Kennebec County v. Maine Public Employees Retirement System

2014 ME 26 parents.” care to of custodial toration Advisory Trust Law Maine Probate KENNEBEC COUNTY Maine Commission, to the 125th Report v. on Standing Commission Legislature, Joint MAINE EMPLOYEES PUBLIC Act to Extend Judiciary, L.D. “An RETIREMENT SYSTEM. Period for Powers of the Maximum Time Incapacitated for Minors and Attorney Docket No. BCD-13-212. 2011). (Mar. Persons” Judicial Court of Maine.

Supreme competent all evi When Argued: Oct. 2013. parent petitioning that a dence indicates Feb. Decided: fully has com guardianship terminate a the recommendations of the plied with litem, capable providing ad

guardian care, physical and either is

for her child’s her capable providing will become permitted

child’s emotional needs she is services, a court engage in transitional it

abuses discretion when refuses Because

implement arrangements. such

we conclude that the court abused its dis transi declining implement

cretion in to 18-A arrangements pursuant

tional Howes, 5-213, Matter see 691, it that the court com

A.2d at follows unfit, finding error Hill

mitted clear finding premised upon

because that

the court’s erroneous denial transitional reasons,

arrangements. For these we va judgment

cate the and remand for the

Probate Court to structure transitional

arrangement pursuant to 18-A M.R.S. timely will lead toward the 5-213 that guardianship.

termination of the entry is:

Judgment vacated. Remanded for the

Probate to structure a transitional Court

arrangement that will lead toward the

timely guardianship. termination of the Perkins, hired full-time and were Shay, Esq. (orally),

Warren C. in- Talbot, P.A., found to have been Townsend, & Skowhe- Shay briefs, of their to enroll formed appellant gan, on the that MPERS and MPERS. We conclude County. statutory authority to de- its Board lacked General, Mills, Attorney and Janet T. claims, at hire inadequate cide the advice Bowie, Atty. (orally), Gen. Asst. James M. judgment.1 and therefore vacate the General, Attorney Augusta, on of Office briefs, Maine Public Em- appellee the System.

ployees Retirement I. HISTORY CASE LEVY, ALEXANDER, Panel: County has been a Par- Kennebec GORMAN, SILVER, MEAD, (PLD) and JJ. in Local District the ticipating Employees Sys- Retirement Maine Public ALEXANDER, LEVY, Majority: tem, formerly the Maine Retirement State MEAD, GORMAN, JJ. System, 1951. At all times relevant since SILVER, J. Dissent: County appeal, eligible employees to this option joining have the MPERS. had ALEXANDER, J. MPERS, joins employee After an County appeals from a Kennebec County employ- a local share and the pays in the judgment entered Business provides ee the member contribution J.) (Horton, Docket that af- Consumer total in MPERS. cost Board of Trustees firmed a decision of the Security 218 County The also has a “Social Employees for the Maine Public Retire- and, since has offered Agreement,” (MPERS). The Board had System ment County em- Security coverage Social to (1) that: implicitly explicitly concluded ployees. County joined the Consoli- adjudicate MPERS had to claims dated Retirement Plan for PLDs were inade- County employees that some dispute no that some There is [¶4] option join to quately advised of their County employees hired between 1985 and employees MPERS at the time the by County personnel, 2002 were informed initially long employees hired before hire, option at the time of of their to elect (2) MPERS; began at each join efforts to participate to in MPERS. Information County was employee’s hiring, initial in MPERS was employee about enrollment obligated apprise employ- adequately to also from time to time disseminated existence, eligibility ees MPERS’s through County department memoranda to retirement However, heads or other means. Kenne- plan, plan; and the terms of County bec did not have a standardized County had failed to meet that obli- disseminating MPERS infor- system for gation employees. with to certain employees and for newly mation to hired conclusions, on those 2] Based [¶ documenting join join elections to or not County the local pay Board ordered the MPERS until 2002. interest, contribution, government MPERS staff member employee’s contri- After a the interest on each bution, County presentation a many years for the between when made County presented arguments we do reach. 1. The additional case, that, given holding appeal our in this February three hired Executive Director’s decision to MPERS’s full-time Board of Trustees. The appointed —one 1986, one in and one in 2000—in- hearing a officer evidentiary to hold an MPERS that had not been formed hearing prepare a recommended final join informed about their generally decision. See 17106- system.2 In response (2013). issues, Among A staff, inquiry by March 2008 argued before Board that MPERS County reported although it could jurisdiction lacked decide the produce specific showing no documentation election issues. that those had been offered en- holding After an evidentiary hear- MPERS, County in rollment had con- ing February in hearing officer concluded, investigation ducted an and an report issued initial in favor obtained, based on the evidence it had that County in June recommending that petitioning employees had been in- the Executive Director’s decision be re- eligibility formed for MPERS However, following versed. a communica- they when were hired. tion from the legal Board’s counsel sug- MPERS staff informed Kennebec [¶ 6] gesting County employees that the at issue County provided unless it documenta- opportunity be offered an to participate in ry evidence that the had been proceedings, the hearing officer held join informed of their additional hearings in December 2010 to and that the employees take County evidence from the and its participation, County had declined employees. hearing The officer then is- responsible be employer would back report sued a redrafted and recommended these, contributions and interest for decision in June 2011 and a final report situated, similarly and recommended in August decision they elected to enroll in MPERS. The finding in favor of MPERS. County could not documentation satisfactory to MPERS staff in- regarding The recommended decision re- formation that had been provided to the quired County Kennebec pay petitioning employees County’s MPERS the share of each em- twenty-two, twenty-one, eight hired ployee’s retirement contributions from the years previously. The requested employee date each was hired full-time to that MPERS’s Executive Director review the he or date she was found to have been the MPERS staffs determination in De- informed of his or her eligibility, cember 2008.3 plus employer interest on both and em- ployee period.4 contributions for that The On

[¶ Executive Director issued an 7] 28, 2011, November January essentially initial decision in 2009 and a final in August adopted hearing decision 2009 in favor of officer’s factual find- County appealed MPERS. The from the ings and recommendations.5 contributions, County employee, 2. A fourth involved at the and reenrolled in and the level, hearing administrative is not involved in other two enrolled in in appeal. this 2010. designee 3. The Executive Director’s conduct- 5.Specifically, the Board concluded that ed the review at that time. County employees statutory right pur- had a 4. One at suant to "5 M.R.S. 18252” to issue enrolled in MPERS in and, period system, accordingly, for a short ceased the retirement 80C, at the time and did P. who were members to M.R. Civ. Pursuant until, cases, review of the members some not become petitioned Superior twenty years alleged Court. after the decision more than Board’s for transfer to the accepted occurred. inadequate The case was notice Docket, and Consumer Business decision, Board’s enter- affirmed the court II. LEGAL ANALYSIS in favor of MPERS. judgment

ing pursuant to timely appeal County filed Review A. Standards of (2013) M.R.App. P. § 11008 Superior When the Court pursuant appellate capacity acts County argues ap- 80C, M.R. P. we review the decision Civ. the Board lack stat- MPERS and peal directly Board of Trustees “for MPERS’s to 5 M.R.S.A. utory authority, pursuant errors, an legal unsustainable exercise 18252-A,6 disputes §§ to decide discretion, unsupported findings or opportunities about relating to information Emps. v. fact.” McClintock Me. Pub. join the retirement that was ¶65, 8, 1 A.3d 431. “The County given employees was the Board’s party seeking to overturn deci County The they were hired. asserts persuasion bears the burden of sion 18252, conjunction in interpreted Id. appeal.” 18252-A, leaves the final ad- with section decision-making ministrative B. The Relevant Statutes suggest- PLD and to these matters to the remedy, that the if The issue before us is matter argument ed at oral complaint statutory interpretation. or Four statuto- any, employees for local is a are at 5 M.R.S. County. County ry provisions with the The issue: grievance (2009),7 in in § § M.R.S. 18252 as effect argues also that 5 (2013), final 2008 and 2009 when MPERS and authorizing the Board to make respective over certain mat- Board initiated their decision- administrative decisions matter; ters, M.R.S. only grants authority making processes review over de- 5 (D) “members,” 18252-A(2)(C), (2013); § 5 M.R.S. affecting cisions MPERS (2013); § employees while the matters here involve 17103 County County obligated specify applicable The does not was under State and federal employees "adequately apprise its law to dates of the statutes to which it cites. MainePERS, eligibility their the existence of plan,” although and the terms of the "the (2008), reporting § 7. Title 5 M.R.S. 18252 County required was not written 2007, by made both P.L. ch. amendments employees that it informed its documentation 490, legislation (emergency § 1 effective eligibility.” of MainePERS The Board also 7, 2007, 491, 2008), § March and P.L. ch. 191 County that the had failed to inform the found 30, (effective 2008), repealed June was employees three individual 2009, 415, (emer- replaced by § P.L. ch. A-5 participate in MPERS when were 17, 2009) (co- gency legislation effective June hired, although they later were informed at (2009)). § at M.R.S. 18252 Section dified dates, and concluded that the subsequently by amended 18252 was P.L. responsible paying past employer for contri- (effective 2010), July § and interest on both member and ch. butions employer (effective contributions for those § Sept. ch. and P.L. period for the between their dates of hire and 28, 2011). changes by effected informed, when those or was and enactments are not material amendments presumably em- informed in the case of one analysis of this section. to our limited ployee, eligibility. of their (20) (2013).8 17001(14)(A), (C), Security ad- there is no Social participation We (C) (D) each in turn. option. Paragraphs dress state: § 18252 ad Title 5 M.R.S. The participating C. local district em- dressed enrollment and ployer responsible providing pro- by employees of PLDs like by cedures make elec- County, Security offer Social section, tions under this for maintaining coverage employees.9 to their Title 5 all pro- records relevant to the election any specific 18252 did not include elections, employee’s cess and each authorization for the Board or MPERS to informing the retirement system as to review and decide the notice and employee elections in accordance with enrollment matters at issue in this case. procedures established the executive We must therefore look to other sections for director and all administra- of the retirement laws to discern the Leg decisions, including tive the final admin- islature’s intent and to determine decision, istrative in any dispute related that it MPERS’s view and its Board have employee’s to an or elections administra- administratively decide em decision, any dispute tive related to enrollment ployee disputes election is rea an employee’s elections or to issue sonable. See Goodrich v. Me. Pub. Emps. plan provided by as to the the employer ¶95, 6, 48 A.3d 212. under section 18252-B. Neither the re- suggests that its to re system’s tirement nor the board may view the action be imported responsibility jurisdic- has trustees (D). 18252-A(2)(C), from 5 M.R.S. tion to make the final administrative 18252-A(2)(C) § Title 5 M.R.S. decision respect any of these (D) membership and addresses for em- system matters. The retirement is re- ployees of PLDs unlike Kennebec sponsible only to ensure that its records County, Security do not offer a cov- Social accurately pro- reflect the information erage option qualified but do offer a de- vided the the employer, employer’s compensa- fined contribution or deferred matters, any decision as to of these and tion plan pursuant retirement to 5 M.R.S. legally cognizable any outcome of (2013). § 18252-B In contrast to section dispute any related to of these matters. 18252, matter, para- which is silent on the (C) (D) D. and, With matters related to graphs more particularly, 18252-A(2) participation membership and explicitly section authorize C, specified paragraph than those in MPERS and its Board to make final ad- system retirement and the board retain ministrative decisions related to plan participation membership, responsibility authority according and in mat- and in authority applicable ters which is not otherwise law and PLD, explicitly delegated participating rules as to the local dis- 17001(14)(A), (C), (20), §§ parties agree applies 8. Title 5 M.R.S. that section 18252 above, 17103, 18252-A(2)(C),(D) County. to the As noted have not been transferred into the Consolidated Retirement any way analysis in amended material to our Statutory provisions Plan for PLDs in 1995. 2008, since and we therefore cite to the 2013 participating relevant to local districts See, volume of the Maine Revised Statutes. plan are found consolidated at 5 M.R.S. (effective e.g., §§ Sept. P.L. ch. 2-4 (2013), parties §§ 18801-18806 but the do not 12, 2009) (amending § 5 M.R.S. 17103 provisions appli- contend that those affect the (2008)). cability County. § of 5 M.R.S. 18252 to the 1210 credits and affecting rights, all matters employees to whom

tricts and including authority programs of all members all applies, privileges decisions. par- final administrative whether in to make of the retirement districts or in the state ticipating local 18252- to section Pursuant 17103(6); § 5 M.R.S. see also service.” A(2)(C), to Kennebec apply does not 17103(7)(B) (referencing § explicitly granted— is County, the PLD rights, to determine “the authority Board’s explicitly are MPERS and its board of an individual mem- privileges credits or ad- “all responsibility denied— adjudica- members” in an group ber or decisions, including the final ministrative Maine tory proceeding pursuant to the decision, re- dispute in administrative Act). Thus, Procedure sec- Administrative elections or admin- employee’s lated to an the Board’s au- tion establishes MPERS and istrative decision....” relating matters thority to decide are, however, granted credits, of “mem- rights, privileges decisions “[w]ith make final administrative participation related to bers.” respect to matters membership specified other than those A “member” is defined as PLDs that do not paragraph C” for “any person included Security coverage to their em- offer Social program a retirement of the retirement 18252-A(2)(D). § Sec- ployees. 5 M.R.S. system, provided chapter as sub- compre- thus establishes a 18252-A [relating to state chapter plan allocating hensive teachers], chapter subchapter MPERS, PLD, and the Board among 17001(20). [relating to 5 M.R.S. PLDs].” variety in a of situations.10 contrast, defined as “a “employee” In an statutory provision The third at ... employee, including participat state issue, establishes the 5 M.R.S. ing employee,” local district without refer respon- of the Board’s general parameters membership. ence to MPERS authority, granting sibilities and broad au- (C). 17001(14)(A), The fact thority aspects to oversee numerous “employee” sepa terms “member” and are system. of the retirement operation are rately they defined indicates that (4), (5), (7); 17103(1),(2), § see Me. interchangeably intended to be used 27 Pub. Sch. Admin. Dist. No. v. Me. statute. ¶ 108, 26, 988

Emps. Sys., 2009 (stating “given A.2d 391 the overall Applying C. the Statutes to this Case regulatory gov- administrative scheme [for system], the retirement it is reason- erning interpre We review the [¶ 20] infer power to that a to enforce is able novo, looking a de first to tation of statute implicit regulatory within the overall effect plain language give the statute’s to scheme”). intent, Legislature’s considering language in the context of the whole statu General administrative review [¶ 18] absurd, tory illogical, scheme “to avoid by 5 M.R.S. provided Rental, states, 17103(6), Eagle § inconsistent results.” Inc. part, in relevant ¶ Assessor, 48, 11, 2013 ME “The in all cases make the final v. State Tax board shall 1278; Goodrich, 95, ¶6, 2012 ME determining and administrative decision 65 A.3d 18252-A(3)(B) ship optional pursuant § 5 generally 10. See in MPERS is 5 M.R.S. (2013)). (stating 18252-A does not that section M.R.S. 18252 apply of PLDs whose member- 100, ¶23, including 212. By specific 48 A.3d 2009 ME 980 A.2d 1257 pro- administrative review comprehensive (“Statutory construction is a holistic pro- 18252-A(2)(C) (D), in section visions cess: we construe the whole statutory Legislature presumably identified a scheme of which the section at issue forms provisions need for such result, part so that a harmonious pre- Security PLDs that do not offer Social to sumably the intent of the Legislature, may do offer qualified achieved.”). de- be compensa- fined contribution or deferred Section expressly plans. provisions, If these addressed upon confers to decide primarily protections for “employees,” relating credits, matters rights, duplicated by general were held be “members,” privileges of “employ and not provisions review regarding “members” in ees.” 17108(6),portions section of section 18252- The three (D) at issue in A(2)(C) and would in effect ren- be appeal dispute whether the County statutory surplusage. dered Such inter- offered them enrollment in MPERS or pretations, viewing as with the terms provided adequate information to them “member” and “employee” interchange- as about their able, participation in Res., are to be avoided. See Allied the retirement they Inc. v. Dep’t Safety, Pub. 2010 ME ¶ (“All was, hired. Enrollment MPERS 999 A.2d 940 words in a statute employees, given meaning, optional. are to be See 5 and none are to M.R.S.A. 18251(1), (1989 §§ & surplusage they Supp.2000); be treated as can be 1092(5-A) construed.”). M.R.S.A. reasonably (Supp.1986).12 Therefore, even if we were to take an Thus, we cannot construe the re- expansive view of what it would mean to 18252-A(2)(C) view provisions “member,” be a those employees cannot be (D) imported to be into section 18252. deemed to have been “included in the Portland, Aydelott City See v. 2010 ME a retirement program of 990 A.2d 1024 (observing system,” unless and until when one section of a law or act contains actually enrolled. particular not, language that another does 17001(20); cf., e.g., Me. Sch. Admin. suggests contrast an intentional dis- 108, ¶2, Dist. No. 983 A.2d by the Legislature). tinction Given section 18252’s lack of specific provisions, review Legislature we must infer that the dispute made a concerning the em- 17103(6), statutory choice that section ployees’ enrollment elections at the time of general hire, provision concerning scheme’s au- prior or at time to being PLDs, thority jurisdiction) applies informed of their eligibility to enroll in MPERS, County, like the that offer Social Security thus arose when these individu- coverage. See McPhee v. Me. State employees, Ret. als were PLD but were not (2013) 1092(5-A) § § 11. Tide 5 M.R.S. 17001 repealed states that 12. Title 5 M.R.S.A. 1985, following 801, (effective 1, terms in that section "have the by § P.L. ch. 2 Jan. meanings," "unless the context otherwise in- 1987). 18251, §§ Title 5 M.R.S.A. 18252 was dicates.” We that conclude the context of 801, (effective by § enacted P.L. ch. 5 section does not otherwise indicate 1, 1987). Jan. any meaning that the word "member" has other than as that term is defined in 5 M.R.S. 17001(20). § could in To hold otherwise Accordingly, 25] we con- [¶ members.13 MPERS adjudicate claims to mem vite MPERS not have authori- Board did that the clude by employees who bership entitlement decisions final administrative to make ty twenty thirty years ago or joined PLDs election the enrollment who never became members twenty-two as arising as much matters MPERS or who became members earlier, employees the PLD years at the end of their careers only MPERS. We like- not “members” of were claim to and then invoked a lack of notice support for MPERS’s do not find wise the entire term of seek to win benefits for See, e.g., in this matter. authority Legislature could not their careers. (2013) forth the (setting § 17105 M.R.S. result, incon inviting have intended such a director); McPhee, executive duties of the decision-making, speculative sistent and ¶¶ 20-21, 980 A.2d 1257 imprecise faded memories and reliant on of the executive di- (noting the limits twenty or or discarded records events deciding pur- matters authority in rector’s thirty years past.15 relating qualified to a the statute suant to resulting Employees relations order and of PLDs that domestic [¶26] Security coverage review of that offer Social are not limitation on the Board’s decision).14 remedy, Employees without a however. contention, Contrary implied law and rules as to the to MPERS’s the three at issue in employer the fact that whom and the this appeal ultimately enrolled in MPERS in applies, including Part then, becoming does not "members” make final administrative decisions. on the Board to decide confer apply We do not this statute to case at matters at issue here when that enrollment (2013) ("[Proceed hand. See 1 M.R.S. 302 giving authority did not exist at the time rise ings passage, pending at the time of the disputes. repeal amendment or of an Act ... are not Auth., thereby.”); Tpk. affected v. Me. Morrill express opinion impact, if 14. We no on'what 116, 5, ("[A]ll 2009 ME 983 A.2d 1065 stat any, provisions 17054-A of 5 prospective utes will be considered to have a (2013) might have on our decision if that operation only, legislative intent unless the applicable, because section contrary clearly expressed is or necessari 17054-A, § 12 enacted P.L. ch. used.”); ly implied language from the Me. 12, 2010), (effective July cf. was effective after Emps. No. 27 v. Me. Pub. Sch. Admin. Dist. jurisdiction and the assumed 108, ¶25, 983 A.2d 391 giving appeal, over the issues rise to this ("When existing rights a statute does not alter its final admin- albeit before issued obligations, merely clarifies what or but those istrative decision. Section 17054-A states: existing rights obligations always have responsible providing Employers are for been, oper is retroactive in its statute procedures by for whom (alterations omitted)). ation.” membership system op- in the retirement election, make a tional 15.Title does not maintaining all relevant to the elec- records provides alter our conclusion. Section 17451 process employee's individual and an "[a]ny aggrieved by person a decision or informing the retirement election ruling may appeal the executive director in accor- as to elections ruling to the board.” We do decision by procedures established the dance conferring subject not view 17451 as section respect mat- executive director.... With case; jurisdiction to the Board in this matter participation ters related to and member- authorizing procedural it mechanism is the ship in the retirement other than section, appeals from decisions the Board to consider specified the retire- those in this properly that were of the executive director responsi- ment and the board retain bility according before the executive director. authority applicable PLD has failed to in- decision in all the alleging affecting rights, that their matters them of their privileges form credits and of of all members all may pursue in MPERS administrative programs system[.]” of the retirement bargaining grievance procedures added). collective (emphasis directly action independent and initiate The Court dismisses the fact subject stat- against employer, that all three involved repose of limitation or rules of that utes members, case are current point- may applicable. be ing they out that were not members at the entry The is: of the gave time incidents that rise to Judgment vacated. Remanded proceedings. plain language The Docket for en- Business Consumer 17103requires inquiry section no such into try judgment vacating of a the Board’s when the joined System. members On remanding decision and the matter to contrary, unambiguously provides it the Board with instructions to the Board authority that the Board has the to hear juris- to dismiss the matter for want of concerning all matters rights, members’ diction. credits, and privileges. SILVER, J., dissenting. Administrative bodies are statu- respectfully disagree I with the nature; tory only pow- have “such interpretation Court’s of 5 M.R.S. expressly ers as those conferred them 17103(6) (2013). plain language Legislature, or such as arise there- grants the statute authority Board the by necessary from implication to allow car- to make a final administrative decision in rying powers out the accorded to them.” credits, affecting all matters the rights, China, Hopkinson v. Town 615 A.2d privileges of all members of the retire- (Me.1992). 1166, 1167 We look to the system. statutory ment I discern no basis plain meaning of a language statute’s limiting the Board’s based on intent, give legislative effect to the and if joined when the members at issue clear, meaning of the statute is we System. Because I conclude that beyond need not look the words them- properly jurisdiction, exercised I Desert, selves. Wister v. Town Mount would reach the merits of the Board’s deci- 66, ¶17, 974 A.2d 903. The sion, and would affirm. Court, however, raises concerns about the Authority A. The Board’s ability effectively adjudicate Board’s one, cases like this that suggesting notes, As the Court Legislature could not have intended to (2013), applies which to Kennebec grant jurisdiction to hear cases employ- because the offers involving employees who were hired dec- Security ees a choice between Social ades before becoming members because membership, guidance offers no extremely such cases are difficult to decide concerning the extent of the Board’s au- due to the loss of evidence over time. thority to make final decisions in matters Opinion involving Although Court’s this is cer- proce- enrollment and election Thus, observation, tainly a fair beyond dures. we must look to it is well scope plain language outlines the Board’s of section responsibilities. provides legitimate This section 17103 and does not board shall in all make limiting scope “[t]he cases basis of the board’s the final and determining statutory authority. administrative stat interpretation application not of the concerns also do policy Such 31]

[¶ v. Me. Labor Rela City Augusta ute. reading of the statute ab- plain a render ¶ Bd., 63, 14, 2013 ME 70 A.3d 268. tions See Me. Power Co. illogical. surd or Cent. ¶ Marine, Inc., 37, 8, ambiguous the statute is “silent or When v. Devereux (“[W]e particular point, we will review statutory the on a construe 68 A.3d 1262 of the absurd, agency’s interpretation whether the illogical, or in- language to avoid results.”). uphold its inter “Overall, statute is reasonable the Board consistent plainly unless the statute com pretation charged general with long [t]he has been contrary result.” Goodrich v. Me. pels a responsibility for the administration and ¶95, 6, Emps. Pub. of the retirement proper operation attempt A.3d 212. do not to second- chapter [governing “[W]e making for ” guess agency falling the on matters within Me. ] the retirement effective. expertise.” Imagineering, its realm of No. 27 v. Me. Pub. Sch. Admin. Dist. ¶ Ins., 108, 26, 593 A.2d Superintendent Inc. v. Sys., 2009 ME Emps. Ret. (Me.1991). (em- 1050, 1053 omitted) marks (quotation A.2d 391 original). alterations in phasis and The Board interpreted require employers 18252 to like the Coun- au- provides Section 17103 broad informa- ty provide new with thority for to make final admin- eligibility membership their about rights istrative decisions about members’ program. in MPERS and the terms of the Determining whether an and credits. em- statutory that the The Board reasoned ployer must make back contributions to language providing eligible that members MPERS for several current members falls may join program “implies elect to a squarely authority granted by within the (“The which in right plan,” the statute. See id. 27 assessment “obligates adequately turn payments, espe- of late for delinquent fees apprise of the existence of interest, cially assessment for affects members.”) [MPERS], their and the terms of rights This the plan.” reading of section 17103 not conflict does with and it is provision, consis- interpretation The Board’s statutory with providing tent scheme reasonable, section 18252 is and the statu- “broad and discretion to the tory language compel contrary not does managing Board in Id. There [MPERS].” Although County argues result. that plain is no reason to conclude that interpretation imposes the Board’s too language of statute does not reflect requirement employers burdensome a Thus, Legislature’s intent. the Board had Security coverage also offer Social who jurisdiction to decide whether Kennebec employees, argument required to make back contri- impermissibly applied the more behalf of butions with interest on current stringent requirements of 5 M.R.S. members as a result of its earlier failure to unpersuasive. 18252-A Section provide adequate procedures. election 18252-A, applies only to PLDs that Security coverage Social do Employers B. Whether Must Inform and is therefore inapplicable Coun- Employees About MPERS ty, steps employers specific enumerates take, including providing required When the administration of a are information, agency by implementing statute has been entrusted to an in- Legislature, agency’s procedures we defer to the elections and elections, forming employees’ permissible; MPERS of it is not retroactive in effect. administrative decisions con- Me. Sch. Admin. Dist. ¶ 28, these matters. 5 M.R.S. 18252- cerning Interpreting A.2d 391. a stat- (C) (2013). A(2)(B), plain meaning ute’s does not constitute a pronouncing new rule. See id. 25. County’s Contrary to Kennebec [¶ 36] Section requires that employees be arguments, necessarily this does not mean given meaningful choice whether to elect by section 18252 employers covered join to Superior MPERS. That the Court inform obligation have no employer subject observed that “an to sec- participate about tion 18252 fails to at peril” document County MPERS. The concedes that sec- does not indicate that the Board has an- 18252, by implication, imposes some nounced a new rule requiring employers duty information about keep detailed records of proce- election availability in MPERS. Rather, dures. it is a commonsense obser- interpretation Because the Board’s of this documentation, vation absent such it provision System of the State Retirement may be employer difficult for an prove reasonable, statute is we defer must to it. complied that it has with the modest notice requirements of section 18252. The Coun- Findings C. The Board’s Factual ty’s argument that the Board has imper- This will affirm Court the missibly announced a new rule that is not findings sup- Board’s factual if are promulgated by regulation statute or is ported by substantial evidence in the rec- unpersuasive. ord, even the record contains inconsis- reasons, For I would af- contrary tent or evidence. Friends of judgment firm the Superior Court Prot., Lincoln v. Lakes Bd. Envtl. on the merits. ¶18, 13, 989 A.2d 1128. County contends that in finding erred that the three employees were not eligi- informed of their

bility in MPERS when they However,

were hired.16 each of the em- ployees testified that the had not 2014 ME 32 offered them enrollment in MPERS when ESTATE of Ada Y. GREENBLATT. hired, they were and that the benefits Docket No. Lin-13-115. explained were never to them. This evi- dence, despite being contradicted Supreme Judicial Court of Maine. record, evidence in the is sufficient to sup- port Argued: Nov. findings. the Board’s 2013. Decided: Feb. D. Whether Interpretation Board’s Retroactively Imposes a New Rule Administrative clarification of a existing rights obligations

PLD’s County’s argument high, 16. Much of Kennebec County pre- and that the evidence the issue, however, on the focuses assertion sented was sufficient to meet the lower stan- applied that the argued appropriate. standard the Board was too dard the

Case Details

Case Name: Kennebec County v. Maine Public Employees Retirement System

Court Name: Supreme Judicial Court of Maine

Date Published: Feb 20, 2014

Citation: 86 A.3d 1204

Docket Number: Docket BCD-13-212

Court Abbreviation: Me.