Opinion ID: 2634522
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Proper inquiry for determining a person's status as a participant examines nature of person's duties

Text: Our reading of the Act belies the Court of Appeals' conclusion that because Ms. Schrom's and Ms. Bloomfield's volunteer fire fighting-related activities were significant and continuous... each of the women was both a `participant' and an `active member in any capacity' of her department under RCW 41.24.170. Schrom, 117 Wash.App. at 550, 72 P.3d 239 (footnote omitted). To the contrary, nothing in chapter 41.24 RCW a priori requires consideration of whether a person's activities are significant and continuous to a degree sufficient to qualify said person as a participant. Examining how significant and continuous a person's activities are erroneously morphs together the separate requirements of being a participant and being an active member in any capacity. To the contrary, it is the nature of the pensioner's duties that qualify him or her as a participant, not the quantum of that person's activities. Our interpretation of chapter 41.24 RCW is, however, consistent with two prior Court of Appeals decisions, seemingly the only Washington published decisions to address the language at issue. See Campbell v. Bd. for Volunteer Fire Fighters, 111 Wash.App. 413, 45 P.3d 216 (2002), review denied, 148 Wash.2d 1016, 64 P.3d 650 (2003); City of Kennewick v. Bd. for Volunteer Firefighters, 85 Wash.App. 366, 933 P.2d 423 (1997). [11] City of Kennewick involved pension eligibility of five volunteer fire fighters who had been inactive for 13 years but continued to pay their coverage fees. City of Kennewick, 85 Wash.App. at 368, 933 P.2d 423. Once placed on inactive status the volunteers were no longer required to perform any fire fighting duties, such as fire drills or training exercises. Id. The court held the volunteers were ineligible for pensions under the Act, stating, It is inconceivable that the Legislature intended to create a fire fighters' pension fund for individuals who, apart from paying an annual fee, engaged in no activity relating to fire fighting. Id. at 370, 933 P.2d 423. Similarly Campbell involved a volunteer fire fighter who had a number of duties between 1990 and 1996, including responding to alarms and serving as an instructor and station keeper. Campbell, 111 Wash.App. at 415, 45 P.3d 216. In 1996 the fire fighter, upon his own request, was exempted from responding to alarms or participating in drills. Id. The following year he responded to at least one fire alarm in January, but none thereafter, and also participated in a spouse appreciation dinner, a hose competition, and an annual banquet. Id. The subsequent year his fire department activities were limited to a one-day training program and a spouse appreciation dinner. Id. The court affirmed the Board's determination that the fire fighter could not receive credit for the years following his removal from fire response duties. Id. at 422-23, 45 P.3d 216. In so doing the court relied on City of Kennewick and the Board's interpretation of the statute to hold the focus [of chapter 41.24 RCW eligibility] is on whether the activities are related to fire fighting. Id. at 422, 45 P.3d 216. The court held the fire fighter was ineligible for pension benefits because he did not engage in sufficient activities related to fire fighting to be eligible for pension credit. Id. at 423, 45 P.3d 216. The purported pensioners in City of Kennewick and Campbell fell short of qualifying for pensions under the Act not because they failed to qualify as fire fighters under the Act, but rather because their activities were insufficient to qualify them as active member[s] of their fire departments as required by RCW 41.24.170. While Campbell emphasized the importance of inquiring whether the activities are related to fire fighting, 111 Wash.App. at 422, 45 P.3d 216, such emphasis should not be read out of the factual context there presented. The fire fighter there had no duty to train or respond to fires. Though over a span of two years he responded to at least one alarm, trained one day, and participated in one hose competition, none of those activities was required for his membership in the fire department. Indeed, the Court of Appeals dubbed these activities minor, consisting of three isolated actions. Id. at 423, 45 P.3d 216. As such, respondents' secretarial duties do not relate to fire fighting merely because they take place within the fire department. Applying the error of law standard required by the APA, City of Pasco, 119 Wash.2d at 507, 833 P.2d 381, the Board did not err by deeming respondents ineligible for retirement pensions under the Act. Neither respondent possessed fire fighting duties, such as fire suppression, training to fight fires, or responding to fire alarms. See CP at 137 (COL 5, 6). We therefore hold respondents are ineligible for retirement pensions under chapter 41.24 RCW.