Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
2Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
TC Legal Opinion MOSERS

TC Legal Opinion MOSERS

Ratings: (0)|Views: 5|Likes:

More info:

Published by: St. Louis Public Radio on Feb 24, 2012
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

03/12/2012

pdf

text

original

 
THOMPSONCOBURN
LLP
One
us
Bank
PlazA
Se.Louis,Missouri6310l
3'14-552·6000
FAX314-552"7000
March25,2010
AllenD.Allred
3
!
·.5:52-6001
FAX31552-7001Mllred@
thompsoncobum.corn
Re:MOSERS
TheHonorable
Jason
Crowell
SenatorState
Capitol
Building
Room323
Jefferson
City,
Missouri
6'5101Dear
Senator
Crowell:TheBoardofTrusteesoftheMissouri
SMe
Employees'Retirement
System
('fMOSERS'~hasaskedThompsonCoburnLLP,
in
curroleascounselforMOSERS.toprovide
youwith
thefollowingnon-privilegedanalysisofwhethertheMissouriConstitutionwouldprohibitcertainchangestotheMOSERSstatutesto:(a}require
current,MOSERS
members
prospectivelytomake
contributions
toMOSERS
to
fundtheir
retirementbenefits;or
(b)
reducefutureretirementbenefitsofcurrent,non-retiredMOSERSmembers.Weexpect
that
anychangetotheMOSERSstatuteswouldfacejudicialchallenges
by
currentMOSERSmembersunderarticle
It
section13oftheMissouriConstitution,whichprohibitstheStatefrompassinglawsthatimpairtheobligationofcontracts.'Whileitcannot
be
predict-ed
with
certaintyhowtheSupremeCourtofMissouriwouldroleonthelegalityofsuchchanges
to
theMOSERSstatutes,'thefollowingdiscussionaddressesthelegalandproceduralissues:thatlikelywouldarise
in
anycase
,challengingsuchstatutoryohanges.
2
Chicago
St.
Louis
southern
l'illuois
-----
.
_----
J
Such
judicial
challengesmightalsoassertclaims
under
theContractClauseinarticle
I,
section
10
oftheUnitedStatesConstitution,
whichalsoprohibits
theStase
from
passing
laws
that
iillpair
th~
obligationofcontracts."
!2
BecausetheStateclearlymay
require
member
contributions
fromfut~MOSERSmembersand
may
restructureretirementbenefitsforfuturoMOOERSmembers,thisletterdoesnotfurtheraddressthoseissues.,
 
SlUllmaty
Hon,Sen.JasonCrowellMarch25,2010
Page2
TheSupremeCourtofMissourihasnot
yet
addressedwhetheranamendment
to
theMOSERSstatutesrequiringcurrentMOSERSmemberstomakecontributionsorreducingtheirfutureretirementbenefitswouldviolatetheMissouriConstitution.However,basedondecisionsinotherMissouricasesinvolvingchanges
in
retirementsystems,theMOSERSstatutes,andcasesfromotherjurisdictions,thereisasignificantprobabilitythattheSupremeCourtofMissouriwouldrulethatsuchachangetotheMaSERSstatutesviolatestheprohibition
in
artlele
I,
section13oftheMissouriConstitutionagainstlawsthatimpairtheobligationof
contracts.
TheSupremeCourtofMissourihaspreviouslyruledthatthe
MOSERS
statutescreateacontractualrelationshipbetweenmembers,theState,and
MOSERS.'~<I;1lecQ1.)rt
hasnti'thei'i:hled
i;t!latwltere,acf,).tlttact
~ists1:lytW~~!lM
'elllPlQyer/~ppns9r9:fa
~4l.tutQry,retirem~nt
~sten:il!lld~
,-emploY~Jllember~
;ucle:r~
section
13,
of:th~
Missouri
GQnstitutiOl1
p_roltibita
th~Staw
:fi:oP!
':-iinlil"i~itli~!h~
fetiretn~~t.
~tePl'S_stitUiesjli~rwai~td~prlye~fu~
tp.ymb~r
9f.the
cun~nnevel
•.~.ofr~~l.llent
gene:l;it~
w&ler
¢.e~eUrcnlent
sy$te!Ii
fs_~~isti:qg
Statuies,.
Courts
in
other~~_-
.~Jiii1sdiCt{o~have,gene);'allyheldthatc~gret'.
_t
syst5(m
.benefitplaJ.WJ<r
requite~
increased
m~mber.contributions
is"an
UncOnstitutiopairment
6fthemcmbersJeontractt?~
~uriIes,S;a)
the
$tatuteseSfablishWg
-thetetirementsystem
containso.tn~
indicationthat
meml)ersMe
stlbject
toincreasedcontributionsin
the
future;_<jt
(b)the
increased
membercontributions
are..
.:·oftset
bYb1creas&1be.uefitstb
the
merhbers.;Here,noMOSERSstatuteexpresslyreserves
any
right
to
requiremember
contributions.
Sections104.:540.1
and
104.1054.1oftheMOSERSstatutesarepartofthecontractbetweenthoStateandcurrentMaSERSmembers.Theyprovide:"Noalteration,amendment,or
repeal
of[the
MaSERS
statutes]shallaffectthethenexisting
rights
ofmembersand
beneficiaries,
butshall
be
effective
only
as
torightswhichwouldotherwiseaccruehereunderasaresultof
services
rendered
by
anemployeeafter
such
alteration;amendment,orrepeal."Aplausibleargumentcouldbemadethatrequiringmembercontributionsforfutureservicecreditorreducing
future
retirementbenefitsonlyaffects"rights..asaresultofservicesrendered
by
anemployeeafter"anamendmentoftheMOSERSstatutesand,therefore,ispermissibleunderthecontractbetweentheStateandcurrentMOSERSmembers,
fiHQ~~~!f!1l,~;'§J.lP~W.~QQurtQf
members
would
needto
be
accompanied
by
offsettingbenefitstothemembers(suchassalaryIncreases).
 
-
,
:~.'.
Hon,Sen,JasonCrowell
March25,2010
PageS.
Analysis
I.RelevantMissouricases
involving
retirement
systems.Missouriappellatecourtshaveaddressedthegeneral
nature
ofstatutoryretirementsystems
inMissouriand
the
constitutionalityof
several
typesof
changes
to
those
retirementsystems,
including;
I
I
I'·
removingnon-retiredmembersfromaretirementsystem;Increasingbenefitsforretiredmembersofaretirementsystem;reducingtheplansponsor's
contributions
toaretirementsystem;andeliminatinga
portion
ofunpaidovertimeandvacationpayfrom
the
calculation
of
pensionbenefits.Missouriappellatecourtshavenotspecificallyaddressedwhetheragovernmentalentitymay
changearetirement
system
torequireincreasedcontributions
from
currentmembersfor
fqture
work.
A.Pbilli12
Stateexrel.Phillipv.PublicSohoolRetirementSystemofCityof8t.
Louis,
262S.W.2d569(Mo.bane1953);isthemostanalogousMissouricasethatinvolvedachange
in
aretirementsystem.Asoriginallyestablishedin1944,thePublicSchoolRetirementSystemoftheCityofSt.Louis(the"RetirementSystem")coveredfull-timeemployeesoftheBoardofEducationoftheCityofSt,Louis(the"Boardof'Education"),Includingnon-teachers,
In
1953;theGeneralAssemblypasseda
law
(the"I953Act")
that
effectively
terminated
themembershipofnon..
teachers
intheRetirementSystem
with
the
hopenon-teachers
coveredthefederal.
ThecourtobservedthattheissuewaswhethertheStatecouldexcludeactivenon..teachers(whowerenotyetreceivingretirementbenefits)"fromallfuturebenefitstowhichtheymightbeentitledunder
the
termsoftheexisting
RetirementSystem,"
Mk
at574.Thecourtstated
that
thisissuedependedon:(1)whetherthenon-teachershadacontractualrelationship
with
theRetirementSystemandtheBoardofBducatlonprovidingfor-contractualrightstothebenefitsprovided
by
the
Retirement
Systemas
it
existedbefore
the
195"3
Act;and(2)if'so,whetherthe1953Actimpairedobligations
under
thatcontractualrei.aUonship.Id.
The
court

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->