AS WE DISCUSSED ON THE TELEPHONE, I HAVE REVIEWED YOUR. REQUEST FOR AN ATTORNEY GENERAL OPINION CONCERNING VARIOUS ISSUES RELATING TO INSURANCE AND RETIREMENT BENEFITS FOR COUNTY EMPLOYEES. I AGAIN APOLOGIZE FOR THE DELAY IN OUR RESPONSE. I AM CONFIDENT WE WILL DO BETTER NEXT TIME.
IT DOES APPEAR THAT YOUR QUESTIONS CAN BE ANSWERED VIA AN INFORMAL LETTER, RATHER THAN AN OFFICIAL OPINION. AS I TOLD YOU ON THE TELEPHONE, IT IS GENERALLY TRUE THAT A LETTER RESPONSE CAN BE PROVIDED FAR MORE QUICKLY THAN AN OFFICIAL OPINION RESPONSE, AND, IN MOST INSTANCES, THE REQUESTOR SEEMS TO FIND THAT A LETTER RESPONSE IS SUFFICIENT. IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE, A LETTER RESPONSE APPEARS APPROPRIATE SINCE, WITH RESPECT TO QUESTION ONE, THE LANGUAGE OF THE STATUTE IS CLEAR; WITH RESPECT TO QUESTION TWO, AN ATTORNEY GENERAL OPINION HAS BEEN PREVIOUSLY ISSUED WHICH REMAINS VALID; AND, WITH RESPECT TO QUESTION THREE, IT IS NOT POSSIBLE FOR US TO PROVIDE A CONCRETE RESPONSE.
YOUR FIRST QUESTION ASKS WHETHER TULSA COUNTY, HAVING A COUNTY RETIREMENT PLAN, HAS THE OPTION AVAILABLE TO ITS EMPLOYEES TO ELECT INSURANCE COVERAGE UNDER THE STATE HEALTH AND LIFE INSURANCE PLAN. TITLE 74 O.S. 1315 (1987) PROVIDES:
"UPON APPLICATION IN WRITING APPROVED BY A MAJORITY ACTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF ANY COUNTY . . . PARTICIPATING IN THE OKLAHOMA PUBLIC EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYSTEM, THE BOARD MAY EXTEND THE BENEFITS OF THE STATE EMPLOYEES GROUP HEALTH AND LIFE INSURANCE TO EMPLOYEES WHO ARE EMPLOYED IN POSITIONS REQUIRING ACTUAL PERFORMANCE OF DUTY DURING NOT LESS THAN ONE THOUSAND (1,000) HOURS PER YEAR, AND TO ALL FULL TIME EMPLOYEES OF SUCH COUNTY(.)"
(EMPHASIS ADDED.)
THE LANGUAGE EMPHASIZED ABOVE CLEARLY IMPOSES A CONDITION THAT ONLY MEMBERS OF THE OKLAHOMA PUBLIC EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYSTEM MAY EXTEND BENEFITS OF THE INSURANCE PROGRAM TO ITS EMPLOYEES. I HAVE DISCUSSED THIS STATUTE WITH LYDIA LEE, GENERAL COUNSEL, OKLAHOMA PUBLIC EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYSTEM AND OKLAHOMA STATE EMPLOYEES GROUP HEALTH AND LIFE INSURANCE PROGRAM, AND SHE TELLS ME THIS HAS ALSO BEEN THE INTERPRETATION OF THOSE ENTITIES SINCE THE STATUTE WAS ENACTED.
WITH RESPECT TO YOUR SECOND QUESTION, WHETHER, IN EFFECT, A COUNTY HAS A DUTY TO SOLICIT BIDS FOR INSURANCE COVERAGE, I ENCLOSE A COPY OF A.G. OPIN. NO. 85-045, WHICH SPECIFICALLY ADDRESSED THIS QUESTION. IN THAT OPINION IT IS HELD THAT A COUNTY IS NOT REQUIRED TO UTILIZE THE COMPETITIVE BIDDING PROCEDURES ESTABLISHED PURSUANT TO OKLAHOMA STATUTES WHEN ACQUIRING INSURANCE COVERAGE FOR THE COUNTY AND/OR ITS EMPLOYEES, SINCE THE ACQUISITION OF INSURANCE IS NOT SUBJECT TO COMPETITIVE BID. SEE A.G. OPIN. NO. 85-045, ENCLOSED, AND A.G. OPIN. NO. 84-201, ENCLOSED, WHICH DISCUSS THIS ISSUE. IT IS TRUE, HOWEVER, AS IS NOTED IN THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OPINION ON THIS ISSUE, ALSO ENCLOSED, THAT THE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ARE CERTAINLY FREE TO FOLLOW THE PURCHASING ACT IN OBTAINING SUCH CONTRACTS.
QUESTION NO. 3 RELATES TO THE AUTHORITY OF A BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, BY ITS OWN MOTION, TO MAKE A DECISION REGARDING THE PROCEDURES, REGULATIONS, MEMBERSHIP REQUIREMENTS OR