Opinion ID: 2116901
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: the social security issue

Text: I turn finally to the plaintiffs' social security claim, as described in my Sister BOYLE'S opinion, pp 246-247. This claim suffers from a number of infirmities. First of all, the obligation of units of local government to pay the employer share of social security taxes is directly imposed by federal law, see ante, p 246, n 10, and thus is not required ... by state law within the meaning of § 29. Second, social security coverage is not itself an activity or service within the meaning of § 29. MCL 21.232(1); MSA 5.3194(602)(1) provides: Activity means a specific and identifiable administrative action of a local unit of government. The provision of a benefit for, or the protection of, public employees of a local unit of government is not an administrative action. MCL 21.234(1); MSA 5.3194(604)(1) provides: Service means a specific and identifiable program of a local unit of government which is available to the general public or is provided for the citizens of the local unit of government. The provision of a benefit for, or the protection of, public employees of a local unit of government is not a program. I agree with these definitions of activity or service for purposes of § 29, [16] and they clearly exclude a general employee benefit such as social security coverage. It is also clear, however, that the cost of social security coverage for an employee engaged in carrying out any activity or service required of units of Local Government by state law does constitute part of the necessary costs of such an activity or service. This follows from the definition of necessary costs adopted in Durant, 424 Mich 389-391. Indeed, the state concedes this point in this case. [17] Thus, the state would violate § 29 if any reduction of the state financed proportion of local government social security coverage costs resulted in a reduction, as compared to 1978-79, of the state financed proportion of the necessary costs of any existing activity or service required of units of Local Government by state law. However, as I have noted, the plaintiffs in this case have not alleged any such reduction under the statewide-to-statewide interpretation of § 29 that I would adopt; nor, for that matter, have they alleged any such reduction under the statewide-to-local interpretation adopted by my Sister BOYLE. Thus, the social security component of the plaintiffs' complaint does not state a claim under § 29.