Court Opinion

ID: 9547007
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 17:40:04.309774+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:17:12.271910
License: Public Domain

LA PRADE, Justice.
This is an appeal from the judgment of the lower court sustaining the constitutionality of the Public Employees’ Retirement Act, proposed by initiative petition and proclaimed by the Governor, Laws of Arizona 1949, pp. 325-344, to have been enacted at the general election November 2, 1948 and now designated as Sections 12-801 to 12-828, inclusive, Cum.Pocket Supp., A.C.A. 1939.
To employees on the State payroll prior to July 1, 1949 the Act represented:
1. that a Fund would be established, Sections 3, 5, 23 and 24, to which the State would contribute an annual sum sufficient (a) to make up the difference between the cost of retirement benefits and the 5% salary deductions of employees, (b) to> meet the full cost of Death, Ordinary Disability, Accidental Disability, and Accidental Death benefits, and (c) to cover administration costs, and that the first sum would be paid by the State into the Fund “in the month of July 1949”.
2. that benefit payments would begin January 1, 1950, Sec. 3, at which time Retirement, Sec. 8, Death, Sec. 11, Ordinary Disability, Sec. 12, Accidental Disability, Sec. 13, and Accidental Death, Sec. 14, benefits would become payable to state employees.
Notwithstanding what was represented:
(a) Subsequent to enactment of the Act November 2, 1948, the Nineteenth Legislature, regular session, had before it the matter of an appropriation for the “state employees’ retirement fund” (Governor’s Budget Message, January 24, 1949). The regular session convened January 10, 1949 *434and adjourned March 19, 1949, making no such appropriation.
(b) The board of trustees (general administration board for the retirement fund) held its first and second official meetings on July 1 and July 11, 1949, respectively. One of the members of the board presented her claim for expenses to- the state auditor, which claim was rejected upon the ground that no appropriation had been made therefor. The rejection of this claim was the basis for an action instituted in the Superior Court of Maricopa County on the 10th ■day of August, 1949, seeking an interpretation of the law and specifically, whether the Act appropriated funds to meet the expenses of administration. Summary judgment was entered, holding among other things that the Act provided no appropriation which was available to meet expenses of the trustees and that the legislature having made no appropriation therefor, there were no funds available for the payment of such claims.
(c) During the pendency of an appeal to this court challenging this judgment, the Governor by his proclamation of February 13, 1950 called the legislature into special session, which was regularly convened on February 20, 1950. Listed as one of the items for consideration was an item entitled: “Public Officers’ and Employees’ Retirement”. HB 38 and HB 39 of that session were introduced February 24, 1950 and respectively sought an appropriation of $1,190,000 as an initial contribution to the Fund by the State and an appropriation o'f $42,800 for initial administrative expenses. Neither bill was passed.
(d) On April 3, 1950 this court handed down its decision on the appeal above referred to, being Eide v. Frohmiller, 70 Ariz. 128, 216 P.2d 726, affirming the judgment of the lower court decreeing that no appropriation had been made by the provisions of the Act- to pay administration expenses.
(e) In March, 1950 the present action was instituted in rthe Superior Court of Maricopa County, resulting in the judgment here under consideration and which was submitted for decision in this court on the 23rd day of January, 1951.
(f) The Twentieth Legislature having met in regular session on the 8th day of January, 1951, it w,as deemed advisable, in view of the public interest and monetary considerations invoüved, to attempt to dispose of the case prior to the adjournment of the legislature in order that it might be fully advised in the premises. (The legislature adjourned without making any appropriation to activate the Fund.) Due to the enormity of the considerations involved, the extensive briefs and the multitude of objections raised as to the constitutionality of the Act, the court found itself unable to prepare a written decision prior to1 the date that the legislature, was scheduled to adjourn.
After its submission (January 23) every member of the court laid all other matters *435under consideration to one side and assiduously, individually and collectively, studied the case and the disposition to be made of it. On February 28th, without written decision, the court directed the filing of the following minute entry:
“The judgment of the lower court, denying a peremptory writ of mandamus to the plaintiff (appellant), is affirmed. The petition of plaintiff was in her capacity as a state employee, and the judgment denying the writ only adjudicated her rights as an employee of the state. In the court below, and here, the constitutionality of the Act as a whole has been challenged. The court will hand down its written decision as soon as it is possible to complete the same, holding the Act constitutional in so far as it applies to employees of the state. The opinion will expressly reserve passing upon the validity of the Act in so far as it attempts to provide for participation in the fund by persons employed by the political subdivisions of the state including counties, cities, towns, school districts, and employees of the political subdivisions of the state now participating in existing retirement and pension funds.
“The reservation referred to will be made for the reason that no political subdivision of the state, or other persons that might be affected, are before the court, and their rights and obligations under the Act cannot properly be adjudicated in this proceeding.”
Now, in conformity with the Constitution, art. 6, section 2, the court is filing its written decision, giving the grounds for its decision as contained in the minute entry.
Plaintiff below, an employee of the department of library and archives of the state of Arizona, whose director is the appellee Mulford Winsor, initiated this action in the Superior Court of Maricopa County against the state auditor, and Mulford Winsor, director aforesaid, seeking to secure a peremptory writ of mandamus directed to the auditor and director, commanding them to approve and cause to be paid to plaintiff the 5% theretofore taken from her wages and to cease preparing and' causing to be prepared any state payrolls from which any deduction had been made from the employee’s wages. Semimonthly wage payment, Section 43-1601, A.C.A. 1539; auditor to issue warrants, Laws 1943,. Chapter 86, Section 10-926, A.C.A.1939, Cum.Supp.
Appellees’ answer contained three defenses:
(1) lack of jurisdiction over the subject, matter;
(2) failure of complainant to state a. claim upon which relief could be granted;, and
(3) defensive admissions, denials, and allegations, the net substance of which constitutes a denial that the Act was unconstitutional and that appellant, by virtue of' the provisions of the Act, had voluntarily *436elected to and did become a member of the Fund and could not challenge the constitutionality of the Act.
The court below held (1) that the plaintiff had no legal standing to maintain the action, and (2) that the Act was valid and constitutional.
Appellant’s first two assignments of error challenge the judgment in so far as it held that the plaintiff was not entitled to maintain the action and was not a proper party to question the constitutionality of the Act. Appellees, deeming that the public interest requires that the supreme court decide the constitutionality of the Act (and accordingly with the court’s permission), withdrew their contention that the plaintiff had no legal standing to maintain the action and was not a proper party to question the constitutionality of the Act.
By the third assignment of error it is said that the Act is unconstitutional and void because the Act “was not initiated, petitioned for, submitted or referred to a vote of the people or enacted in conformity with the requirements of Article 4, part 1, Section 1, paragraphs (9), (10), (11), and Article 22, Section 14 of the Arizona Constitution and Sections 60-103, 60-107, A.C.A. 1939.”
Section 60-107(a), A.C.A.1939, which implements Article 4, part 1, Section 1, paragraph (11), of the Constitution, commands that the voters be advised in the official publicity pamphlet as to the full and correct title and the form in which said measure will appear on the ballot.
The basis for the assignment of error challenging the sufficiency of the title to the Act, has its origin in the following factual situation, recited chronologically:
1. On June 30, 1948 there was filed with the Secretary of State an Initiative Petition in which the full and correct title of the measure proposed under the Initiative was:
“To Establish a Public Employees’ Retirement Fund to Provide Retirement, Disability, Death and Withdrawal Benefits for Officers and Employees of the State of Arizona, and of Political Subdivisions of the State of Arizona Including Counties, Cities, Towns, and School Corporations; to Provide for Participation in the Fund by Persons Employed Jointly by the State of Arizona, Its Political Subdivisions, Municipalities and Federal Agencies; to Provide for the Maintenance and Administration of the Fund; to Prescribe the Procedures Whereby Political Subdivisions may Participate in the Fund on Behalf of Their Employees and Employees of Institutions, Boards, Commissions, Officers, Bureaus or Any Other Agencies Maintained by a Political Subdivision; to Prescribe the Method for Inclusion of Certain Existing Retirement and Pension Funds; and to Provide the Method of Financing the Fund.”
2. The Official Publicity Pamphlet for the November 1948 election stated:
*437“The following is the form and number in which the question will be printed on the Official Ballot:
“Proposed by Initiative Petition
“Relating to Public Employees; Providing for Retirement Fund; for Participation in Fund by Employees and for Retirement, Disability and Death Benefits.”
“To Establish a Public Employees’ Retirement Fund * * * ”, etc., setting out the full initiated title immediately supra.
3. On the November 2, 1948 Official Ballot was this title:
“Relating to Public Employees; Providing for Retirement Fund; for Participation in Fund by Employees and for Retirement, Disability and Death Benefits.”
(which title hereinafter is referred to as “ballot title”); that the true title was not printed on the Official Ballot; and that no initiative petitions filed with the Secretary of State bore the ballot title.
4. The Official Canvass shows that the General Election vote of November’2, 1948 was on an initiative measure, the title of which was the ballot title, and,
5. On November 22, 1948, the Governor, by his proclamation, duly proclaimed the Public Employees’ Retirement Act to be the law, and incorporated in and preceding vhe Act there appears the correct title, being the title carried on the initiative petitions.
In other words, the enrolled initiated Act does have the correct title though it was not the ballot title.
It follows that the court will not consider whether there was a deviation (constitutional defect) in the proceedings leading to the final passage of the Act but will only examine the Act as initiated and as proclaimed by the Governor. Hernandez v. Frohmiller, 68 Ariz. 242, 204 P. 2d 854. In the latter case, a comparable fact situation existed in that the abbreviated ballot title was not identical with the initiated title which had been incorporated as the true title in the Governor’s proclamation. In that case we unequivocably invoked “the enrolled Bill rule”, following our earlier decision in the case of Allen v. State, 14 Ariz. 458, 130 P. 1114; 44 L.R.A.,N.S., 468. This last named case exhaustively treats the reasons for holding that once a law has been passed and duly promulgated, it is conclusively presumed to have been regularly enacted and is invulnerable to attack upon the ground of a defective title appearing upon the ballot. Nothing can be gained by reconsidering the question, as recourse to the latter two cases fully demonstrates the reasons for the rule to which we are committed. It is entirely beside the point at this stage of the proceedings, to consider, as asserted by appellant, that the voters were deceived and misled by the title. The Act, in its proclaimed form, is the law that the court *438will examine' in proceedings to determíne its constitutionality or interpretation.
The second group of objections to the Act is that there are embraced therein subjects which are not expressed in its title as commanded by Article 4, part 2, Section 13 of the Constitution, supra. The subject matters alleged to be foreign to the title, are:
(1) Compulsory retirement of public employees;
(2) Use of public moneys for benefits to dependents;
(3) Making certain violations of the Act crimes, and providing penalties;
(4) Exempting 5% of employees’ salaries from taxation, as well as all payments received by employees from the Fund;
(5) “There is no intimation in it that any tax 'funds are involved or used.”
Counsel’s argument addressed to this proposition reads as follows: “ * * * Indeed, by peculiarly apt words, and precise grammatical marks, the idea conveyed is that it is a ‘Public Employees’ Retirement Fund’ which is established. The use of the plural possessive case, and the juxtaposition of the words used, implies, indeed it says, that the measure does not establish a Retirement Fund for Public Employees Financed by Taxpayers, but quite the reverse. We do not' wish to be understood as saying that the title should have disclosed the Act’s astronomical claims upon Arizona taxpayers; no taxpayer is entitled in law to be told the cost of a statutory plan by the title or otherwise. The trouble is that ‘the full and correct title’ cannot be fairly said to have given notice to taxpayers that tax funds were involved. Moreover, the title on the Ballot which the taxpayer saw when he was voting, clearly avoided any implication that tax funds were involved.”
and (6), “There is not the slightest indication in it that so far as concern ‘Officers and Employees * * * of Political Subdivisions of the State of Arizona Including Counties, Cities, Towns and School Corporations,’ that benefits to these officers- and employees would depend upon whether their respective ‘governing body’ and the-Act’s board of trustees would allow the. municipality by which they are employed-to come under the Act, or that each such ‘governing body’ and the Board would have-absolute and arbitrary power to put whatever employees they -chose in line for the-Act’s benefits, or to prevent whatever employees they chose from being included' as beneficiaries, or to withdraw a municipality from the Act, or to tear down existing local pension and retirement plans..
The consritutional provision under review has been interpreted many times, by this court and has been elaborately and extensively assayed beginning with the; *439case of Board of Control v. Buckstegge, 18 Ariz. 277, 158 P. 837, and as late and more recently In re Lewkowitz, 69 Ariz. 347, 213 P.2d 690, and Opinion on Rehearing in 70 Ariz. 325, 220 P.2d 229. By way of synopsis, these cases and those reviewed therein hold that it is not necessary that the title be a synopsis or a complete index of the legislation that is to follow; that a title is invulnerable when it is sufficiently full and comprehensive as to indicate, in a general way at least, what is to follow in the way of legislation; that it :should not be so meagre as to mislead or tend to avert inquiry as to the context thereof, and it is sufficient if the provisions of the Act relate directly or indirectly to the subject expressed in the title and have a natural connection therewith and not foreign thereto; and “ * * * ‘the title is sufficient if it is not productive -of surprise and fraud, and is not calculated to mislead the legislature or the people, but is of such character as fairly to apprise legislators, and the public in general, of the subject matter of the legislation, .and of the interests that are or may be ■affected thereby, and to put anyone hqv■ing an interest in the subject matter on ■inquiry.’ ” (Emphasis supplied.) 50 Am. Jur., Statutes, Sec. 167.
•quoted with approval In re Lewkowitz, 70 Ariz. 325, 220 P.2d 229.
We are of the opinion that the six specifications above are without merit ■when measured against the constitutional provision as interpreted by tbe foregoing cases.
With reference to (1), supra, it appears to us that voluntary or compulsory retirement relates directly to the subject matter of the title.
(2), supra: Death benefits are expressly mentioned in the title, and certainly the matter of what dependents or nominees shall receive those benefits is properly connected with that subject.
(3), supra: It is the rule in this jurisdiction that Acts prescribing rights and duties, and embracing a provision making a violation thereof subject to punishment, are not objectionable and do not contravene the constitutional provision with reference to titles. State v. Davey, 27 Ariz. 254, 232 P. 884, 885.
(4), supra: Opposing counsel’s fourth contention is that title to the Act under attack does not indicate that annuities, benefits, and contributions to the Fund shall be exempt from taxation as is provided in Section 27 of the Act. In our judgment .this provision is not foreign to the subject expressed in the title. Such an exemption is commonplace in the retirement plans of other states.
(5), supra: Appellant’s fifth contention is that there is no intimation in the title that any tax funds are involved or will be used to pay benefits. The title contains the following words: “to provide the method of financing the fund”. The *440provisions of the Act for employer contributions, Sections 24, 25, and 26, are directly connected with the method of financing the Fund. It is not unreasonable that these provisions appear. Common sense dictates that any retirement fund will require financing and money. The title advised that in the substance of the Act there would follow provisions providing the method of financing the Fund. This language would put upon inquiry any one having an interest in the subject matter.
And, (6) supra: The contention that the title gives no warning that the body of the Act contains provisions allowing the governing bodies of counties, cities, etc., and the board of trustees to determine “arbitrarily” whether the employees of such political subdivisions shall become beneficiaries of the Fund, or provisions prescribing how such political subdivisions may withdraw from the Fund, or provisions for including existing pension funds, is not very persuasive. The title to the Act includes the following words: “* * * to prescribe the procedures whereby political subdivisions may participate in the fund on behalf of their employees and employees of institutions, boards, commissions, officers, bureaus or any other agencies maintained by a political subdivision: to prescribe the method for inclusion of certain existing retirement and pension funds: * * * ”, Thus, the title of the Act gives notice that the body of the Act will contain provisions prescribing the procedure ■by which the enumerated political subdivisions may participate in the system, and the procedure for the inclusion therein of certain existing retirement and pension funds. The details; of those matters, of course, did not have to be set out in the title. The withdrawal provision of Section 25 likewise may be said to “relate directly or indirectly to the subject expressed in the title”, and to have a natural connection therewith and not to be foreign thereto within the language of State v. Davey, supra. The title says that the Act among other things is to provide for withdrawal benefits and to prescribe the procedure whereby political subdivisions may participate in the Fund on behalf of their employees. To say that providing for participation only includes the beginning of the participation but does not include its termination is hardly logical. It seems plain that the withdrawal provisions of the Act relate quite directly to the subject expressed in the title.
These six specifications of error are hypertechni cal, suggesting a narrow, strained, and uncomprehensive interpretation. Justice Ross, speaking for this court in Board of Control v. Buckstegge, supra, cogently expressed the judicial approach to this problem when he said: “The requirements of this constitutional provision are liberally construed by the courts. There is no purpose to hamper or defeat or embarirass legislation by putting a strained or technical construction *441upon it. Black’s Constitutional Law, 329. And if the courts entertain any reasonable doubt as to the validity of the law, they would sustain it. Under this provision, the title of an act plays a very important part. It is necessary because, without it, there can be no legislation. It may be made narrow and restricted, in which case the legislation must likewise be narrow and restricted, or it may be made broad and comprehensive, extending the legislation, providing it is germane to the subject mentioned in the title. * * * ” [18 Ariz. 277, 158 P. 840]
It is contended that this Act is unconstitutional and void for the reason that the rights, benefits, duties, obligations and authority under it are prescribed in vague, indefinite, uncertain, and incomplete terms to such an extent that the Act is incapable of execution. In this behalf it is said:
(a) that it provides no intelligible means by which the sums to be paid municipalities are to be determined;
(b) that it delegates authority to the Board and to the “governing body” of each municipality, i. e., “counties, cities, towns, and school corporations” to make class legislation. Some of the argument in this behalf is that the Act empowers the county board of supervisors to pick out the “employees who are to become members of the Fund” in the first instance, and from time to time pick out an “additional group of employees to be brought under the Act.” It is said that the Act does not fix any standard set of facts or principles, the existence of which determines which county employees shall be included or excluded from the Act;
(c) that it provides no means by which a municipality may raise-public money to pay into the Fund;
(d) that it delegates to city councils the power to arbitrarily tear down and eliminate existing retirement plans.
These are only a 'few of the objections that are raised and argued in so far as the Act is applicable to counties, cities, towns, school districts, and existing pension systems in various political subdivisions. It is thus apparent that many legal questions are and can be raised involving the rights, benefits, duties, obligations and authority touching political subdivisions other than the State. The rights, duties and obligations of these entities or the parties who may be entitled to benefits under the Act as employees of political subdivisions other than the State are not before us and cannot, at this stage of the proceedings, be adjudicated. It is for this reason that we stated in our minute entry that we did, and we now do, expressly reserve passing upon the validity of the Act in so far as it attempts to provide for participation in the Fund by political subdivisions of the State and their employees. We cannot agree with the suggestion made that the provisions of the Act relating to municipalities and political subdivisions of *442the State constitute such an integral part thereof as to render their retention necessary to completeness. We reached this conclusion in view of the ‘Severability clause’ contained in the Act, Section 28, which reads as follows: “If any section, paragraph, sentence or clause of this act is, regardless of cause, held to be invalid or unconstitutional, the remaining sections, paragraphs, sentences and clauses shall continue in full force and effect and shall be construed thereafter as being the entire provisions of this act.”
Having concluded that the Act is severable in the particulars referred to, appellant, a state employee, is in no position to assert that the provisions regarding municipalities are unconstitutional. State v. Roseberry, 37 Ariz. 78, 289 P. 515; State Tax Comm. v. Board of Supervisors, 43 Ariz. 156, 29 P.2d 733; Brophy v. Powell, 58 Ariz. 543, 121 P.2d 647.
Other constitutional objections are that the Act is incomplete and incapable of execution and could not become operative (a) because its election and waiver provisions, Section 5, subd. a, could not be complied with by any state employee on the payroll prior to July 1, 1949; (b) because there can never exist a board of trustees which the Act requires, in that one of the members of the board is designated as the “state personnel officer” when in fact there is no such office in the state; and (c) because the Act does not provide authority by which the 5% deducted from the employee’s salary may be transferred to ■ the Fund. These objections, though arduously asserted, we believe are without merit, and to specifically treat each of them would unduly lengthen this opinion. Some of these provisions complained of are not patently intelligible,. Some of them seem to be imperfect and will require practical administrative interpretation. Suffice it to say that in our judgment they are not so imperfect and deficient as to render impossible the execution and enforcement of the Act. The following observation, appearing in Equitable Credit & Discount Co. v. Geier, 342 Pa. 445, 21 A.2d 53, 56, is entirely appropriate:: “* * * legislation dealing with social and economic problems cannot be expected, and is not constitutionally required, to be of mathematical exactitude. There are bound to be twilight zones furnishing support to critics who cavil at the want of scientific precision in the law. * * * ”
The crux of this lawsuit is to be found in the determination of the soundness of appellant’s Proposition of Law No. 5 when applied to this Act. The proposition is stated as followsi: “An Act is unconstitutional and void when it prescribes no standards to govern the action of administrative boards and officers administering it, and delegates and surrenders unlimitative legislative powers to such administrative boards and officers to establish such standards as they please, upon which standards depend both the amounts to be paid *443out in benefits under such Act and the costs ■of those payments to the taxpayers.”
Under this proposition it is argued that the Act contains an absolute and unlimited delegation of power to the board of trustees and the actuary to fashion such “tabular standards” as they may deem fit. Our appraisal of the Act is that it does not unlawfully delegate any legislative power but that it merely authorizes the board of trustees, with the aid of their actuary, to find the necessary actuarial facts and prescribe the executive details for carrying out and giving effect to the legislation, and to enact rules and regulations for its administration, all subject to reasonably designated limitations. Section 8 of the Act provides:
“ * * * The retirement benefit shall consist of:
“a. A member’s annuity which shall be actuarial equivalent of the accumulated contributions of the member at the time of retirement computed according to the actuarial table in use by the fund; and
“b. An employer’s annuity equal to one one-hundred-twentieth of average final compensation for each completed year of membership service, not to exceed thirty-five years, plus the sum of one hundred twenty dollars; and
“c. A prior service annuity equal to one-sixtieth of average final compensation for each year of prior service for which the member shall have been allowed credit, not to exceed thirty-five years."
Among the definitions set out in Section 4 of the Act is the following: “ ‘Actuarial Tables’ shall mean such tabular standards as shall be adopted by the board' in accordance with recommendations of the actuary; provided that until the system has been in operation for at least three years from July 1, 1949, the combined annuity table of mortality for male lives shall be used.”
In the recent case of Haggard v. Industrial Commission of Arizona, 71 Ariz. 91, 223 P.2d 915, 921, we recognized that the ordinary rule is that legislative powers cannot be delegated to administrative bodies but pointed out: “ * * * this does not mean that when authorized to do so by the act itself administrative bodies may not make rules and regulations supplementing legislation for its complete operation and enforcement, if such rules and regulations are within the standards set forth in the act of the legislature.”
In this same case we further pointed out that: “Obviously, the legislature could not well fix definitely the particular rates to be used in each individual class and especially in view of the fact that these hazards change from time to time. Such fixing is peculiarly a matter for the delegation of power to an administrative body. * * * And we think the general standards above set up which fix the purpose of the insurance, the amount of the fund required, *444and that in fixing the premium, the particular hazards of the risk shall be considered, create a sufficient general standard so that the rates of premium fixed thereunder by the commission are based on constitutional rules and regulations. Any other conclusion would make the operation of the act impossible.”
A workable retirement Act could not well contain actuarial tables to be used for all time, but “Such fixing is peculiarly a matter for the delegation of power to an administrative body.” Haggard case, supra. An overall analysis of this Act leads us to believe that it creates a sufficient general standard for the adoption of actuarial tables by the board, based upon the experience of the Fund subsequent to the first three years of operation. During this first three-year period the particular annuity table to be used is designated. Section 4, Definitions. It must be remembered that the people, in enacting this law, had an objective in mind and, as we are constrained to believe, provided sufficient standards and overall limitations to meet practicable and reasonable constitutional mandates. To make this type of legislation effective will require many rules and regulations, which practicable suggestions cannot be particularly or exactly set forth without destroying the flexibility necessary to effectuate the legislative will. It has been said that “If wide power in an administrative body is imperative, the rule requiring definite standards and rules of guidance will be somewhat relaxed.” 16 C. J.S., Constitutional Law, § 138. See Duncan v. A. R. Krull Co., 57 Ariz. 472, 114 P.2d 888; Employment Security Comm. v. Arizona Citrus Growers, 61 Ariz. 96, 144 P.2d 682. In any event, during the first three years of the operation of the Fund, the Combined Actuary Table of Mortality for male lives shall be used in computing the benefits provided for in Section 8 of the Act. At the end of the three-year period it appears to us that a fair interpretation of the Act suggests that the actuarial tables to be used thereafter will be based upon the experience of the Fund. This conclusion is reached by having reference to subdivisions (c), (d) and (h) of Section 17. Subdivision (c) in part provides : “The board * * * shall * * * adopt all necessary actuarial tables to be used in the operation of the system as prepared by the actuary, and compile such additional data as may be necessary for required actuarial valuations and actuarial studies of the operating experience of the fund.” (Emphasis supplied.)
Sections 18 and 24, together with other provisions of the Act, are demonstrative of the concept that it iis the experience of the Fund that will suggest and control the actuarial tables to be used. The choice of such “tabular standards”, purely an exercise of administrative discretion, is properly left to those deemed qualified to make such choice, namely, the board of trustees with the aid of their technical adviser, the actuary.
*445Appellant admits that the standard provided in the definition of “regular interest” in Section 4 of the Act (having importance in connection with the definition of “accumulated contributions”) to wit: “based upon the actual experience of the Fund” is ample and a sufficient legal yardstick. The very same yardstick governs the choice of “actuarial tables” by the board. Any other conclusion runs counter to ordinary common sense.
When counsel object to the definition of “regular interest” the answer is that a decision thereon is a matter of administrative discretion and is properly left to the board. The Act prescribes the rate of regular interest to be 3% per annum unless the actual experience of the Fund shows the earning of a different rate, in which case that rate is the lawful rate. The board simply finds the “objective” fact, i. e., what is the interest rate as determined by the actual experience of the Fund? If such actual experience shows any other rate than 3% per annum then that rate shall be prescribed by the board.
The Act very definitely enumerates the benefits to be provided and for a given number of persons, namely, those who are members of the Fund. With this data and the other factors to be considered, such as age of employee, length of service, salaries earned, contributions made, no difficulty will be entailed in figuring the exact amount of benefits to be paid to any person entitled.
To meet the challenge of counsel that the Act is incomplete and incapable of execution because the amount to be paid to an employee on retirement is uncertain, vague and indefinite, we are impelled to attempt to apply the provisions of the Act to a suppositious case. What would the retirement pay be for a member sixty-five years of age as of December 31, 1950 who had been a member of the Fund since July 1, 1949, with the’ following assumptions?
Assuming salary from 7-1-22 to 6-30-32 10 years at $2700.00
7-1-32 to 6-30-42-10 “ “ 3300.00
7-1-42 to 12-31-50 8i/2 “ “ 3600.00
Contributions withheld from 7-1-1949 to 12-31-1950 $270.00. (5% of salary) Sec. 23.
(a) Monthly pension, assuming retirement at age 65—
1. Past service 27 years; 7-1-1922 to 7-1-1949—
One-sixtieth times $3600 times 27 years equals $1620, or $135 per month- — Sec. 8(c).
2. Current service — paid by the employer—
(a) ’ Equals one and a half times one one-hundred-twentieth times $3600 equals $45 per annum or $3.75 per month. Sec. 8 (b).
(b) Additional current service — annuity equals $10 per month. Sec. 8 (b).
*4463. Employee’s annuity equals $1.65 per month. Sec. 8(a).
Total pension is $150.40.
Value of the pension provided by the employer, (State of Arizona), calculated by the Combined Annuity Mortality Table for males at 2]/2%1 interest equals $13,-585.00.
Value of the pension provided by the employee is %270.00.
Combined reserve by the employee and employer is $18,855.00.
The employee would not have to put up any more money by way of contributions but the State would have to contribute such sum or sums which, together with interest, would provide a pension chargeable to it of the value of $18,585.00. To place the Fund upon a sound actuarily funded basis would require the State to presently make its contributions for the reserve (on account of past services) of this suppositious employee, since no reserves have been set up out of which to pay the pension now due. The State, in addition to its current contributions, will have to make sufficient contributions to provide for the value of all pensions chargeable to it, based on past creditable services prior to the effective date of the Act.
Counsel for appellant contend, and not without a degree of merit, that Section 24 of the Act appears to require complete initial funding “ * * * covering all service of the employees including service prior to the effective date and service subsequent thereto, * * The Act is silent as to how or when reserves are to be provided for past services. It is for this reason that counsel for appellant has estimated that the State will be required to initially contribute a sum in excess of eight million dollars ($8,000,000), which 'does not include sums which would be required for Death, Ordinary Disability, Accidental Disability, and Accidental Death benefits, and for .cost of administering the Act, all of which are to be paid one hundred per cent from tax funds. Much argument is addressed to these cost features, which are asserted to be stupendous, beyond the ability of the State to pay, and assuredly not encompassed within the understanding of the voters at the time the Act was enacted.2 (See footnote) Presumably those voters not voting did not understand the provisions and full import of the Act. Whether' those voting for the Act understood it is subject to conjecture and speculation. Questions of economic and social policy *447are properly addressed to the lawmaking branch of the government, in this instance, the people. That the people may have assumed a financial obligation beyond their reach constitutes no basis for a constitutional attack.
For the reasons stated, the judgment is affirmed subject to the reservations herein expressly contained.
UDALL, C. J., and STANFORD and DE CONCINI, JJ., concur.

. Number of registered voters, 240,998; total ballots cast, 184,323; voting for the measure, 86,989; voting against the measure, 38,111. 59,223 voters did not vote one way or the other.