AGO 96-F-002.

CourtNorth Dakota
North Dakota Attorney General Opinions 1996. AGO 96-F-002. STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OPINION 96-F-02Date issued: February 20, 1996Requested by: Sparb Collins, Public Employees Retirement System- QUESTION PRESENTED - Whether the prohibition against duplicate coverage in N.D.C.C. § 54-52-02 applies to an employee who has concurrent employment relationships with the state and as a result is required to participate in PERS and another state retirement system. - ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OPINION - It is my opinion that the prohibition against duplicate coverage does not apply to an employee who has concurrent employment relationships with the state that result in mandatory participation in PERS and another state retirement plan. - ANALYSIS - Your question specifically concerns the application of North Dakota Century Code (N.D.C.C.) § 54-52-02 to an employee of the Department of Human Services who accepted concurrent full-time employment as an assistant professor at Minot State University. As an assistant professor, the employee was informed that participation in the Teachers' Insurance and Annuity Association of America - College Retirement Equities Fund (TIAA-CREF) was mandatory. In light of the prohibition in N.D.C.C. § 54-52-02 against duplicate coverage, you ask whether the employee continues to be an eligible employee under the Public Employees Retirement System (PERS) because of the employee's concurrent participation in TIAA-CREF. N.D.C.C. § 54-52-02 provides that "[e]mployees presently covered by a pension plan or a retirement plan to which the state is contributing, except social security, are not eligible for duplicate coverage." Except for slight statutory changes in 1973 and 1989, this prohibition against duplicate coverage has remained essentially the same since the 1965 adoption of the PERS plan. See 1973 N.D. Sess. Laws ch. 246; 1989 N.D. Sess. Laws ch. 665. The meaning of a statute must be sought initially from the statutory language. County of Stutsman v. State Historical Soc'y, 37l N.W.2d 32l, 325 (N.D. l985). Words in a statute are to be given their plain, ordinary, and commonly understood meanings. Kim-Go v. J.P. Furlong Enterprises, Inc., 460 N.W.2d 694, 696 (N.D. 1990). Consideration should be given to the ordinary sense of the words, the context in which they are used, and the purpose which prompted their enactment. County of Stutsman, 37l N.W.2d at 327. The prohibition in N.D.C.C. § 54-52-02 against duplicate...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT