Opinion ID: 2331477
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: forfeiture of benefits of office

Text: ¶ 18 Mr. Thompson asserts that strict construction of the forfeiture statute requires that it must apply only to his oath of office filed January 15, 2003, the last oath of office he took, so that he would forfeit only the retirement benefits from his last term in his judicial office. OPERS answers that the statute, 51 O.S.2001, § 24.1, does not support this position. ¶ 19 This state has a strong policy against forfeitures, and will neither search for a construction that will bring about a forfeiture, nor adopt a meaning that would produce such an effect unless the language of the statute under consideration clearly demonstrates the legislature intended that a forfeiture take place. Hendrick v. Walters, 1993 OK 162, ¶ 7, 865 P.2d 1232, 1238-1239. The 1998 version of § 24.1 [9] provided in pertinent part that if an elected official during the term he is elected is found guilty of a felony, he shall be automatically suspended from office, and upon final conviction shall vacate the office. If the felony violates his oath of office he shall forfeit all the benefits of said office including retirement benefits provided by law. The forfeiture is limited to the benefits accruing to the officer after 1981. [10] Mr. Thompson argues that the wording of the statute restricts the forfeiture to his last term in office. We cannot agree with this construction of the statute. The purpose of § 24.1(A) is to ensure that public officials who commit serious criminal offenses, particularly those which violate their oath of office, lose their rights to serve further and to the benefits of office. Nida v. OPERS, 2004 OK CIV APP 85, ¶ 15, 99 P.3d 1224, 1227. ¶ 20 The statute covers elected state and county officials and state employees. If this Court accepted Mr. Thompson's construction of the statute, officials who were elected to multiple terms in office would be in a superior position to state employees who are hired and worked for exactly the same number of years. Under his suggested construction, Mr. Thompson would lose less than four years of benefits after serving twenty-two years as a district judge, while an employee of the state who was employed twenty-two years and commits a felony that violates the oath of office taken when the employment commenced, would lose a total of twenty-two years of benefits. We see no reason to believe the legislature intended such a disproportionate penalty between state employees and state officers for violation of their oaths of office.