Opinion ID: 2595567
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The ERS Board's COLs and Final Decision

Text: On August 16, 1999, the ERS Board issued its final decision regarding Helen's November 17, 1998 petition for declaratory order. In addition to the foregoing FOFs, the ERS Board entered the following COLs: 1. The general method of paying a retirement allowance is governed by [HRS] section 88-282(a). . . . [ See supra note 2.] 2. Retirement allowance is defined in HRS section 88-21 as: [T]he benefit payable for life as originally computed and paid a member at the point of the member's retirement and in accordance with the mode of retirement selected by the member, exclusive of any bonus or bonuses. 3. HRS section 88-283(a) permits a Class C non-contributory member to choose a different mode or method of receiving a retirement allowance. If the member does not want to receive the standard or normal payment as described in HRS section 88-282(a), the member has three options to choose from as provided for in HRS section 88-283(a). . . . [ See supra note 3.] 4. The availability of a Class C non-contributory member to choose either a normal mode of retirement allowance under HRS section 88-282(a) or one of the three methods described in HRS section 88-283(a), is further supported by the plain language in the opening statement of HRS section 88-282(a) which reads in pertinent part: A member may elect to have the member's normal . . . retirement allowance paid under one of the following actuarially equivalent amounts . . . [.] Options A, B, and C are thereafter listed as actuarially equivalent retirement amounts to the normal retirement allowance. 5. In Gray v. Administrative Director of the Court, 84 Hawai`i 138, 931 P.2d 580 (1997), the Hawai`i Supreme Court stated: When construing a statute, our foremost obligation is to ascertain and give effect to the intention of the legislature, which is to be obtained primarily from the language contained in the statute itself. And we must read statutory language in the context of the entire statute and construe it in a manner consistent with its purpose. Id. at 148, 931 P.2d 580. The plain language rule of statutory construction however does not preclude an examination of other sources to determine legislative intent, even when the language appears clear upon perfunctory review. Sato v. Tawata, 79 Hawai`i 14, 17, 897 P.2d 941, 944 (1995). 6. Among the purposes behind the creation of HRS sections 88-282 and 88-283, was to provid[e] a typical career public employee with combined system and Social Security benefits substantially equivalent to the employee's pre-retirement income and enhanc[e] the opportunities for more individualized retirement planning. . . . Reading together HRS sections 88-282 and 88-283, [the statutes] allow[] Class C non-contributory members who do not wish to designate, or do not have, a beneficiary to maximize their benefits during their lifetime and receive benefits that are substantially equivalent to the employee's pre-retirement income when combined with Social Security benefits, by selecting normal retirement. Therefore, to adopt [Helen's] interpretation of these sections ( i.e., read HRS sections 88-282 and 88-283 separately), would contradict and contravene the legislative purpose behind these statutes. 7. HAR section 6-26-3 designates that all applications for retirement benefits must contain certain information, including [t]he mode of retirement which the member elects under any of the plans for receiving retirement allowances described in [HRS] sections 88-83, 88-282, and 88-283 . . . . HAR section 6-26-3(a)(6). To implement the non-contributory benefits plan, the ERS adopted administrative rules including HAR section 6-26-3(a)(6)[,] which had been in effect since 1989. 8. Normal retirement is a statutorily authorized mode of election of retirement benefits, and is one of four options available for Class C non-contributory members. 9. The statute regarding retirement of Class C employees and the ERS'[s] method of administering the Class C employees' retirement is not vague, ambiguous or confusing. 10. Katsumi . . . never changed his mode of retirement before he retired on April 1, 1994, and therefore, his election of normal is irrevocable in accordance with the plain and unequivocal language of HRS section 88-283(b). HRS section 88-283(b) states that [a]ny election of a mode of retirement shall be irrevocable. 11. Accordingly, [Helen] is not entitled to adjust the retirement election of her husband, and his election of normal stands. Based on the foregoing FOFs and COLs, the ERS Board denied Helen's request for a declaratory order allowing her to select a new mode of retirement for Katsumi.