Board of Trustees of the Maryland State Retirement & Pension Systems v. Hughes

BELL, Judge, dissenting, in which FISCHER, Judge, joins. I do not share the majority’s opinion that former Governor Hughes was properly denied his State pension during his tenure as Governor. Indeed, it is my considered judgment that the legislative scheme under review makes perfectly clear that, during that time, he was entitled to receive both his State pension and his State salary. Therefore, I dissent.

It is the application of Maryland Code (1957, 1978 Repl. Vol.), Art. 73B, § 11(12) that is at the heart of this case 1 as there are few, if any, disputed facts. Section 11(12) provides in pertinent part: Should such beneficiary be appointed or elected to any office, the salary or compensation of which is paid by the State, his retirement allowance shall cease, and he may again become a member of the retirement system and shall contribute thereafter at the same rate he paid prior to his retirement____ I agree with the majority that the issue in this case is one of statutory interpretation. Nor is there much disagreement between the majority and myself as to the process by which that issue is to be resolved.

It is well settled that the search for legislative intent begins with, and ordinarily ends with, the words of the statute, City of Baltimore v. Cassidy, 338 Md. 88, 93 , 656 A.2d 757, 760 ¹⁸ (1995); Harris v. State, 331 Md. 137, 145 , 626 A.2d 946, 950 (1993), considered in light of their plain and ordinary meaning. Dickerson v. State, 324 Md. 163, 170-71 , 596 A.2d 648, 651-52 (1991). An exception to this canon of statutory interpretation, however, is that when the language of the statute is clear and unambiguous, the result achieved by applying the plain language may be confirmed by the use of extraneous interpretive aids, such as legislative purpose, history, context, etc. State v. Thompson, 332 Md. 1, 7 , 629 A.2d 731, 734 (1993). When the words of the statute are not clear—the statute is ambiguous— those interpretive aids inform the meaning of the enactment as well as the search for the Legislature’s real intention.

In that regard, in addition to considering context, which “may include related statutes, pertinent legislative history and ‘other material that fairly bears on the ... fundamental issue of legislative purpose or goal ...,’” GEICO v. Insurance Commissioner, 332 Md. 124, 132 , 630 A.2d 713, 717 (1993) (quoting Kaczorowski v. City of Baltimore, 309 Md. 505, 515 , 525 A.2d 628, 632-33 (1987)), we must endeavor to avoid giving a statute a nonsensical, illogical or unreasonable construction, a point that the majority also recognizes. 340 Md. at 7, 664 A.2d at 1253 (quoting Frost v. State, 336 Md. 125, 137 , 647 A.2d 106, 112 (1994)). But the statute under review also must be read so that no word or portion thereof is rendered surplusage, superfluous, nugatory or insignificant. 2 GEICO, 332 Md. at 132, 630 A.2d at 717 . The relevant portion of § 11(12), to be sure, does provide for, as the majority posits, the cessation of retirement payments to a beneficiary upon that beneficiary’s being elected or appointed to an office, the salary of which is paid by the State. It goes further than that, however.

It also, quite clearly, ¹⁹ contemplates that the beneficiary be able once again to become a member of the Employee’s Retirement System (“ERS”) and thereby enhance those same retirement benefits. Section 11(12) does not, in express terms, specifically condition the cessation of retirement payments on the beneficiary’s membership, potential or actual, in the ERS. That absence, however, is a function of draftsmanship. Section 11(12), considered in its entirety, does present the issue of whether actual or potential membership is a condition precedent to cessation of retirement benefits.

Hence, the provision is at best ambiguous. It is necessary, therefore, to look to interpretative aids, other than the words the Legislature used, to find the answer. The majority concludes, without reference to membership status, that § 11(12) is clear and unambiguous and requires cessation of retirement payments whenever a beneficiary of the ERS is elected or appointed to State office. That conclusion disregards the conjunctive phrase, “and he may again become a member of the retirement system and shall contribute thereafter at the same rate he paid prior to his retirement.” That phrase addresses renewal of ERS membership and its effect, ie. an enhanced pension at the conclusion of the elective or appointed service; nevertheless, the majority fails to give it any effect.

I suspect that it was by reference to that conjunctive phrase that the Attorney General concluded, in his 1988 opinion, see 73 Op.Att’y Gen. at 306-07, that a beneficiary of the ERS who becomes a judge is entitled to receive both the pension benefits and the judge’s salary, the latter of which, is, like the Governor’s salary, payable by the State. Taking the conjunctive phrase into consideration, the Attorney General opined that the beneficiary’s status as an employee for purposes of the ERS is critical. While I do not agree with the Attorney General’s analysis of the appellee’s situation, it at least takes into account every aspect of the relevant statutory provision. By Chapter 239 of the Acts of 1971, the Legislature enacted the Gubernatorial Retirement Plan (“GRP”).

Captioned as ²⁰ “Governor and Surviving Spouse of Governor” and codified under § 11, “Benefits; Maryland Employees Retirement Review Board,” as subsection (18) (later renumbered as subsection (19)), it provides, as relevant: (b) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in any other law, retirement allowances and benefits for persons serving in the office of Governor after January 17, 1979, and their spouses shall be payable in accordance with this subsection. A person serving in the office of Governor after January 17, 1979, shall be eligible to receive a retirement allowance equal to one-third the annual salary received during his last term of office, provided that the Governor has served at least one full term and has attained age 55. The retirement allowance so determined shall continue for the life of the retiree. This retirement allowance or pension shall be suspended and not paid during any period when the former Governor is employed by any agency of the State of Maryland.

Section 11(12) was a part of the Maryland law long before subsection (19) was enacted. Prior to 1971, therefore, Governors were members of the ERS. Consequently, and not unexpectedly, a Governor’s retirement allowances and benefits were funded, and paid, pursuant to its provisions. There simply was no other pension system in which Governors belonged or from which their pensions were to be paid.

Accordingly, in 1971, an ERS beneficiary elected Governor necessarily would have had to look to the ERS for any retirement benefits he would receive as a result of that service. There was no other pension or source for such a pension. Thus, § 11(12) clearly would have applied and, pursuant to its requirements: the pension benefits would have ceased and the beneficiary would be required to elect whether once again to become a member of the ERS; if he chose to renew ERS membership, the pension payable at the end of the beneficiary’s term as Governor would have been enhanced. ²¹ A different scenario obtained after 1979. An ERS beneficiary elected Governor after 1979 could not renew his or her membership in the ERS and, thereby, enhance his or her pension, even if he or she were of a mind to do so.

Instead, as prescribed by § 11(19), the beneficiary automatically became a member of the GRP, from which he or she would be paid retirement benefits upon the completion of his or her term as Governor. Accordingly, beginning in 1979, an ERS beneficiary who served as Governor would have received, in respect of his or her service as Governor, a pension which was not dependent upon membership or potential membership in the ERS. 3 I agree with the appellee, whether his retirement benefits were improperly suspended does not depend solely upon whether he was a present beneficiary of the ERS. Rather, it depends as much upon whether he is, or potentially is, a member of that system from the standpoint of accruing additional pension benefits. Stated differently, what is critical is whether the ERS will be looked to for pension payments in respect to the State employment—the appointed or elected office—in which the beneficiary is presently engaged.

Thus, while I do not agree with the appellee that it is the beneficiary’s membership in the ERS that causes the pension payments to cease, read in its entirety, § 11(12) ties cessation of ERS pension payments to whether a present ERS beneficiary’s occupation of an elected or appointive office would qualify him or her for enhanced pension benefits from the ERS. Therefore, although the appellee need not have been a mem ²² ber of the ERS at the time that he became Governor, it was necessary that, because of that position and the pension it would generate, he could have been. In this case, the appellee could not have renewed his membership in the ERS, the Legislature having previously enacted legislation creating the GRP and prescribing its membership and the benefits to which its members are entitled. I think it is patent that it was perfectly proper for the appellee to have received both his ERS retirement payments and his State salary as Governor.

The pension benefits the appellee accrued as Governor 4 will be paid from a different pot than the pension payments received from the ERS. My reading of § 11(12) is confirmed by looking at it in its historical context. Before 1971, when the Legislature enacted the GRP, there was neither a State policy against “double dipping” nor a general prohibition against a pensioner receiving both a pension and a salary from the State at the same time. The record at the administrative hearing confirms that this was so.

This lack of policy was also confirmed by Legislative action taken during the 1972 session. Spurred by the reality that, under the law as then written, anyone could receive a salary for full time State employment and, at the same time, draw a State pension for former employment, the Legislative Council proposed Bill No. 368(1). That bill would have prohibited that occurrence and, at the same time, authorized a single payee to receive payments from two separate pensions, so long as the service forming the basis for each was rendered at different times. To accomplish the former result, Bill 368(1) was introduced in the 1972 General Assembly as Senate Bill 34.

As