AGO 96-F-002.
Court | North 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