\lee) NAL

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STA I h OF MONTANA

OP 20-0063

PUBLIC EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT BOARD

OF THE STATE OF MONTANA,

Petitioner,

v.

LEWIS & CLARK COUNTY,

Respondent.

FILED

APR 2 1 2020

Bowen Greenwood Clertc of Supreme Court State of Montano

ORDER

Petitioner Public Employees' Retirement Board of the State of Montana (MPERB)

seeks declaratory judgment on original jurisdiction under M. R. App. P. 14(4). MPERB

alleges it is entitled to declaratory judgment because the decision of the Commission of

Respondent Lewis & Clark County to privatize the PureView Health Center and terminate

its employees from County employment will endanger the actuarial soundness of the Public

Employees' Retirement System and place the burden for unfunded actuarial liability

attributable to PureView upon its members unless the County is required to pay the

unfunded pension liabilities that have been accrued by these employees.

After reviewing MPERB's Petition, we granted Lewis and Clark County time to

respond. We later granted Montana Association of Counties and Cascade County the right

to intervene, and we granted leave to participate as amici curiae to Montana Federation of

Public Employees, the Teachers' Retirement System of the State of Montana, the

Association of Montana Retired Public Employees, and the Montana Board of Investments.

Pursuant to M. R. App. P. 14(4), an original proceeding in the form of a declaratory

judgment action may be commenced in this Court when urgency or emergency factors

make litigation in the trial courts and the normal appeal process inadequate and the case

involves purely .legal questions of statutory or constitutional interpretation that are of

statewide importance.

04/21/2020

Case Number: OP 20-0063
In its response to MPERB's Petition, Lewis and Clark County argues this matter is

not appropriate for an original proceeding in this Court. While the County agrees the matter

is of statewide importance, it disagrees that it involves purely legal questions. It further

argues the Petition fails to provide evidence sufficient to demonstrate that an emergency

exists that makes the normal appeal process inadequate.

In its Petition, MPERB alleges the County's actions place the solvency and actuarial

soundness of the pension funds "at immediate risk," and warns that lengthy litigation could

affect its solvency and affect its ability to pay benefits. Elsewhere in the Petition, MPERB

alleges the amount at issue is estimated at between $4.5 million and $5.165 million. While

not an insignificant amount of money, given the value of the pension funds as a whole, this

Court fails to see how this shortfall could lead to such catastrophic results in the time it

would take the parties to litigate these matters through the normal procedure. Moreover,

should MPERB ultimately prevail, there is no suggestion that the County would be unable

to pay the judgment at that time. MPERB has not demonstrated that urgency or emergency

factors make litigation in the trial courts and the normal appeal process inadequate.

Further, while this may involve a predominantly legal issue, development of a factual

record and clarification of the nature and depth of relief sought at the district court level

appears necessary. Thus, we conclude this matter is not appropriate for an original

proceeding in the form of a declaratory judgment action.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Petition for Declaratory judgment on

Original Jurisdiction is DENIED and DISMISSED.

The Clerk is directed to provide notice of this Order to all counsel of record.

DATED this Z-1 —day of April, 2020.

Chief Justice
3