Opinion ID: 1247359
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Is said paragraph two meaningless and impossible of administration?

Text: It states that allowances for prior service credits shall be computed in the same manner as otherwise provided in the section. Appellant contends that nowhere in the section is there a provision for the computing of allowances for prior service credits as to other than members. Paragraph one says, as to members, such credit shall be received under any of the provisions of the chapter. They concede that the method by which benefits shall be paid to members is set forth in Section 97B.49. While the legislature might well have said in the same manner as members or as provided by Section 97B.49, we think the legislature by the words used clearly indicates that such is the intended method. Appellant also states: nor in fact is there any section    which would give a proper method of calculating any benefits to the persons described in this second paragraph. Section 97B.49 provides that a member shall upon retirement receive a monthly retirement allowance, the amount thereof to be determined as the sum of subsections (1) and (2) following: (1) the actuarial equivalent of the total under this chapter of the contributions of the members. (2) One third of one percent of the monthly rate of the total wages not in excess of three thousand dollars annually received by the member during the twelve consecutive months of his period of prior service for which such total wages were at their greatest amount multiplied by the years of prior service of the member credited hereunder, if any. It is appellant's contention that allowances are not determined under sub-paragraph one or sub-paragraph two, but are to be determined by adding together the sum reached under each sub-paragraph. This contention is correct when applied to members with prior service credits but fails when applied to members without such credits. The legislature seemed to recognize this situation when it added the words if any to the last of sub-paragraph two. If appellant's contention be correct, then only allowances to members with prior service credits are provided for by this section. We are unable to see wherein a more difficult administrative problem arises under paragraph two than under paragraph one of Section 97B.43. Under paragraph one, both sub-paragraphs of Section 97B. 49 are used as to members with prior service credits; as to members without prior service credits, only sub-paragraph (1) is applicable. Under paragraph two, no contributions having been made, only sub-paragraph (2), Section 97B.49 is applicable. If Section 97B.49 can be administered in so far as it concerns members, and it is being so administered, we fail to see why it may not likewise be administered to the non-member group. Appellants say the last sentence of paragraph two, § 97B.43 is impossible of interpretation. It is Any such person shall be entitled to receive retirement allowances contributed as provided by this chapter,   . (Italics added.) That nowhere in the chapter is there any reference to contributions of retirement allowances, and we agree. Contributions refer only to money paid into the retirement fund. The word contributed, as above set forth, is in reference to retirement allowances which are the benefits paid out of the fund. According to Webster's International Dictionary, contribute means to pay or grant. See also Black's Law Dictionary. When so used, Flood v. City Nat. Bank, 218 Iowa 898, 253 N.W. 509, 95 A. L.R. 1168, the sentence simply says that retirement allowance shall be paid as provided by the chapter. It might be noted that this sentence is the only section or paragraph that refers to payment of the allowance to nonmembers. III. It is claimed that to allow benefits here would be unfair, inequitable and unjust, for the reason that such benefits might exceed benefits received by members who had made contributions. No attack is made upon the constitutionality of the section in question, only as to the wisdom and propriety thereof. That question is for the legislature, not the courts, to determine. Finding no error, the decision of the trial court is affirmed. Affirmed.