Opinion ID: 1343017
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: appropriateness of mandamus relief

Text: The centerpiece of the petitioners' prayer for relief is the quest to compel the respondents to preserve and protect what is contended to be a constitutionally shielded pension right created by virtue of W.Va.Code 18-7A-1 (1941) et seq., which established the State Teachers Retirement System. This Court put to rest any doubt that may have existed, that the realization and protection of a public employees pension property right is a constitutional obligation of the state. Syllabus Point 18, Dadisman v. Moore, 181 W.Va. 779, 384 S.E.2d 816 (1989) (herein Dadisman I ). We offered in Dadisman I an analysis as to how a pension right created by statute acquires a constitutionally protected status. Dadisman I involved a similar problem relating to the unfunded liability of the Public Employees Retirement System (PERS). The PERS is the general retirement program for public employees in West Virginia and was created by statute in W.Va.Code 5-10-1 (1961) et seq. We held in Dadisman I that the language of W.Va.Code 5-10-1 (1961) et seq. evinced a legislative intent to create a property right of a contractual nature. Once there is a recognition that the statute establishing the pension plan created a property right of a contractual nature, the next logical step was to hold that the federal and state constitutions' prohibition against impairment of contracts limits the power of the state to modify those pension property rights of contractual nature. From the interaction of these various principles evolved Syllabus Point 18, Dadisman I, which follows: The realization and protection of public employees' pension property rights is a constitutional obligation of the State. The State cannot divest the plan participants of their rights except by due process, although prospective modifications which do not run afoul of the federal or State impairment clauses are possible. Adopting the reasoning in Dadisman I, we have no hesitancy in holding that just as the public employees' pension right is constitutionally protected, the same constitutional protection is hereby afforded the property right of a contractual nature created by the State Teachers Retirement System in W.Va.Code 18-7A-1 (1941) et seq. Also, when the standards of Dadisman I are applied to the examination of the unfunded liability in the Teachers Retirement System, we hold that the inadequate funding of the Teachers Retirement System is invalid since it violates the prohibition against impairment of contractual rights contained in the federal constitution, U.S. Const. art. I, § 10, cl. 1, and in the state constitution, W.Va. Const. art. III, § 4. See Dadisman I, supra, 181 W.Va. at 789, 384 S.E.2d at 826. Had S.B. 1000 not been enacted prior to the entry of the order by the circuit court finding inter alia that a writ of mandamus was appropriate, the circuit court would have been justified in probing: (1) whether the unfunded liability resulted in the Teachers Retirement System being actuarially unsound; [26] (2) once there was a determination that the Teachers Retirement System was actuarially unsound, then to consider the scope of the relief including what measures could be judicially mandated to return the Teachers Retirement System to actuarial soundness. See State ex rel. Dadisman v. Caperton, 186 W.Va. 627, 413 S.E.2d 684 (1991) ( Dadisman II ). Indeed, following the enactment of W.Va. Code 18-9A-6a(c) (1994), the circuit court made no further findings or conclusions on the question of the unfunded liability other than the conclusory statement that the writ of mandamus is appropriate because the petitioners have a clear, legal right to the relief sought; the respondents owe a constitutional and statutory duty to the petitioners; and, there is no other adequate remedy at law. [27] Actually, with the enactment of W.Va.Code 18-9A-6a(c) (1994), there was no longer any issue of controversial vitality relating to the measures to correct the unfunded liability of the Teachers Retirement System, and consequently the circuit court should have dismissed the claim for mandamus relief since there was nothing more the respondents could or had to do to place the Teachers Retirement System in constitutional alignment. In other words, as we have stated in an earlier portion of this opinion, with the enactment of S.B. 1000 West Virginia is now funding its teachers retirement system on an actuarially sound basis. This legislation (S.B. 1000) finally provides a definitive solution to the nagging problem of one of our state's two largest debtsthe $3 billion Unfunded Liability of its largest retirement system. [28] Accordingly, we hold that W.Va.Code 18-9A-6a(c) (1994) represents a valid and recognizable supervening circumstance which commands that this Court decline to decide the issue relating to the measures to correct the unfunded liability of the Teachers Retirement System since that issue has lost its controversial vitalityit is moot. See State v. Gleason, 404 A.2d 573, 578 (Me. 1979), cited with approval in Israel by Israel v. West Virginia Secondary Schools Activities Commission, 182 W.Va. 454, 457, 388 S.E.2d 480, 483 (1989). Any decision in the matter sub judice relating to issues surrounding the remediation of the inadequacy of the funding of the Teachers Retirement System by this Court or the circuit court following the enactment of S.B. 1000 [ W.Va.Code 18-9A-6a(c) (1994)] would avail nothing in the determination of the controversy between petitioners and respondents on this issue since there is no longer any controversy. W.Va.Code 18-9A-6a(c) (1994) has resolved any controversy that may have existed. Syllabus Point 1 in State ex rel. Lilly v. Carter, 63 W.Va. 684, 60 S.E. 873 (1908) states that: Moot questions or abstract propositions, the decisions of which would avail nothing in the determination of controverted rights of persons or of property, are not properly cognizable by a court. Prior to actually vacating that portion of the final order which finds that a writ of mandamus was appropriate, we must recognize and discuss that even though an issue may be technically moot, it still may be deserving of judicial resolution by meeting one or more of the following criteria: First, the court will determine whether sufficient collateral consequences will result from determination of the questions presented so as to justify relief.... Second, while technically moot in the immediate context, questions of great public interest may nevertheless be addressed for the future guidance of the bar and of the public.... Third, issues which may be repeatedly presented to the trial court, yet escape review at the appellate level because of their fleeting and determinate nature, may appropriately be decided.... (Citations omitted.) See Israel by Israel v. West Virginia Secondary Schools Activities Commission, 182 W.Va. 454, 457, 388 S.E.2d 480, 483 (1989). Application of any or all of these exceptions to the rule of mootness do not counsel that we should find anything other than that the issue centered upon the quest to compel the respondents to correct the unfunded liability of the Teachers Retirement System is moot. [29] First, there are no collateral consequences that justify relief that need to be addressed following the enactment of S.B. 1000. [30] Typical of this category of exceptions to the mootness doctrine are: (1) those cases wherein a conviction is challenged while a person is incarcerated, but the sentence is completed and a person is released prior to a decision on the underlying challenge; and (2) those cases involving the collateral consequences of the effect of the conviction vis a vis a person's employment opportunity, availability of security clearances, or the use of the conviction to impeach character, all of which require a resolution of the initial challenge to the conviction despite the completion of the term of the sentence. No similar collateral consequences can be found in this case. See Sibron v. New York, 392 U.S. 40, 88 S.Ct. 1889, 20 L.Ed.2d 917 (1968). Next, so long as the state properly funds the required unfunded liability allowance as required under W.Va.Code 18-9A-6a(c) (1994), the unfunded liability issue should not be repeatedly presented to the trial court. [31] Finally, while the problem associated with correcting the unfunded liability of the Teachers Retirement System is unquestionably of great public interest, that interest does not justify further relief beyond what has already been accomplishedthe enactment of S.B. 1000 [ W.Va.Code 18-9A-6a(c) (1994)]. Neither this Court nor the circuit court could not have fashioned a better remedy than the respondents' enactment of S.B. 1000. [32] We must add a cautionary note prior to leaving the subject of mootness and the vacating of that portion of the circuit court's order finding the writ of mandamus appropriate. While we avoid intruding any further on the problems associated with correcting the unfunded liability of the Teachers Retirement System by the application of mootness jurisprudence, we are quick to add that the lessons of Dadisman I teach that if at a time in the future there is some impairment of W.Va.Code 18-9A-6a(c) (1994) so that the actuarial soundness of the Teachers Retirement System is once again imperiled, then the issue relating to unfunded liability may be resurrected and presented to the circuit court. To that end, the protocols established by the circuit court in its April 21, 1994 order relating to the dismissal of this case without prejudice are affirmed. [33]