Opinion ID: 6108934
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Do the Claims Involve Discretionary Matters?

Text: The City next asserts that the Pension System's ultra vires claims are barred because they do not seek to enforce ministerial duties, but rather, the claims are as to discretionary matters. See Heinrich , 284 S.W.3d at 372 (To fall within this ultra vires exception, a suit must not complain of a government officer's exercise of discretion, but rather must allege, and ultimately prove, that the officer acted without legal authority or failed to perform a purely ministerial act.). The City asserts that the allocation and appropriation of funds are necessarily discretionary matters and therefore ultra vires and mandamus claims are barred because it has discretion to determine how to secure or structure funding for the pension payments. The City cites Kassen v. Hatley for the proposition that governmental resource allocation is discretionary in nature. See 887 S.W.2d 4 , 10 (Tex. 1994) (At times, government doctors and nurses must decide how to allocate a scarce pool of state resources among possible recipients.). The City claims that it has discretion to decide, for example, whether to provide for the payments in its budget or  instead issue bonds for the contribution payments. The Pension System's position, with which the court of appeals agreed, is that article 6243h requires the City to provide pension payments, which is a ministerial as opposed to a discretionary duty. We agree with the Pension System and the court of appeals that the System is not seeking relief regarding how the payments must be made, but, rather, whether the payments must be made. And the statute mandates that contribution payments must be made by the City. Article 6243h states that the City shall provide full and timely information to the Pension System and shall make contributions to the Pension System. TEX. REV. CIV. STAT. art. 6243h, §§ 2(u), 8A(a). Use of the word 'shall'  in a statute evidences the mandatory nature of the duty imposed. Emmett , 459 S.W.3d at 588 . The controversy here is not about how the City must make the payments, only whether it must. See Tex. Dep't of Parks & Wildlife v. Miranda , 133 S.W.3d 217 , 226 (Tex. 2004) (When a plea to the jurisdiction challenges the pleadings, we determine if the pleader has alleged facts that affirmatively demonstrate the court's jurisdiction to hear the cause. We construe the pleadings liberally in favor of the plaintiffs and look to the pleaders' intent.). The statute leaves no room for the City to exercise judgment regarding whether the payments must be made. See Emmett , 459 S.W.3d at 587 . Accordingly, we hold that article 6243h creates mandatory duties and defines them with sufficient clarity to support the Pension System's ultra vires and mandamus claims.