Mr. Bobby J. Woolley
4007 S.W. 325th Street
Federal Way, Washington 98023
| Re: Appeal of the August 6, 2001 denial by the Department of Retirement Systems (the "Department") of that certain Petition for repeal of WAC 415-112-0161(1), filed by Bobby J. Wooley (the "Petition") |
Pursuant to RCW 34.05.330(3), I have reviewed your appeal of the
Department of Retirement Systems' decision denying your Petition
to initiate rule-making proceedings for repeal of WAC 415-112-0161(1). That WAC subsection defines "school year" for
Teachers' Retirement System (TRS) Plan I members as the fiscal
year running from July 1 to June 30.
While I have denied your appeal for reasons discussed below, you
have raised an important issue, and I have requested the
Department to investigate legislative solutions.
It is my policy to intervene in matters under RCW 34.05.330(3)
only when I believe the administrative agency whose decision is
at issue has abused its discretion or acted arbitrarily or
capriciously. It is also my policy not to second-guess the
thoughtful and deliberate decisions of a state agency, so long as
those decisions are well-founded and proper under the law. This
is an extremely high standard of review.
Your appeal raises a legal question regarding whether or not the
Department's rule, which defines "school year" for TRS Plan I as
the fiscal year running from July 1 to June 30, reflects the
intent of statutes governing this retirement plan. There are
three pertinent statutes related to this issue. They are RCW 41.32.498(2), which describes the retirement allowance for
members and references "earnable compensation;" RCW 41.32.010
(10)(a)(i), which defines "earnable compensation" for Plan I
members and specifies that it includes salaries and wages for
services rendered during a "fiscal year"; and RCW 41.32.010(12),
which defines "fiscal year" as a year beginning July 1 and ending
June 30 of the following year.
After reviewing these statutes and the implementing rule, the
Department's action on your appeal, and the arguments offered in
your appeal, I have determined that the Department had a strong
legal basis for denying your Petition. In adopting that rule and
in denying your Petition for repeal, the Department did not abuse
its discretion or act arbitrarily or capriciously. Following are
my reasons for this determination.
First, in adopting WAC 415.112.0161(1), the Department was
performing its statutory duty to adopt administrative rules to
carry out the purposes of the law. In carrying out that duty,
the Department must adopt rules that are based on statutes that
specifically pertain to the program in question. Chapter 41.32 RCW deals specifically with teachers' retirement and defines the
type of year that must be used to calculate Plan I benefits. The
Department, therefore, correctly chose to base its rule on the
clear and specific language contained in that RCW Chapter.
I do not believe that the Department's decision to base Plan I
benefits on language contained by Chapter 41.32 RCW is rooted in
false premises, as you argued in your Petition. To do otherwise,
such as using the school year definition contained in RCW 28A.150.040, as you proposed in your Petition, would be a
misapplication of law, since that definition applies to the
allocation and distribution of state funds to school districts.
RCW 28A.150.040 was clearly not intended to be used in making
administrative decisions for Plan I members regarding earnable
compensation, retirement dates, and service credit.
In denying your petition for repeal of WAC 415.112.0161(1), I am
not, however, rejecting the possibility that current law may not
be adequate, particularly as it is applied to extended school
year teachers retiring from schools on a continuous-learning
calendar. As you know, for these teachers in TRS Plan I, the
typical continuous-learning school calendar extends beyond the
end of the fiscal year (June 30th).
For that reason, I have requested the Department to evaluate the
relevant statutes. In conducting this evaluation, I expect the
Department to review many of the issues and concerns raised in
your Petition. The Department will report back to me this year
as to the advisability of supporting legislation that will make
appropriate changes in law. I understand that the Legislative
Joint Committee on Pension Policy is also examining this issue.
While I have denied your petition, I must commend you for your
extensive efforts and strong commitment to ensure that important
laws are faithfully implemented.
Sincerely,
Gary Locke
Governor
| cc: | Dennis W. Cooper, Code Reviser |
| Tim Martin, Co-Chief Clerk, House of Representatives | |
| Cindy Zehnder, Co-Chief Clerk, House of Representatives | |
| Tony Cook, Secretary of the Senate | |
| John Charles, Department of Retirement Systems |