STEVENS v. FOX
2016 OK 106
| Okla. | 2016Background
- Stevens and Dooley, Oklahoma taxpayers and vested OPERS members, challenge HB 2630 (2014) creating a defined contribution option within OPERS.
- HB 2630, effective Nov. 1, 2014, would fund a new defined contribution system for those joining OPERS after Nov. 1, 2015, while preexisting members remain in the defined benefit plan.
- HB 2630 requires employer contributions to both the defined contribution system and a special employer contribution to the defined benefit plan, plus administration reimbursements.
- OPERS and legislators argued HB 2630 followed OPLAAA procedures and did not immediately affect costs or benefits of OPERS.
- Plaintiffs filed suit seeking declaratory relief and argued HB 2630 violated OPLAAA and impaired retirement protections, asking summary judgment or voiding the act.
- Trial court granted summary judgment for appellees; appellate review followed with focus on standing and OPLAAA compliance.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a violation of OPLAAA is justiciable. | Stevens argued OPLAAA was violated and the matter is a proper declaratory judgment. | Fox/Board argued OPLAAA violations are non-justiciable under separation of powers. | OPLAAA violation deemed non-justiciable; no illegal expenditure shown. |
| Whether Plaintiffs have taxpayer standing to challenge HB 2630. | Stevens/Dooley have taxpayer standing to challenge alleged illegal expenditures. | Appellees contend no right to sue based on OPLAAA issues alone. | Taxpayer standing recognized for alleged illegal expenditures, but ultimate remedy limited. |
| Whether HB 2630 creates a new retirement system implicating OPLAAA analysis. | HB 2630 creates a new system and affects costs; certification wrong. | HB 2630 does not immediately affect OPERS costs; legislature complied with procedures. | HB 2630 analyzed as procedural; any actuarial issues remain non-justiciable. |
Key Cases Cited
- Oklahoma Public Employees Association v. Oklahoma Dep't. of Central Services, 2002 OK 71 (OK Supreme Court 2002) (standing and declaratory judgment considerations discussed)
- Dank v. Benson, 2000 OK 40 (OK Supreme Court 2000) (separation of powers; courts abstain from internal legislative procedures)
- Taylor v. State & Educ. Employees Group Ins. Program, 1995 OK 51 (OK Supreme Court 1995) (standing and actuarial soundness considerations)