Soucy v. Board of Trustees of Maine State Retirement System
| Decision Date | 08 March 1983 |
| Citation | 456 A.2d 1279 |
| Court | Maine Supreme Court |
| Parties | Robert A. SOUCY, Norman Poulin, Lucien H. Longtin, Laurent Veilleux, Roy Perham and Gerald Gagne v. BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF the MAINE STATE RETIREMENT SYSTEM and the City of Lewiston. |
Berman, Simmons, Laskoff & Goldberg, P.A., Jeffrey Rosenblatt (orally), William D. Robitzek, Gary Goldberg, Lewiston, for plaintiffs.
Paul F. Macri, Asst. Atty. Gen. (orally), Augusta, for Bd. of Trustees.
Skelton, Taintor & Abbott, Frederick G. Taintor, Steven F. Wright (orally), Lewiston, for City of Lewiston.
Before McKUSICK, C.J., and GODFREY, ROBERTS, VIOLETTE and WATHEN, JJ.
The plaintiffs, six retired Lewiston Police Officers, appeal from an order of the Superior Court (Androscoggin County) affirming a decision of the Board of Trustees of the Maine State Retirement System (the Board) concerning the computation of plaintiffs' retirement benefits. 1 Plaintiffs contend that the Board erred in its interpretation of those statutory provisions that prescribe the method of computing retirement benefits, and that the Board's method of computation impairs contractual rights in violation of article I, § 11 of the Maine Constitution and article I, § 10 of the United States Constitution. We sustain the appeal, but do so on the basis of statutory construction rather than on the basis of constitutional doctrine.
The plaintiffs are retired Lewiston police officers. Each officer was employed by the City of Lewiston for a period of years prior to July 1, 1977, the effective date of changes in the retirement system. The officers continued to be employed after July 1, 1977, and retired between September 15, 1979 and October 25, 1980. The officers' salaries, which are used in calculating the size of retirement benefits, increased in the period between July 1, 1977 and their respective retirement dates.
Prior to amendment in 1975, 5 M.R.S.A. § 1092(3) provided that retirement benefits for policemen and firemen under the Maine State Retirement System were to be calculated based upon "the annual rate of salary being paid such individuals at point of retirement or the gross amount earned in the immediately preceding 12 months, whichever is greater." In 1975, the legislature amended the retirement system to provide that an employee's benefits be calculated on the basis of the average annual rate of compensation for the three years in which compensation was highest. 5 M.R.S.A. §§ 1001(3), 1092(3).
Since an employee's salary is often highest in his final year of employment, the change in the retirement system created the possibility that some employees' retirement benefits would be less if calculated under the new system than if calculated under the previous system. To soften the impact of this change, the legislature enacted P.L.1975, ch. 622, § 66 which delayed the effective date of the change in method of computation until July 1, 1977, and attempted to prevent any diminution of previously accrued rights by providing that that portion of retirement benefits corresponding to employment served prior to July 1, 1977 be calculated under the earlier system.
The provision at issue, section 66, states in pertinent part:
[A]ny part of a retirement allowance based on creditable service and earnable compensation paid prior to July 1, 1977 that would be higher if determined, on a pro rata basis, under the provisions of chapter 101 [5 M.R.S.A. § 1001 et seq.] in effect immediately prior to July 1, 1977, shall be so determined.
P.L.1975, ch. 622, as amended by P.L.1975, ch. 742, §§ 4, 6. The dispute between the parties centers upon the meaning to be given to the clause that requires benefits to be determined, "under the provisions of chapter 101 in effect immediately prior to July 1, 1977." The applicable provision of chapter 101 in effect immediately prior to July 1, 1977 [5 M.R.S.A. § 1092(3) ] stated that retirement benefits were to be calculated based upon the employee's annual rate of salary at the time of retirement, or upon the gross amount earned in the twelve months preceding retirement, whichever was greater.
The Board contends that the relevant twelve month period should be the period immediately preceding July 1, 1977, not the period immediately prior to retirement. The plaintiffs, on the other hand, whose salaries increased between July 1, 1977 and the time of their retirement, contend that the period to be used as a base for computation should be the twelve month period immediately prior to retirement. We adopt the interpretation urged by the plaintiffs.
Although this Court will not lightly disregard the interpretation given a statute by those charged with its administration, an administrative construction of a statute is not conclusive upon this Court. Stewart v. Inhabitants of Town of Durham, 451 A.2d 308, 310 (Me.1982); State v. York Utilities Co., 142 Me. 40, 44, 45 A.2d 634, 635-36 (1946). In determining the meaning of a statute, this Court must look first to the language of the statute itself. See Concord General Mutual Insurance Co. v. Patrons-Oxford Mutual Insurance Co., 411 A.2d 1017, 1020 (Me.1980); Central Maine Power Co. v. Public Utilities Commission, 405 A.2d 153, 159 (Me.1979).
The language of P.L.1975, ch. 622, § 66 states that the pro rata portion of retirement benefits corresponding to public service rendered prior to July 1, 1977 shall be determined "under the provisions of chapter 101 in effect immediately prior to July 1, 1977." Again, the provisions in effect immediately prior to July 1, 1977 stated that retirement benefits would be calculated based upon the greater of the employee's annual salary at the time of retirement or his gross earnings in the twelve months preceding...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bangor Baptist Church v. State of Me., Dept. of Educ.
... ... Boyington, Eugene St. Clair, Jr., and Maine Association of Christian Schools, Plaintiffs, 1 ... Services and Members of the Maine State Board of Education, Defendants, Counterclaimants ... secular approach of the public education system" is diametrically opposed to the "integrated, ... construction is not conclusive." Soucy v. Board of Trustees, 456 A.2d 1279, 1281 ... ...
-
Spiller v. State
... ... Lorraine SPILLER, et al ... STATE of Maine, et al ... Supreme Judicial Court of Maine ... are members of the Maine State Retirement System. The system was created in 1942 for the ... See also Dodge v. Board of Educ., 302 U.S. 74, 78-79, 58 S.Ct. 98, 100, ... , 562 A.2d 694, 698 (Me.1989) (quoting Soucy v. Bd. of Trustees of the Maine State Retirement ... ...
-
Perry v. Hartford Acc. and Indem. Co.
... ... Supreme Judicial Court of Maine ... Argued May 1, 1984 ... Decided Aug. 13, ... subject matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted ... 2 (Me.1983); Cape Elizabeth School Board v. Cape ... Elizabeth Teachers Association, 435 ... See Soucy v. Board of Trustees of State Retirement System, ... ...
-
Me. Ass'n of Retirees v. Bd. of Trs. of the Me. Pub. Emps. Ret. Sys.
... 954 F.Supp.2d 38 MAINE ASSOCIATION OF RETIREES, et al., Plaintiffs, v. OARD OF TRUSTEES OF the MAINE PUBLIC EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYSTEM, ... of providing retirement benefits for state employees and public school teachers, among ... that are calculated by the MePERS Board of Trustees pursuant to 5 M.R.S.A. § 17806 ... for service retirement benefits.”); Soucy v. Board of Trustees of the Maine State ... ...
-
State And Local Government Pensions: In What Circumstances Can Governments Reduce Pension Benefits?
...3d 695, 195 Cal. Rptr. 339 (1983). 121 Utah 503, 243 P.2d 941 (1952). 770 P.2d 93 (1988). 271 Cal. App. 2d 774, 76 Cal. Rptr. 869 (1969). 456 A.2d 1279 227 Kan. 356, 607 P.2d 467 (1980). 323 Or. 356, 918 P.2d 765 (1996); Opinion of the Justices, 362 Mass. 847, 303 N.E.2d 320 (Mass. 1973). 4......