McLemore v. Weiss, 427 S.W.3d 56

Appeals from summary judgment in favor of state officials and ASPRS trustees in a class action by ASPRS members over pension funding.
Circuit court held the $3,500 uniform and travel-expense allowance was not reportable as payroll to ASPRS under §24-6-209(a).
Case involves interpretation of “active member payroll” and the definition of “salary” in ASP retirement law.
Arkansas Act 1609 (2003) repealed the allowances and increased officer salaries; its passage cited as context for funding changes.
Appellants argued the allowance was part of compensation and should have been included; appellees argued it was separate line-item reimbursement and not payroll.
Court decision affirms the circuit court’s grant of summary judgment, concluding the allowance is not reportable as active member payroll.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the $3,500 uniform/travel allowance is reportable as active member payroll	McLemore posits the allowance is salary/payroll	Weiss/Howard contend it is not salary or payroll	Affirmed: active member payroll does not include the allowance

Glaze v. State, 2011 Ark. 464 (2011 Ark. 464) (administrative interpretation persuasive; not controlling when not ambiguous)
Ryan & Co. AR, Inc. v. Weiss, 371 Ark. 43 (2007) (statutory language read in ordinary meaning; define salary/payroll within context)
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. D.A.N. Joint Venture III, L.P., 374 Ark. 489 (2008) (interpretation to reconcile statutes; avoid absurd results)
Stewart v. Ark. Glass Container, 2010 Ark. 198 (2010) (issues of law; de novo review of statutory interpretation)
Racine v. Nelson, 2011 Ark. 50 (2011) (court’s interpretation of statutes in absence of factual disputes)