*1 Dist., B214685. Second Div. One. Aug. [No. 2010.] KHAN, ABRAHAM Plaintiff and v. Respondent, SYSTEM, LOS ANGELES CITY EMPLOYEES’ RETIREMENT Defendant and Appellant.
Counsel Trutanich, Carmen A. L. City Alan Assistant Attorney, Manning, City Curwen, Attorney, JoMary City for Defendant and Deputy Attorney, Appellant.
Richards, Watson & Gershon and T. Saskia Asamura for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Opinion JOHNSON, Los Angeles City Employees’ System J . The (LACERS) (Khan) from a in favor of Abraham Khan appeals judgment his writ for of mandate LACERS to granting petition compelling his approve with LACERS and retirement benefits for concurrent deferred request on is whether (JRS).1 appeal The sole issue Judges’ System Khan, that a have such judge LACERS and JRS of Los who for the City Los had worked Angeles County Court of Superior LACERS at his higher as a retire from Angeles city attorney, may (City) not, do and reverse remand We conclude judicial salary. they the trial enter in favor LACERS. directions that court judgment FACTUAL BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL
HISTORY 1. Khan’s Petition Writ Mandate. Allegations Judge for a and JRS. From Khan is member of both LACERS Respondent approxi- for capacities Khan worked in various mately through Judge attorney. leaving with his last that of City, being deputy city Upon position to cash benefits with the Khan elected not out his employment City, Judge the Los judge with LACERS. In Khan was Judge appointed By Court and was elevated to the court in 2000. Angeles superior Municipal reason was to receive eligible of his Khan judicial appointments, Judge benefits JRS. under concur- Khan to LACERS to determine his for eligibility applied his LACERS
rent retirement from LACERS and JRS at higher judicial salary. informed with JRS. him LACERS did not have reciprocity 21, 2007, (Code writ of
On Khan filed mandate May Judge petition Proc., 1085) Civ. based LACERS him benefits pay compel § his salary Judge earned while member of JRS. Khan’s upon judicial petition of the statutes alleged governing pursuant reciprocity provisions (PERS), Public gov- state’s statutes had reci- erning LACERS established county city systems, PERS and all with PERS. other procity systems having reciprocity *6 (2001-2002 further that No. Judge alleged Assembly Reg. Khan Bill 1099 2, 2001, Sess.) 1099), Bill on October amended section (Assembly passed PERS)2 that earned while 20639 (applicable provide compensation 1 statutory All are to the seq. Government Code section 75000 et references herein Government Code unless otherwise noted. 2 during any period “The eamable part, compensation Section 20639 relevant System[ Judges’ System Judges’ as of the Retirement service a member or] II, system [(PERS)] . as of this for compensation . . shall be considered eamable a member member, concurrently final for the if he or she retires purposes computing compensation systems.” under both member of JRS would be considered eamable a member compensation PERS for final purposes if the computing member retired under both concurrently Khan systems.3 that alleged because PERS and LACERS had reciprocity, Bill Assembly extended specifically reciproc LACERS, from ity JRS to and that such amendments were retroactive as a matter of law.
Khan a writ of sought mandate LACERS and commanding PERS4 to his for approve eligibility concurrent deferred retirement with LACERS and JRS, at such bench, time as he elected to retire from the with his benefits under both to be his computed using as a highest salary judge.
2. on the Hearing Petition.5 Judge Khan argued under statutory reciprocity provisions granting benefits to reciprocal and city county that had agencies reciprocity agree- PERS, ments with in July LACERS and PERS entered into a reciprocal statutes, Under agreement. applicable agreement gave LACERS PERS, not reciprocity only with but also with all other agencies having with reciprocity PERS. To this implement agreement, the City adopted ordinance No. 171656 which amended Los Angeles Administrative Code section 4.1065 to for such provide reciprocity LACERS PERS. of his contention support that the between PERS JRS, LACERS extended to Judge Khan contended that added the Judges’ (JRS Retirement II) II to the reciprocal provisions and, result, of PERS as a members of JRS JRS II had city county retirement systems PERS, which had already such as LACERS.6 Khan the fact Judge argued that LACERS and JRS did not have a contractual agreement was irrelevant because this scheme statutory mandated reciprocity. 45310.5, Under section city “When a system has established a under this section and has received approval Employees’ System, thereof from the Public state, system then automatically such shall be with all other local and members, agencies contracting who are members the Public
System any County established under the Employees Retirement Law of (Italics added.) 1937.” (§ 75005.) PERS administers JRS. 25, 2008, On April Presiding Judge Angeles Superior Los Court issued an order recusing judges 23, 2008, all Angeles County on the Los Superior Court. May On the Judicial assigned Council Judge the matter to Geoffrey Orange County T. Glass of the Superior Court. *7 Pursuant to section added in already provision entitling PERS had a members judicial JRS to use their purposes of concurrent from PERS. (Stats. 1955.) ch. p. § Code Administrative that Los Angeles contended City
In opposition, because LACERS and JRS create 4.1065 did not section to those retirement was extended only under LACERS any reciprocity govern- to statutory provisions contract entered into pursuant which agreed, by benefits to reciprocal retirement systems, provide PERS and ing county Furthermore, did not unambiguously Bill 1099 Assembly members. LACERS statutory reciprocity LACERS via PERS’s create statutory reciprocity JRS did not grant and because county agencies with other city To those statutes. members as by to PERS required reciprocal When a 2007 PERS publication, also relied on City its position, support JRS II did not have that JRS and You stated Change Systems, with PERS. agreement formal reciprocity
3. Trial Court Ruling. statutory The court found the Khan’s Judge The trial court granted petition. the extrinsic evidence presented and did not consider unambiguous, language conclusion, the legislative it noted although its by reaching parties that Assembly its conclusion Bill 1099 history Assembly supported [PERS], notwith- between JRS intended to “legislate reciprocity materials.” in its PERS’ standing contrary interpretation published section adding noted that ordinance No. court Specifically, uniform reciprocal Administrative Code7 Angeles adopted 4.1065 Los from LACERS with benefits members of provisions, provided reciprocal provisions other similar any agency system adopting to the members contract to extend the benefits of agreed had benefits of LACERS. The court found PERS and LACERS PERS, and, LACERS had under Bill 1099 because it had with JRS and JRS II. therefore
DISCUSSION I. Standard Review. Proc., 1085) be (Code may Civ.
A of traditional mandamus § writ ministerial in nature of a that is duty purely used compel performance v. (American Surgery Board Cosmetic correct an abuse of discretion. or to 534, Cal.Rptr.3d 162 Cal.App.4th Medical Board [75 of California function in a court the same 574].) The trial court and appellate perform action, undertake a review of we therefore do not mandamus traditional the Old Trees v. (Friends court’s or conclusions. findings the trial Code. erroneously Angeles Municipal the Los court referenced The *8 106 1383, (1997) & Fire Protection 52
Department Forestry 1393 Cal.App.4th of determine 297].) We consider the record to whether LACERS Cal.Rptr.2d [61 discretion, abused its whether namely, its decision was arbitrary, capricious, unlawful, in or entirely lacking evidentiary unfair. support, procedurally 783, City (1993) v. 20 (Bright Development Tracy 795 Cal.App.4th [24 of Contractors, 618]; see also Associated Builders & Inc. v. San Cal.Rptr.2d 654, 352, (1999) Francisco Com. 21 Cal.4th Airports 361 Cal.Rptr.2d [87 Indeed, 499].) 981 P.2d such acts “are accorded the most nonadjudicatory (Pulaski deferential level of v. & judicial scrutiny.” Occupational Safety 1315, (1999) 54].) Health Stds. Bd. 75 1331 Cal.App.4th Cal.Rptr.2d [90 law, Unless otherwise “the always bears burden of provided petitioner in a mandate under Code of Civil Procedure section proof proceeding brought 1085.” Correctional Peace Assn. v. State Personnel Bd. (California Officers 1133, 693, Thus, (1995) 79].) 10 Cal.4th 1154 P.2d it is 899 Cal.Rptr.2d [43 burden to establish that LACERS’s decision was petitioner’s arbitrary, capri cious, unlawful, in entirely lacking evidentiary procedurally support, (See 180, unfair. Fair Valley (1979) v. Fountain School Dist. 90 Cal.App.3d 56].) Cal.Rptr. [153 II. Principles Statutory Construction.
We review issues of de nova on where statutory interpretation appeal (Alesi (2000) there are no factual issues. v. Board Retirement disputed 81].) Cal.App.4th Cal.Rptr.2d Any interpretation compensa [101 (See tion that would affect retirement benefits bemay applied retroactively. (2003) In re Retirement Cases 443-445 Cal.App.4th Cal.Rptr.3d [1 790].)
Our in a statute is to determine primary goal legislative interpreting intent, statute, determined and such intent should be from the language if (1988) v. 45 Cal.3d possible. (Lungren Deukmejian Cal.Rptr. [248 299].) 755 P.2d Words are to be their usual and given ordinary meaning, word, sentence; and we must accord significance every phrase addition, construction some words is to be avoided. In rendering surplusage words of statute must be construed in context with reference to the and statutes statutory sections to the same purpose, statutory relating harmonized, must be both and with each other. subject internally (Dyna-Med, (1987) Inc. v. Fair & Com. 43 Cal.3d 1386-1387 Employment Housing 1323].) 743 P.2d Cal.Rptr. [241
Where the is clear and there is no need to language unambiguous, statute, look further. “If there is ‘then the no ambiguity language said, is to have meant what it and the Legislature meaning presumed plain ” (Lennane Franchise TaxBd. Cal.4th governs.’ v. language *9 However, 563, the is 976].) where language 885 P.2d 268 Cal.Rptr.2d [36 sources. and to extrinsic to other rules of interpretation we turn ambiguous, 194, 201-202 (1994) 23 (Oden Cal.App.4th [28 v. Board Administration of (“it a is of noscitur sociis 388].) These include the principle Cal.Rptr.2d may whether a term associates”), which us to consider known its by requires (Blue class. v. Bonta' the fellow members of its be defined reference to by 980, 483].) We may (2002) Cal.Rptr.2d 989-990 Cal.App.4th 99 [121 statute, of a including reports consider in legislative history construing (Hudson Board v. legislative committees legislative during process. of 1310, 737].) (1997) 1323 Cal.Rptr.2d Administration 59 Cal.App.4th [69 intent, legislative are consulted to understand “Committee materials properly considered materials since it is reasonable to infer legislators explanatory to enact in the materials when understanding voting and shared expressed (Oden, 205.) 23 at statute.” supra, Cal.App.4th p. of the Public we note that the retirement board’s Lastly, interpretation (§ et to be accorded great weight Retirement Law 20000 is Employees’ seq.) Public (City Employees unless erroneous. Sacramento v. clearly of 1470, However, 847].) (1991) 1478 229 Cal.App.3d Cal.Rptr. [280 statute, “administrative construction of a while entitled to cannot weight, when a is prevail contrary legislative apparent.” (Pacific Legal purpose 101, (1981) Cal.3d 117 Foundation v. Ins. Bd. 29 Unemployment Appeals [172 Furthermore, 244].) P.2d our Court has held that Cal.Rptr. Supreme or in the must be “[a]ny ambiguity meaning legislation uncertainty pension (Ventura resolved in . . . .” County Deputy favor pensioner Sheriffs’ (1997) Assn. v. Board Retirement 16 Cal.4th Cal.Rptr.2d [66 Nonetheless, 891].) P.2d this latter liberal rule of construction must be in the obvious intent but “should not effectuating blindly applied legislative be followed to eradicate the clear and of the statute so as language purpose intended.” and allow for those for whom it was not eligibility obviously (Barrett County v. Stanislaus Retirement Assn. Employees 900].) 1608-1609 Cal.App.3d Cal.Rptr. [234 III. Provisions. Reciprocity
A. Background. (PERL; The Public Retirement Law 20000 et enacted seq.), § PERS, established a retirement for state system employees 123, 1, 535.) (Stats. local ch. agencies. p. participating public § in the service by PERS was enacted “to effect economy efficiency or other means who become whereby employees superannuated providing be more wise without may, hardship replaced by incapacitated prejudice, end consisting and to that retirement capable employees, provide system (§ 20001.) retirement and death benefits.” County are Retirement Law of 1937 plans governed by County Employees (§ (CERL). 31450 et Cities establish retirement seq.) may plans pursuant ordinance, (See section 45300 et establish a seq. [“By any city may § for its officers and for the payment employees provide benefits, allowances, death of retirement pensions, disability payments, them.”].)8 a retirement JRS any system judges appointed prior (§ to November et JRS is administered PERS by 1994. seq.) state, counties, (§ 75005), funded contributions and deduc is through *10 (§§ 75101-75103), from and PERS its invest tions directs judges’ payrolls (§ 75105). or any ments JRS does not contain statutes referencing creating with other retirement systems.9 reciprocity public agency PERS, counties, Various define statutes reciprocity among cities, PERS, and JRS. As described is an by agreement among “[Reciprocity retirement to allow to move from one members public systems public to another a limit without within time employer public employer specific (PERS, some valuable retirement and related benefit When losing rights.”10 3.) You CERL notes that Change Systems p. reciprocity career service retirement benefits to encourages public by granting reciprocal members who are entitled to retirement or benefits from two or more rights retirement and delineates the financial of each systems, obligations system and related entities so that no or is liable for political system political entity 11(§ 31830.) more than its financial just obligation.* city “It a provides, any adopt Section 45300 is intent of this article to enable to such 4, 5, system adaptable type.” chapter provides retirement as is to its size and Title division governing systems by provisions adopted retirement cities. 9, (§ applies judges appointed seq.) JRS II on or after November 75500 et JRS II 1994. state, counties, (§ 75505), through by by is administered PERS and is funded contributions JRS, (§§ 75600-75602). judges’ payrolls and deductions from Like JRS II does not contain Khan, any referencing reciprocity public agency systems. Judge statutes with other appointed who was would receive retirement benefits under JRS. LAGERS, reciprocity it with but not with II. expressly *11 12 provisions The of title part chapter specifically division article 5 define “reciprocity.” 13 provides provisions part extending rights Section 20351 that “The a member of this to of system, subjecting any by this or him or her to or a membership limitation reason of his her in county system, apply retirement shall in like manner and under like conditions to a member of system by any system this of his or her membership reason in retirement established under 45300) Chapter (commencing respect 2 with Section of 5 of Title 4 with to which an Division complying accepted by by ordinance with section 43510.5 has been filed with and the board or system by reason of his or her in a membership pursuant retirement established or to the city city county by any agency system, charter of a or and or public other of this state and board, in the opinion provides rights of the a similar modification of and benefits because of membership system body city, city in and with respect governing this to which the of the county public agency agreement pursuant and or and the board into to this have entered section. . . .” 14 “Any agency public pursuant provisions Section 20353 that has to the of agreement system Section 20351 entered into an to a retirement with this reciprocal establish system rights shall be deemed respect to have obtained the same and limitations with to all public agencies other agreements who have entered into those and established as respect county well with systems Chapter (commencing as to retirement and under 45300) system Section of Division 5 of Title 4 that have with this established pursuant to Section 20351.” 31840.2, CERL has a similar at provision provides: provisions section which “The of this extending rights system article county to a member of a retirement established under this chapter subjecting any by membership or him or her to limitation of or her in the reason his System Public and apply Retirement shall in like manner under like conditions to by a any system member reason of his or her in retirement established under membership 45300) Chapter (commencing respect with Section of Division 5 of Title 4 with to which an ordinance complying accepted by by with Section 45310.5 been filed with and the board or has
reason membership system by pursuant of his or her in a retirement established or city city county by any agency system, charter public of other of this state which board, opinion rights the provides a similar modification of benefits because of 2001, the enacted Bill the reci- Legislature amend Assembly CERL. of PERL and The Counsel’s provisions Legislative Digest procity states, Bill law establishes Assembly “[e]xisting than retirement a member of more systems, thereby allowing specified public one to use the earned while a member of one system compensation qualifying those to calculate benefits under the other system, reciprocal systems bill would Judges’ limitations. This add the subject specified ...['][] Retirement II to these would add both System provisions [PERL] System Retirement Retirement II to these Judges’ System Judges’ 1099; Bill Counsel’s Assem. Stats. (Legis. Dig., [CERL].” 433.) ch. “The modified section 2063916 of PERL to read:
Assembly eamable of service as member of during any period compensation II. . . shall be Judges’ Judges’ System[ or] considered eamable as member of this compensation system purposes member, final for the he or concur if she retires computing (Stats. l.)17 under both ch. Bill 1099 rently systems.” § II to did not JRS or JRS create in those a mirrored modify systems members of PERS the same compensation computation provision granting benefit with II. JRS/JRS compensation computation PERS’s When You Systems, publication, Change explains The moving benefits of from one to another. also “includes a list of agencies including publication con- that have established [PERS] *12 LACERS is an that tract.” included as contracted with agency “ha[s] [PERS] to the benefits of PERS states that there “is no provide reciprocity.” formal and established between and JRS agreement reciprocity [JRS II]” [PERS] added), to (italics but that “the benefits . . . members following apply [PERS] retire date who enter with and and on the same employment JRS [JRS II] both that will final systems,” namely compute your compen- under “[PERS] based on rate of under and JRS . . . .” your pay sation highest [JRS II] system governing to membership chapter respect in a under this and with which the established city, city county agreement have body public agency of such and and the board entered into pursuant to Section 20351.” 2, 5, 7, 3, chapter “Compensation.” division part Section 20639 resides in title 17Further, Assembly provisions to modified section 31840.8 of CERL read: “The system under rights county to a member of a retirement established chapter extending of this membership Employees’ by reason or her in the Public Retirement chapter this of his Judges’ System, the apply Judges’ to the of . . . the shall also members (Stats. 4.) System n.” ch. § B. There Is No Between LACERS and JRS/JRSII. Reciprocity ” Bill 1099 Did Not Create “Statutory Reciprocity.
1. In the and PERS to City began between PERS explore reciprocity and LACERS. In August PERS advised the to City section pursuant 20351, PERS had extended to cities retirement having systems under section 45300 et PERS advised the it seq. would enter into an City to establish agreement LACERS if the City’s retirement also contained system PERS reciprocal provisions granting reciprocity, PERS LACERS uniform for provided reciprocal LACERS’s provisions documents, use. As defined in PERS’s is mutual: may “[PERS] enter into an to establish if agreement in its reciprocity only opinion contains City’s system PERS recommended reciprocal provisions.” the City that: “The adopt language of these providing purposes is to extend to provisions members of other public agency . . . which similar systems adopt into their retirement 20351, 20353, ordinances or to Sections plans pursuant 31840.2 and 45310.5[18] Code, of the Government and who by contract to extend the agree benefits thereof to this system, in following rights this . . . .” system LACERS and PERS entered into an agreement for providing mutual PERS and LACERS. In July implement agreement, City ordinance No. to amend adopted division provides, Section 45310.5 may provide “The ordinance rights for modification of benefits of a membership member because of in a reciprocal system similar to and under the provided same conditions as those County Employees’ under the Retirement Law of the Public Employees’ Retirement Law membership because of in two or more retirement established pursuant to such laws. The ordinance shall be filed with each board administering reciprocal system and shall become effective upon adoption of a resolution administering city of such board accepting system reciprocal system. as a Such modifica- apply only tion shall entry to member whose employment resulting termination and into in a change membership city system from the reciprocal system to a reciprocal system or from a date; however, city system occurs after such provided, provisions relating effective to computation of final apply any shall provision other member if such would have applied entry had the employment termination and into occurred after such effective date. section, reciprocal system, “A purposes of this means a retirement established County Employees’ under the Retirement Law the Public *13 System, system city retirement of a whose retirement ordinance provisions contains the section, by authorized this system city city county or a retirement of a by or and established its providing charter and rights for modifications of and benefits similar to and under the same provided conditions as those for under this section. city “When a has established a reciprocal system retirement under this section and has approval received Employees’ thereof from the Public System, system then such state, shall be automatically reciprocal agencies with all other local and public who are members, contracting or members of the Public System any or system retirement County established the Employees under Retirement Law of 1937.” Code to the Los Administrative section 4.1065 Angeles by adding provide and 4.1065 in rel between LACERS PERS. Section contained reciprocity PERS’s mutual language regarding provisions evant uniform part reciprocal and and that would any system adopt between PERS LACERS other public to Government Code sections provisions pursuant similar reciprocal Code, 4.1065, (L.A. (a).)19 31840.2 45310.5. Admin. subd. § Here, the because trial court concluded that JRS/JRS II acquired under in effect from PERS section that statute rights compensation them with LACERS under section 20353 reciprocal rights spite also gave the the fact section contains none of contract prerequisite of of section 20351. mutuality requirements
We with the trial court’s conclusion of Under disagree reciprocity. 20353, a those agencies among section of is established pool reciprocal only to section those having namely, public agencies reciprocity pursuant hand, On the section agreement with PERS. other agencies having reciprocal than more between nothing equivalence 20639 provides II and retirement it did JRS/JRS PERS for purposes computing pay; to retirement within nothing bring systems reciprocal judges’ pool which are by created sections 20351 those agencies agencies each other not though they directly even have acquire each The trial contracted with other. court’s from section 20639 logical leap (full to 20353 between equivalence) (compensation is not in the of PERL. systems) supported statutory language Thus, while Bill Digest Counsel’s Legislative Assembly “[ejxisting law establishes provides specified public and states Bill intention to add systems,” Assembly 1099’s CERL, Bill II to the of PERL and JRS/JRS amend to this stated in the fashion accomplish purpose did not PERL evidenced an intent argues. Khan Judge Although Assembly CERL, II under for members JRS/JRS PERL reciprocity” “establish did not do “In considering purpose the statutes as enacted so. in a of the intent of the contained enacting body statements legislation, conclusive, are to consideration. while not entitled preamble, [Citations.] “(a) in relevant Uniform Angeles part: Los Administrative Code section 4.1065 members is to extend to the Reciprocal purpose reciprocal provisions Provisions. The of these (hereinafter system’) adopt similar agency ‘reciprocal which of other pursuant to Sections reciprocal provisions plans into their retirement ordinances or Code, extend the agree and who contract 31840.2 45310.5 of the Government (hereinafter City ‘this Angeles Employees thereof benefits Los system’), following employment member into rights system, provided in this such enters terminating his or her system months of under this within six (Boldface omitted.) system.” under such or this employment other *14 such statements in an
Although uncodified section do not confer power, measure, determine rights, or a enlarge of be scope they may properly utilized as an aid in a statute.” construing Canty (2004) v. 32 Cal.4th (People 1266, 1, 1168].) 90 P.3d Cal.Rptr.3d [14
Our examination of the of PERL statutory language establishes that section not 20639 does confer of the complete reciprocity independent of requirements sections and therefore JRS/JRS U are not entitled to with acquire reciprocity LACERS under section 20353 virtue of their with reciprocity PERS. Section 20639 confers an extracontractual one-way extension of PERS compensation members of JRS/JRS II based on their judicial It salary. says nothing about The reciprocity. reason is simple: True is mutual. reciprocity Section the statute under which Judge LACERS, Khan seeks to find with reciprocity with requires compliance section 20351. Section 20351 an with PERS requires agreement such as the into; one LACERS entered JRS/JRS II have no such with PERS. agreement Section 20351 a unequivocally requires between retire two-way agreement ment systems; it does not contemplate one-way grant benefits to JRS/JRS II in section 20639.
Instead, section 20639 contrasts with section PERL’s statute establishing which reciprocity, an requires underlying agreement to be made between PERS and the or city county (or agency desiring benefits reciprocal in the case of a an ordinance city, enacted). be A may section 20351 agreement must benefits and grant in both obligations directions: reciprocity is granted (1) where a city enacts an ordinance pursuant section 45310.5 a (creating retirement system PERS) with CERL and reciprocal or a or municipal county system “provides similar modification of rights benefits because of in and with membership to which the respect [PERS] governing body city, city county the board public agency have entered into agreement (§ 20351.) to this section.” pursuant Under section all cities and counties PERS giving turn have reciprocity other, with each reciprocity creating pool plans. Without with section compliance there can be no pool reciprocity under section 20353. II did
JRS/JRS not have any agreement under section 20351 to them bring within the which in turn would have them given PERS and all other agencies having agreements Thus, PERS. under the guidelines sections 20352 and JRS/JRS II have no with LACERS. JRS/JRS II do Significantly, not grant to PERL under section or anywhere in JRS or II, JRS requirement under sections 20351 and 20353. Not insignificantly, added a to PERL and CERL provision *15 114 of be for a benefit must have service to judges years eligible six 75528.)20 no (§ calculation under PERS. There is mutual
compensation II who of under JRS/JRS for have been members service requirement persons PERS.
Furthermore, in lack mutuality, addition to the of section 20639 PERS, very for a and of benefit under type limited specific “[t]he eamable of service as a member of during any period compensation II, . . . shall System[ System Judges’ Judges’ or] as of for be considered eamable a member this compensation system [PERS] member, he or she retires of final for if compensation purposes computing trac because under both This is not reciprocity concurrently systems.” limitations, and consist a of benefits and the full of bundle pension rights under sections 20351 and 20353 extend to of PERL reciprocity provisions the use of the final highest more than a calculation compensation permitting Instead, in system. rights from one to be used another salary system pension limitations, roles age also include minimum retirement vesting requirements, benefits, benefits, of calculation and of includ provision ancillary governing health insurance and life insurance.21 ing coverage, disability as a characteristic of This distinction between compensation specific a (as 20639) in and in complete participation reciprocal system § (as 20353) statutory in and is manifest in the framework. Section 20351 §§ 2, 5, (tit. div. in the of PERS to portion relating 20639 resides 2, 3, (tit. to 7), ch. not the of PERS relating rights pt. provisions 3, 2, in 5). art. 20351 and 20353 are title div. ch. Sections pt. placed 3, article 5. An of section to division 20639 chapter interpretation part this critical inten- confer would render presumably complete to well- meaningless, contrary tional distinction statutory placement (See of construction. Brentwood v. City accepted statutory principles of (2004) Bd. 123 Regional Quality Central Water Control Valley Cal.App.4th division, 722 organization chapters, Cal.Rptr.3d 322] [the [20 v. understanding articles scheme is an aid its statutory People purpose]; 1036].) Hull 1 Cal.4th P.2d Cal.Rptr.2d [2 matter, the way Judge creates reciprocity As if section 20639 practical LACERS, Khan other for argues, any agency contracting judicial judge years must have a minimum of six service provides, Section 75528 “A by retiring concurrently system from Public eligible provided benefits this be for subject County Employees or a retirement Employees’ Retirement 31840.8.” pursuant to Section Retirement Law Systems, member contribu- Change Retirement notes that publication, PERS’s When You others; systems, age entry at in some but not some apply tion rates based on contributions; provision and there for PERS on refunds member is no place restrictions from JRS/JRS II. disability eligible disability where the is also for a benefit member
PERS, would at the same time be contracting nonreciprocal compensation to an with JRS/JRS II. would be bound Essentially, they obligation to which did not when entered into contracts under section they agree they result, 20351. As Khan’s would extend far Judge argument *16 the in the beyond scope contemplated specific reciprocal provisions scheme. statutory conclusion, the trial court’s contained a flaw. It reasoning logical
assumed that because PERS LACERS had under section reciprocity 20353 and JRS/JRS II could be used for retirement from PERS earnings under section this meant II JRS/JRS were within section 20353. If this correct, derivation were
logical could have amended legislature certainly sections 20351 and 20353 to weave JRS/JRS II into the fabric of reciprocal Instead, Furthermore, systems. used a statute. if the legislature separate in Bill legislature, had intended section to crafting Assembly 20639 confer true as set forth in sections 20351 and but wanted reciprocity to JRS/JRS É from section exempt 20351’s contract it express requirement, could have amended section to 20639 20639 created full specify other of PERL. reciprocity notwithstanding any This the provisions legisla isolation, ture did not do. We must read each sentence of a statute not in but AutoZone, of the entire light (Absher scheme. v. Inc. statutory Therefore, 817].) under the Cal.App.4th Cal.Rptr.3d statutory [78 constructed, PERS, scheme as to currently obtain full with JRS reciprocity and JRS II must with section 20351 and enter into an comply agreement PERS PERS members with the same and benefits from rights JRS/JRS II that PERS members of If gives those systems. legislature intended to create true between II and JRS/JRS PERS statute reciprocity by without the of an them within necessity agreement bringing sections 20351 it have would amended PERL to such presumably explicitly grant reciprocity.22
2. Provisions to CERLDo Not Control Relating Analysis. Our Khan relies on the Judge to CERL that were added provisions pertaining to by Assembly his contention that Bill 1099 support created statutory LACERS and JRS similar to that in section reciprocity 20353 based on each entity’s with PERS. reciprocity
First, he contends CERL section 31830 his of full supports position between PERS and II reciprocity JRS/JRS virtue of section because not, not, evidence, Although rely we need and did on extrinsic we note our conclusion is interpretation reciprocity consistent with PERS’s of its publication benefits. PERS’s states that II, agreement while there is no with JRS/JRS members of JRS/JRS II obtain PERS, including right certain reciprocal concurrently benefits from to retire from PERS at judicial salary. their intent of career encouraging sets the legislative section 31830 forth However, aside from benefits. through service provision CERL, PERS, to not section 31830 is solely part fact it important applies benefits, and section 31830 specifically CERL’s on to subject that have established with PERS refers to those Indeed, 31840.2 tracks the language the conditions of 31840.2. section is sought those with whom section requires parties Thus, and 20353 20351 itself. like sections 20351 have with section complied PERS, statutory sets based contractually section 31830 up applicable counties, do PERS under CERL. We therefore cities and section in section 31830 transmutes not find the intent legislative expressed the lines of sections 20351 along into a statute full reciprocity providing and 20353. *17 Second, County Employees’ Khan relies on v. Sacramento Judge Maffei Cal.App.4th (2002) 103 System Cal.Rptr.2d 993 279] [127 transferred to the State addressed whether an who (Maffei). employee Maffei (STRS) Assembly before both the enactment of System
Teachers’ Retirement entitled it made to section 31840.8 was nonetheless Bill and the changes 1099 County System with the Sacramento to reciprocity 997-998.) at (103 CERL. (SCERS), Cal.App.4th pp. which was governed the system, from the fact it to CERL is Aside applied inapposite. Maffei Bill of Assembly the of retroactive application issue in was question Maffei CERL; that section 31840.8 deciding assumed without to Maffei CERL, between STRS mandated automatic statutorily at section 31705 providing found that under CERL’s provision “[t]he the of this shall be calculated to according provisions retirement allowance time the retirement at the of the commencement of as exist they chapter allowance,” be entitled to if at the time of her the would employee (103 at and STRS were reciprocal plans. Cal.App.4th retirement SCERS decided for a not 997-998.) Even if we were to adopt proposition pp. Maffei therein, at analog 31840.8 differs from its PERS of section language above, resides in CERL’s As discussed section 31840.8 section 20639. Benefits,” in PERS’s of PERS resides while section 20639 “Reciprocal on not “Reciprocity.” “Compensation,” Bill makes Assembly Counsel’s Digest The Legislative [PERS], “Under compen and CERL. It states: between PERS distinction a member of of service as specified eamable during any period sation eamable as a member is considered compensation retirement systems member, as final for compensation of computing purposes [PERS] hand, reference to Digest Counsel’s Legislative On the other specified.” [CERL], during any the average period “Under CERL states: is considered compensa of a retirement system service as a member final as of determining compensation, for a member for purposes tion eamable 1099; 433.) ch. Counsel’s Assem. Bill Stats. (Legis. Dig., specified.” add The Counsel’s states that the bill is intended to Legislative Digest II to the of PERL to The relating compensation. JRS/JRS “provisions” from Counsel’s PERL’s Legislative Digest distinguishes “specified” systems CERL’s The does not use word systems. legislature “recipro “reciprocal” cal” with to PERL. This distinction indicates a intent legislative respect CERL; a different effect on PERL and this choice 1099 have It of words is more than coincidence. is not for this court attempt in different discern would seek to affect two why legislature however, the Counsel’s deliberate choice of words is ways; Legislative Digest in an PERL and manifest different intentionally statutory organization CERL II. of JRS and JRS respect compensation provisions (Freedom County Inc. v. Newspapers, Orange Employees (1993) 6 Cal.4th P.2d Cal.Rptr.2d [legislature’s [25 218] intent]; choice of words is the best indicator of its v. Duran People Thus, [same].) to CERL Cal.App.4th Cal.Rptr.2d analogy [114 595] is inapposite.23
DISPOSITION reversed, The judgment court is and the matter is remanded superior with directions to enter in favor of LACERS. is to judgment Appellant *18 recover its on costs appeal.
Rothschild, J., concurred. MALLANO, J.,P. would affirm the Dissenting. judgment because As- —I (2001-2002 Sess.) Bill No. sembly 1099) Bill Reg. (Assembly who retire under both the judges (JRS) Retirement Judges’ System the Los (LACERS) Retirement Angeles City are entitled Employees’ System to have their LACERS retirement benefits calculated their using highest earned under the salary systems.
In the of Los and the City Angeles Public Retirement Employees’ (PERS) System entered into an to Government Code agreement pursuant sections 20351 and 20353 retirees of both would be whereby systems entitled to have their retirement benefits calculated their using highest salary earned under the systems. amended section to add the Judges’
Retirement II: “The eamable System of compensation during any period argument questioned constitutionality Legislature’s forcing At oral LACERS by way on a separately municipality chartered of amendments to PERL. This issue necessary was not briefed and is not to our decision. 1 All section are references Government Code. Retire- Judges’ a member of the Retirement Judges’ System, service as U, the Defined Benefit System, ment System Legislators’ Plan shall be considered of the State Teachers’ Retirement Program compen- final eamable as a member of for of computing sation purposes [PERS] member, if he or she retires under both concurrently for the compensation . . .” systems. states in as
The Counsel’s Bill 1099 Digest Assembly part Legislative retire- law follows: establishes “Existing specific than one ment a member more systems, thereby allowing qualifying earned while a member of one of those to use compensation under the other system, subject to calculate benefits Law, limitations. Under the Public compen- specified Employees’ eamable of service as a member during any specified sation period member of the is considered eamable as a retirement systems compensation final computing Public purposes member, for the as specified.” demonstrates that who retire under both judges The following syllogism benefits JRS and LACERS are entitled to have their LACERS retirement under the calculated at their highest salary systems. (§ 20639). earnings are treated as PERS earnings
JRS and LACERS are entitled to have their retirement Retirees both PERS from earned under the salary systems (per calculated at their highest benefits LACERS). PERS and agreement between both and LACERS are entitled to have who retire under JRS Ergo, judges calculated their under using highest salary their LACERS retirement benefits the systems. *19 be so because it has no reciprocal agreement
LACERS this cannot argues JRS, under LACERS in would not consider the earned salary and JRS case, beside the JRS benefits. That be the but it is may point determining as has that JRS retirees be treated same because the Legislature provided their with LACERS—are entitled have PERS retirees by agreement who— earned under the systems.2 calculated using highest salary benefits Council of the letter from the Judicial LACERS attacks in a footnote “a letter from a former misleading Khan’s as California supporting position state Constitution would forbid the argument, At LACERS contended our oral so, not raised in the trial court or LACERS’s Legislature doing from but this matter was majority nor I discuss the issue. appeal, brief on so neither the from the Judicial on stationary (improperly provided [sz'c]
JRS employee turn, a declaration of a PERS California).” Khan attacks Council of rendered as staff opinion LACERS’s position “simply employee supporting a nonlawyer written as to a matter with specific applicant” disputed “not. . . to render legal opinion.” qualified because, of this given documents are not determinative appeal The two Counsel’s Digest in the Legislative intent legislative clearly expressed 20639, Khan is entitled of section and the meaning plain and have his LACERS to retire from both LACERS and JRS at I would affirm. highest salary. Accordingly, calculated his denied Court was for review by Supreme Respondent’s petition J., 17, 2010, Kennard, that the November S186213. was opinion should be granted. petition PERS notes has JRS/JRS encourage career provides: Section 31830 “The of this article are intended to public by granting reciprocal service retirement benefits to members who are entitled to rights or benefits from two or more retirement established under this system Employees’ a under and the Public chapter chapter or from retirement established this System, system any or a retirement other System, the State Teachers’ Retirement the Public public agency of the state that has established with 31840.2, subject and to delineate the financial conditions Section entity obligations system political entity system political and related so that no shall of each just obligation.” financial be liable for more than its PERS, is Government Code title governed by Under at issue here are division article 5.12 The key provisions part chapter that cities and counties sections 20351 and 20353. Section 2035113 provides PERS, give enter into with that agreements they may reciprocal provided accom PERS the it them. This be gives mutuality may same reciprocity in a that ordinance in the case of a city, by membership plished Section 20353 mutuality by agreement. PERS determines has such provided that has entered into a agency reciprocity agreement any public be deemed to have obtained with PERS to section 20351 shall pursuant agency agreement other has any PERS, whether or a these two sections it is a city county.14 summary, an under with PERS section 20351. require agreement establishing mutuality Under section is established agencies among pool those to section those agencies having namely, reciprocity pursuant PERS.15 agencies agreement with having