State ex rel. Dilley v. West Virginia Public Employees Retirement System

401 S.E.2d 916, 184 W. Va. 570, 1991 W. Va. LEXIS 3
CourtWest Virginia Supreme Court
DecidedFebruary 13, 1991
DocketNo. 19614
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 401 S.E.2d 916 (State ex rel. Dilley v. West Virginia Public Employees Retirement System) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering West Virginia Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
State ex rel. Dilley v. West Virginia Public Employees Retirement System, 401 S.E.2d 916, 184 W. Va. 570, 1991 W. Va. LEXIS 3 (W. Va. 1991).

Opinion

MILLER, Chief Justice:

This is an appeal by the respondents below, the West Virginia Public Employees Retirement System (PERS) and its Board of Trustees (Board), from an order of the Circuit Court of Kanawha County, dated March 29, 1990, requiring the respondents to enroll the petitioners below, all current or former elected members of county boards of education (county boards), in the system. The respondents contend that the petitioners have not satisfied all of the statutory and/or administrative qualifications for membership in PERS. We agree, and we reverse the judgment of the circuit court.

These parties were initially before this Court on an appeal from the circuit court’s denial of the petitioners’ requests for a writ of mandamus to compel the respondents to enroll them in PERS. State ex rel. Dilley v. West Virginia Pub. Employees Retirement Sys., 180 W.Va. 24, 375 S.E.2d 202 (1988). The respondents had rejected the applications on the ground that the petitioners were not “employees” within the meaning of the West Virginia Public Employees Retirement Act, W.Va.Code, 5-10-1, et seq. We concluded that they were, stating in the Syllabus:

“Elected members of a county board of education are ‘members of the legislative body of [a] political subdivision’ within the meaning of W.Va.Code, 5-10-2(6) [1985] because they are the governing body of ‘a school corporation’ included within the definition of ‘political subdivision’ in W.Va.Code, 5-10-2(4) [1985]; therefore, elected members of county boards of education may join the West Virginia Public Employees Retirement System.” 1

[573]*573We disposed of the case by reversing the circuit court’s order and remanding the case “with directions to award the writ of mandamus.” 180 W.Va. at 26, 375 S.E.2d at 204.

Upon remand, the circuit court, by order dated December 7, 1988, issued a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to enroll the petitioners in PERS. At a meeting conducted on March 16, 1989, the Board voted to seek the assistance of the Attorney General’s office in interpreting our opinion in Dilley and in compiling guidelines for its implementation.

By letter dated June 8,1989, an assistant attorney general advised the respondents that under Dilley, current members of county boards were entitled to participate in PERS only so long as they met all other membership qualifications imposed by statute and by the rules and regulations of the Board. The letter also stated that the entitlement of county board members to retroactive service credit should be determined by the Board in accordance with statutory authority and its rules. Finally, the Board was informed that applicants who had retired from other public retirement systems were ineligible for PERS membership.

By letter dated December 5, 1989, the Board advised the petitioners that although members of county boards were considered “employees” for purposes of PERS membership, they were not eligible to participate in PERS unless the county board elected to become a “participating public employer” within the meaning of the retirement act.2 The Board also stated that even if such an election were made, the individual county board members would still be subject to the Board’s rules and regulations with regard to contributions and retroactive service credit.

On March 13, 1990, the petitioners instituted contempt proceedings in the Circuit Court of Kanawha County. A rule to show cause why the respondents should not be held in contempt for failure to obey the December 7, 1988 writ of mandamus was issued and made returnable on March 27, 1990.

In their memorandum in opposition to the petition for contempt, the respondents argued that compliance with the circuit court’s order was impossible because the appropriate county boards had not yet elected to become participating public employers so as to qualify the petitioners for PERS membership. The respondents further asserted that it was impossible for the county boards to become participating public employers due to statutory conflicts and the lack of specific legislative authority to appropriate funds for PERS membership.

On March 29, 1990, the circuit court ruled that the respondents’ interpretation of Dilley was incorrect and ordered them to enroll the petitioners in PERS without regard to other statutory or administrative prerequisites for membership. The court withheld decision on the issuance of the contempt citation until further notice. The respondents’ petition for appeal was filed with this Court on March 30, 1990.

I.

The first issue on appeal is whether the trial court erred in concluding that under Dilley the respondents were required to [574]*574enroll the petitioners in PERS without regard to other statutory or administrative requirements for membership. The petitioners insist that our opinion in Dilley gives them an absolute right to become members of PERS.

We do not believe that our intent can be so broadly stated. In Dilley, we determined only that county board members came within the definition of “employee” in W.Va.Code, 5-10-2(6). Other statutory or administrative requirements for enrollment in PERS were not raised in that appeal, nor were they discussed in our opinion. Our decision should be read merely as directing the circuit court to issue a writ of mandamus to compel the respondents to accept the petitioners as employees within the meaning of W.Va.Code, 5-10-2(6). To the extent that the circuit court’s order exceeded these directions, it is in error.

II.

The respondents also contend that the petitioners have not demonstrated their entitlement to PERS membership in this particular case. Specifically, the respondents assert that the petitioners have not demonstrated that the county boards of which they are members were “participating public employers” within the meaning of the retirement act. The petitioners contend that they are not required to make such a showing.

W.Va.Code, 5-10-17(a) (1985), states that, except as otherwise provided, the membership of PERS shall consist of “employees ... who are in the employ of a political subdivision the day preceding the date it becomes a participating public employer and who continue in [its] employ ... on and after the said date[.]”3 The definition of “participating public employer” contained in W.Va.Code, 5-10-2(5) (1988), includes “any political subdivision ... which has elected to cover its employees, as defined in this article[.]”4 Under W.Va.Code, 5-10-16, a political subdivision may elect to become a participating public employer by a three-fifths vote of its governing board or by a majority vote of its electors.5 In Dilley, supra, we recognized that a county board was a political subdivision.

The petitioners, however, argue that these provisions are not applicable to them.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

State Ex Rel. Dadisman v. Caperton
413 S.E.2d 684 (West Virginia Supreme Court, 1991)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
401 S.E.2d 916, 184 W. Va. 570, 1991 W. Va. LEXIS 3, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-ex-rel-dilley-v-west-virginia-public-employees-retirement-system-wva-1991.