Judges: WINSTON BRYANT, Attorney General
Filed Date: 2/23/1993
Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 7/5/2016
Ms. Cathryn E. Hinshaw, Executive Director Arkansas Fire Police Pension Review Board Post Office Drawer 34164 Little Rock, AR 72203
Dear Ms. Hinshaw:
This is in response to your request for an opinion on a question prompted by the Fire Chief of the Earle Fire Department on behalf of the Earle Pension Board.
The correspondence attached to your request indicates that a firefighter with the Marked Tree Fire Department, Mr. McMunn, is apparently retiring. The correspondence implies that Mr. McMunn has been with the Marked Tree department from 1974 until his retirement. Prior to 1974, Mr. McMunn was a firefighter with the Earle Fire Department for 5½ years. I assume, based on your correspondence, that the service with each department was volunteer firefighter service. Upon Mr. McMunn's retirement, the Marked Tree Fire Department has apparently requested that the Earle Fire Department reimburse it in the amount of $3,800 in retirement benefits it anticipates paying to Mr. McMunn. I will assume that the $3,800 will represent reimbursement for the 5½ years of service Mr. McMunn spent with the Earle Fire Department. It is indicated that, because another firefighter with the Earle Fire Department, Mr. Clouse, has spent over twice the amount of time with the Marked Tree Department than has Mr. McMunn with the Earle Department, members of the Earle Pension Board feel that if any money is to be transferred from one fund to another, Marked Tree should be the department that reimburses the Earle Department for the difference in the retirement amounts of the two firefighters. The correspondence does not indicate the status of Mr. Clouse; e.g., whether he is an active or retired firefighter. The correspondence also indicates that while several members of the Earle Department have previously transferred to other departments, no department has ever made such a request for reimbursement when the transferred firefighters have retired.
In light of the above, you have requested an opinion as to the "compulsory nature" of A.C.A. §
Assuming that all the statutory conditions are met, it is my opinion that A.C.A. §
The relevant statutory provision, §
The Arkansas Supreme Court has stated: "[W]e have held that the word ``shall,' when used in a statute, means the legislature intended mandatory compliance unless such an interpretation would lead to absurdity." Baumer v. State,
The issue of reimbursement by the Marked Tree Department to the Earle Department for the retirement benefits of Mr. Clouse is, in my opinion, a separate questions which should be evaluated in light of relevant statutory provisions. That issue does not, however, in my opinion, impact the liability of the Earle Department in the present instance.
The foregoing opinion, which I hereby approve, was prepared by Assistant Attorney General Sherry L. Daves.
Sincerely,
WINSTON BRYANT Attorney General
WB:SLD/cyh