that the HACC is not "an agency" under 4 Pa.Code § 245.7 required to pay contributions for the purchase of credit for the previous state service. In support, the hearing examiner stated that unlike other state agencies fully funded by the Commonwealth's General Fund, the HACC cannot request additional funds to cover the "buy back" provisions of the Retirement Code, and that it would be therefore unfair, absurd and unreasonable to require the HACC to pay contributions for its current employees' purchase of the previous service rendered to other state agencies. The hearing examiner further concluded that even if the HACC is considered an agency under 4 Pa.Code § 245.7(b), the Retirement System lacks statutory authority to enforce the HACC's obligations, and upon the HACC's refusal to make the required contributions, the Retirement System can only reduce the employees' retirement benefits. The hearing examiner accordingly recommended that the Board sustain the HACC's appeal. The Retirement System then filed exceptions to the hearing examiner's recommendation.
Rejecting the hearing examiner's recommendation, the Board concluded that the HACC is an agency under 4 Pa.Code § 245.7(b). The Board reasoned that the HACC should not be allowed to pick and choose the provisions of the Retirement Code that best suit its needs, by acknowledging the status of its current employees as the state employees and members of the Retirement System and then denying its obligations to make contributions for their purchase of the previous state service; the HACC's position would result in unfair consequences of reduction of its current employees' retirement benefits; and, the Retirement System has an enforcement mechanism to collect the employer's contributions. The Board accordingly ordered the HACC to remit the contributions for its employees' purchase of the previous state service to the Retirement System. The HACC's appeal to this Court followed.2
On appeal, the HACC reiterates its contentions that it is not an "agency" under 4 Pa.Code § 245.7(b); therefore, it is not required to pay the employer's contributions for its current employees' purchase of credit for the previous state service; it is unfair to require the HACC receiving only one third of its operating funds from the Commonwealth to pay contributions for the previous service purchase; and, even if the HACC is considered an "agency" under 4 Pa.Code § 245.7(b), the only remedy under the Retirement Code upon its failure to make the required contributions is reduction of the employees' retirement benefits.
To support the contention that the HACC is not an agency under 4 Pa.Code § 245.7(b), the HACC relies on Section 2 of the Reorganization Act of 1955, Act of April 7, 1955, P.L. 33, 71 P.S. § 750-2, which defines an "agency" as establishment in the executive or administrative branch of the State Government. The HACC asserts that it cannot be considered a "state" agency because it was created and operated by local sponsors, the twenty-two school districts and the municipalities, pursuant to the Public School Code of 1949, Act of March 10, 1949, P.L. 30, as amended, 24 P.S. §§ 1-101—27-2702, not by a state government unit.
At the outset, it must be noted that as an agency charged with execution and application of the retirement statute, the Board is entitled to considerable deference in its construction of the retirement statute and the regulations promulgated thereunder. Burris v. State Employes' Retirement Board, 745 A.2d 704 (Pa.Cmwlth. 2000). Consequently, the Board's interpretation of the retirement statute and regulations may not be overturned, unless it is clearly erroneous. Id.
It is well established that provisions of a statute must be construed with reference to the context in which they appear. Fairview Township v. Fairview Township Police Ass'n, 795 A.2d 463 (Pa. Cmwlth.2002),appeal granted, ___ Pa. ___, 815 A.2d 1043 (2003). A word in a statute or regulations, therefore, may have different meanings depending on the context in which it appears. Id. Further, statutes or parts of statutes are in pari materia when they relate to the same persons or things or to the same class of persons or things; therefore, they must be construed together as one statute, if possible. Section 1932 of the Statutory Construction Act of 1972, 1 Pa.C.S. § 1932; City of Erie v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board (Annunziata), 799 A.2d 946 (Pa.Cmwlth. 2002).3
Consequently, to determine the meaning of the term "agency" in 4 Pa.Code § 245.7(b) and resolve the ultimate issue of whether the HACC has a statutory duty to pay contributions for its employees' previous state service purchase, we must review not only Section 245.7 but also the applicable provisions of the Retirement Code under which Section 245.7 was promulgated, rather than focusing on the isolated term in Section 245.7(b) relied on by the HACC.
The regulations at 4 Pa.Code § 245.7 promulgated in 1976 under the Retirement Code provide:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State Univ. v. STATE EMPLOYEES'RET. BD.
...promulgated thereunder. Burris v. State Employes' Retirement Board, 745 A.2d 704 (Pa. Cmwlth.2000); Harrisburg Area Cmty. Coll. v. Pennsylvania State Employees' Ret. Sys., 821 A.2d 1255 (Pa.Cmwlth.2003). Consequently, the Board's interpretation of the retirement statute and regulations may ......
-
Weaver v. State Employees' Ret. Bd.
...to considerable deference in its construction of the statute and the regulations promulgated thereunder. Harrisburg Area Cmty. Coll. v. State Emps.' Ret. Sys., 821 A.2d 1255, 1258 (Pa.Cmwlth.2003) (citing Burris v. State Emps.' Ret. Bd., 745 A.2d 704 (Pa.Cmwlth.2000) ). Consequently, the Bo......
-
Velazquez v. East Stroudsburg, 1530 C.D. 2007
...the extent of carrying into effect the will of the Legislature as expressed in a statute." Harrisburg Area Community College v. Pennsylvania State Employees' Retirement System, 821 A.2d 1255, 1261 (Pa. Cmwlth.2003). Under the trial court's interpretation, Section 11.19(a) would exceed the s......
-
EAGLE ENVIRONMENTAL v. DEPT. OF ENV. PROT.
...Act of 1972 applies to regulations codified in the Pennsylvania Code. 1 Pa.C.S. § 1502(a)(1)(ii); Harrisburg Area Cmty. Coll. v. Pennsylvania State Employees' Ret. Sys., 821 A.2d 1255 (Pa. 6. The Pennsylvania Bulletin indicates the sunset regulation as originally proposed provided for permi......