City of Houston, Annise D. Parker, Kelly Dowe, Ronald C.Green, Brenda Stardig, Jerry Davis, Ellen Cohen, Dwight Boykins, Dave Martin, Richard Nguyen, Oliver Pennington, Ed Gonzalez, Robert Gallegos, Mike Laster, Larry Green, Stephen Costello v. Houston Municipal Employee Pension System
2016 Tex. App. LEXIS 12460
| Tex. App. | 2016Background
- HMEPS (Houston Municipal Employees Pension System) sued the City of Houston and multiple city officials seeking mandamus to: (1) compel disclosure of employee/payroll information under article 6243h and the TPIA; and (2) compel funding/"pickup" pension contributions for employees HMEPS treats as members (employees moved to HFC, HFF, CCSI).
- HMEPS relies on its board's prior resolutions (held "final and binding" in Klumb) that certain HFC/HFF/CCSI workers are HMEPS "members." HMEPS also relies on a July 2011 Meet-and-Confer Agreement (MCA) addressing a contribution rate.
- City defendants filed a plea to the jurisdiction asserting governmental immunity, lack of standing, and that HMEPS is improperly seeking to enforce contract terms (MCA) via ultra vires/mandamus.
- The trial court denied the plea; City appealed. The appellate court reviewed whether jurisdiction exists for (a) ultra vires mandamus claims to compel statutory duties under article 6243h, and (b) TPIA mandamus claims.
- The court distinguished claims against the City (a governmental body) from claims against officials (individuals) because ultra vires suits allege officials acted without legal authority; TPIA mandamus may be sought against the City or its public-information officer.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether HMEPS can bring ultra vires mandamus to force City to fund contributions/pickup payments under art. 6243h based on MCA rate | HMEPS: art. 6243h mandates contribution and pickup duties; MCA implements calculation but statute requires the City to pay — mandamus appropriate to compel ministerial duty | City: the claimed 27.36% rate comes from MCA (a contract); ultra vires/mandamus cannot enforce contractual obligations; immunity bars | Court: Claims that depend on enforcing the MCA (contract rate) cannot proceed as ultra vires against the City; reversed and rendered as to those claims, but remanded to allow HMEPS to replead against officials if possible |
| Whether HMEPS seeks barred retrospective monetary relief via ultra vires mandamus | HMEPS: seeks prospective relief (current and future budgets/pickup) | City: pleadings unclear; may seek past-period relief (barred) | Court: HMEPS pleaded prospective relief only; issue overruled (no retrospective relief alleged) |
| Whether section 2(u) and sections 8(c)/(d) of art. 6243h are sufficiently definite to create ministerial duties enforceable by mandamus | HMEPS: statute uses mandatory language ("shall") and prescribes the duties and information the City must provide/pay | City: statutory provisions are vague/discretionary; budgeting/appropriation decisions are discretionary | Court: statute imposes ministerial duties as to disclosure (2(u)) and contribution/pickup (8(c),(d)); mandamus may enforce statutory duties (but not MCA contract terms) |
| Whether TPIA mandamus claims can be brought against the City (or must be against officer for public information) and whether defendants other than City/PIO can be sued under TPIA | HMEPS: TPIA and art. 6243h require City to provide employee information; mandamus appropriate against City and officials; rule 11 did not waive relief | City: TPIA claims must be against public-information officer; City complied with Rule 11; other defendants (non-City entities) cannot be forced via TPIA against City | Court: Mandamus under TPIA may be sought against the City or its public-information officer; TPIA claims against defendants other than City or its PIO dismissed; HMEPS may pursue TPIA/6243h disclosure claims against City/officials |
Key Cases Cited
- Klumb v. Houston Mun. Employees Pension Sys., 458 S.W.3d 1 (Tex. 2015) (pension board's statutory interpretations are final and binding; noncompliance with MCA gives rise to contract claim, not ultra vires)
- Heinrich v. City of El Paso, 284 S.W.3d 366 (Tex. 2009) (ultra vires exception permits suits to compel officials to perform ministerial/statutory duties; suits must be against officials)
- A & T Consultants, Inc. v. Sharp, 904 S.W.2d 668 (Tex. 1995) (mandamus under TPIA authorized against governmental body though public-information officer is the primary actor)
- Kallinen v. City of Houston, 462 S.W.3d 25 (Tex.) (per curiam) (recognizes trial court jurisdiction under section 552.321 to consider disclosure issues)
- Rusk State Hosp. v. Black, 392 S.W.3d 88 (Tex. 2012) (immunity from suit implicates subject-matter jurisdiction)
- Reata Constr. Corp. v. City of Dallas, 197 S.W.3d 371 (Tex. 2006) (governmental immunity generally deprives courts of subject-matter jurisdiction)
- Miranda v. Tex. Dep’t of Parks & Wildlife, 133 S.W.3d 217 (Tex. 2004) (plea to the jurisdiction standards; when pleadings insufficient, leave to amend may be required)
- State Bar of Texas v. Heard, 603 S.W.2d 829 (Tex. 1980) (ministerial duty test: when law prescribes duty with precision, mandamus proper)
- Oney v. Ammerman, 458 S.W.2d 54 (Tex. 1970) (mandamus requires duty to be clearly fixed and required by law)