STATE TROOPERS FRATERNAL ASSOCIATION OF NEW JERSEY VS. STATE POLICE RETIREMENT BOARD (STATE POLICE RETIREMENT SYSTEM)

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE
APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court ." Although it is posted on the
internet, this opinion is binding only on the parties in the case and its use in other cases is limited . R. 1:36-3.
SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY
APPELLATE DIVISION
DOCKET NO. A-2090-17T1
STATE TROOPERS FRATERNAL
ASSOCIATION OF NEW JERSEY,
STATE TROOPERS NON-
COMMISSIONED OFFICERS
ASSOCIATION OF NEW JERSEY,
STATE TROOPERS SUPERIOR
OFFICERS ASSOCIATION,
RICHARD POKORNY, THOMAS
DECKER, BRIAN ZAMROCK,
JOHN SCALABRINI, FABIAN
GERKE, and all other persons
similarly situated,
Petitioners-Appellants,
v.
STATE POLICE RETIREMENT
BOARD,
Respondent-Respondent.
___________________________
Argued May 21, 2019 – Decided July 5, 2019
Before Judges Suter and Geiger.
On appeal from the Board of Trustees of the State
Police Retirement System, SPRS No. 8-10-004653.
Lauren P. Sandy argued the cause for appellants.
Robert E. Kelly, Deputy Attorney General, argued the
cause for respondent (Gurbir S. Grewal, Attorney
General, attorney; Melissa H. Raksa, Assistant
Attorney General, of counsel; Robert E. Kelly, on the
brief).
PER CURIAM
Appellants are three labor unions, five named members of those unions,
and all other persons similarly situated. They appeal from a final agency
decision of respondent Board of Trustees (the Board) of the State Police
Retirement System (SPRS) denying the transferability of certain prior non-SPRS
service credit. For the following reasons, we affirm.
New Jersey State Troopers Richard Pokorny, Thomas Decker, Brian
Zamrock, John Scalabrini, and Fabian Gerke (collectively the five named
members) were all members of the Police and Fireman's Retirement System
(PFRS) before enrolling in the SPRS. Prior to becoming a State Trooper in
1993, Pokorny was employed as a detective by the Ocean County Prosecutor's
Office for three years and eight months. Decker was employed by the New
Jersey Department of Corrections for two years and ten months prior to
becoming a State Trooper in 1987. Zamrock was employed by the New Jersey
Division of Criminal Justice (DCJ) as a State Investigator for four years and six
A-2090-17T1
2
months prior to becoming a State Trooper in 2003. Scalabrini was employed by
the DCJ as a State Investigator for five years and three months before becoming
a State Trooper in 2004. Gerke was employed by the DCJ as a State Investigator
for three years prior to becoming a State Trooper in 2003. None of these five
named members had a break in service when they became State Troopers.
We begin with an overview of the relevant statutory framework. The
SPRS was created in 1965 to "provide retirement allowances and other benefits
for its members and their beneficiaries." N.J.S.A. 53:5A-4. Prior to 1997, SPRS
membership was limited to: (1) members of the State Police Retirement and
Benevolent Fund; (2) fulltime commissioned officers, noncommissioned
officers, and troopers of the Division of State Police; and (3) persons employed
in certain positions in the Division of Motor Vehicles who were appointed to the
State Police in 1983. L. 1983, c. 403, §§ 37-38.
In 1997, the Legislature amended the statute to appoint persons in the
following enumerated positions to the State Police: (1) Alcoholic Beverage
Control Enforcement Bureau (ABC) inspectors; (2) State Capitol Police Force
members; and (3) Bureau of Marine Law Enforcement officers who satisfied
certain age, health, and performance criteria (collectively the 1997 appointees).
L. 1997, c. 19, §§ 1, 7. The service credit earned by the 1997 appointees in the
A-2090-17T1
3
PFRS or the Public Employees' Retirement System (PERS) was transferred to
the SPRS. L. 1997, c. 19, § 4. To ensure the 1997 appointees and the SPRS
would not be harmed by transfer, the 1997 amendments required the PFRS and
PERS to remit the "accumulated deductions standing to the credit" of the 1997
appointees and "the pro-rata part of the reserve fund constituting the employer's
obligations under the former system applicable" to the 1997 appointees'
accounts. L. 1997, c. 19, § 5. The 1997 amendments also required the
employers to contribute the amount of any deficiency to the SPRS, if the amount
remitted pursuant to L. 1997, c. 19, § 5 was "less than the total" needed by the
SPRS to provide the 1997 appointees "with credit for [their] public service." L.
1997, c. 19, § 6.
The Legislature also added the following language to N.J.S.A. 53:5A-
6(a):
In addition, service as a member of the State Capitol
Police Force, or as a Supervising Inspector, Principal
Inspector, Senior Inspector, or Inspector Recruit in the
[ABC] or as a Principal Marine Law Enforcement
Officer, Senior Marine Law Enforcement Officer, or
Marine Law Enforcement Officer in the Bureau of
Marine Law Enforcement and service credit transferred
from [the PFRS] or [PERS] shall, if the required
contributions are made by the State and the member, be
considered as creditable service.
[L. 1997, c. 19, § 8.]
A-2090-17T1
4
The Assembly's Committee's Statement makes clear that the transfer of
service credit from the PFRS and PERS to the SPRS was limited to the 1997
appointees:
For persons becoming members of the State Police
under the bill, their service credit in [PERS] or [PFRS]
as an alcoholic beverage control inspector, State
Capitol Police Force member, or marine law
enforcement office[r] shall be transferred to the SPRS.
Any other service credit established in PERS or PFRS
shall be included in the computation of an SPRS
retirement allowance on the basis of 1% of final
compensation for each year of such service credit . . . .
[Assemb. Comm. Statement to A. 1451 2 (June 10,
1996).]
The Legislature expressly contemplated "that 162 persons ([twenty-four]
ABC inspectors, 134 Marine Police officers and [four] State Capitol police
officers) would be eligible to transfer to the . . . State Police" under the 1997
Amendments and "that 115, or approximately [seventy] percent, of these persons
would qualify to transfer to the State Police" under the 1997 Amendments. S.
Comm. Statement to A. 1451 2 (Nov. 25, 1996). Of those 162, the Office of
Legislative Services (OLS) estimated "115, or approximately seventy percent,
of these persons would qualify to transfer." Ibid. The OLS estimated "the total
additional pension cost to the State in the first year following enactment would
be $835,181" for those 115 employees. Ibid.
A-2090-17T1
5
In January 2015, the Unions petitioned the Board on behalf of five named
members and "all other similarly situated troopers." These individuals did not
claim to be among the 1997 appointees. Relying on our unpublished opinion in
LaRosa v. State Police Ret. Sys., No. A-0927-12 (Sept. 27, 2013),1 appellants
claimed the Union members' creditable service in the PFRS should be treated as
transferred credit in the SPRS. The Unions subsequently submitted "a formal
request for compliance with N.J.S.A. 53:5A-6(a)" and LaRosa.
The Board denied the petition, "determin[ing] that only service credit
transferred in from specific titles was eligible to be included as creditable
service." In reaching that conclusion, the Board distinguished the facts
presented in the unpublished opinion relied upon by appellants, which involved
employees who previously held titles "specifically enumerated" in the 1997
amendments. The Board further determined that "a plain reading of [N.J.S.A.
53:5A-6(b)] does not lead to the conclusion that all transferred service credit is
to be treated similarly for all employees."
1
"No unpublished opinion shall constitute precedent or be binding upon any
court." R. 1:36-3. Unreported decisions "serve no precedential value, and
cannot reliably be considered part of our common law." Trinity Cemetery v.
Wall Twp., 170 N.J. 39, 48 (2001) (Verniero, J., concurring).
A-2090-17T1
6
The Unions appealed from the Board's decision. The appeal was
transmitted to the Office of Administrative Law for hearing as a contested case
and assigned to an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ). The parties cross-moved
for summary decision pursuant to N.J.A.C. 1:1-12.5.2 Following oral argument,
the ALJ issued an Initial Decision on October 6, 2017.
The ALJ concluded summary decision was appropriate because there were
no material facts in dispute. The ALJ stated "[t]he sole issue is interpretation of
N.J.S.A. 53:5A-6 as it applies to the undisputed facts."
The ALJ focused on "whether subsection (a) or subsection (b) of N.J.S.A.
53:5A-6 should apply to petitioners' service previously rendered in the PFRS."
The ALJ noted subsection (a) "enumerates positions within specific agencies
and provides that time served within those positions qualifies as full creditable
service within the SPRS." In turn, the ALJ noted subsection (b) provided for
prior service credit in the PFRS or PERS "is to be included in calculating a SPRS
member's retirement allowance at a rate of one percent of final compensation
for each year of service in those systems, unless otherwise stated in the statute."
2
Pursuant to N.J.A.C. 1:1-12.5(b), summary decision "may be rendered if the
papers and discovery which have been filed, together with affidavits, if any,
show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact challenged and that
the moving party is entitled to prevail as a matter of law."
A-2090-17T1
7
The ALJ rejected the argument that any time served in the PFRS or PERS
should be given full value and concluded that "if all service rendered in the
PFRS or PERS was meant to translate into full creditable service within the
SPRS, there would be no need to enumerate specific agencies or titles within the
statute. Accepting [appellants'] interpretation would render the lists of agencies
and titles superfluous."
The ALJ found appellants' reliance on LaRosa misplaced because the
employees in LaRosa held titles "specifically enumerated" in subsection (a),
whereas here, appellants did not "transfer[] into the SPRS from a position
enumerated in subsection (a)."
The ALJ rejected the argument subsection (b) was "inapplicable because
it only applie[d] to service credit that ha[d] been purchased, meaning unworked
time on a leave of absence without pay, not service credit that has been
transferred." The ALJ concluded appellants' interpretation of subsection (b) was
"undermined by the language" of subsection (f). The ALJ explained:
Subsection (f) states that individuals who become
SPRS members pursuant to the 1997 amendments and
are required to retire at age fifty-five with less than
twenty years of SPRS credit, may use "service credit
transferred or purchased pursuant to subsection b" to
attain the requisite twenty years. Subsection (f) also
indicates that, for the 1997 appointees, "[t]ransferred or
purchased service credit in excess of the amount
A-2090-17T1
8
necessary to provide 20 years of creditable service in
the retirement system shall be included in the
computation of a retirement allowance on the basis
provided in subsection b." Again, this language
suggests that subsection (b) can apply to both
transferred or purchased service credit from another
retirement system.
The ALJ also found the legislative history of N.J.S.A. 53:5A-6 supported
the Board's position, noting the 1997 amendment provided that service credit
transferred from the PFRS or the PERS in the enumerated titles "would
constitute creditable service in the SPRS." The ALJ also noted the Assembly
State Government Committee's Statement to Assembly Bill 1451 "indicates that
service credit established in specific, enumerated PERS and PFRS positions
would transfer to the SPRS. However any other service credit established in
other retirement systems was meant to be treated differently for purposes of
calculating retirement allowances."
Based on this analysis, the ALJ granted the Board's motion for summary
decision and found that PERS or PFRS credit transferred into the SPRS is not
credited at full value unless the service was attributable to one of the enumerated
titles. The ALJ concluded subsection (b) "is the appropriate subsection for
calculating [the] retirement allowance for previous creditable service in the
A-2090-17T1
9
PERS and PFRS under non-enumerated titles." Appellants and the Board each
filed exceptions to the Initial Decision.
The Board adopted the ALJ's Initial Decision, determining that "N.J.S.A.
53:5A-6(a) and (b) [do] not provide for the transfer of previously earned PFRS
service to a member's SPRS account on a full SPRS value for any individual[s]
becoming members of the SPRS other than those who transferred into SPRS in
1997 and occupied one of the positions enumerated in the statute." This appeal
followed.
Appellants argue:
POINT I
THE DECISION OF THE STATE POLICE
RETIREMENT BOARD DID NOT FOLLOW THE
LAW AND THEREFORE SHOULD BE REVERSED.
POINT II
THE BOARD'S DECISION DID NOT FOLLOW THIS
COURT'S DECISION IN LAROSA AND
THEREFORE SHOULD BE REVERSED BECAUSE
IT IS ARBITRARY AND CAPRICIOUS.
POINT III
THE DECISION OF THE BOARD VIOLATES THE
PUBLIC POLICY TO CONSTRUE PENSION
STATUTES LIBERALLY, AND THEREFORE,
SHOULD BE REVERSED. (Not Raised Below).
Appellate courts serve a "limited role" in reviewing administrative agency
decisions. In re Stallworth, 208 N.J. 182, 194 (2011) (quoting Henry v. Rahway
A-2090-17T1
10
State Prison, 81 N.J. 571, 579 (1980)). We will not overturn an agency decision
"unless there is a clear showing that it is arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable,
or that it lacks fair support in the record." Stein v. Dep't of Law & Pub. Safety,
458 N.J. Super. 91, 99 (App. Div. 2019) (quoting J.B. v. N.J. State Parole Bd.,
229 N.J. 21, 43 (2017)). When undertaking that analysis, a reviewing court must
scrutinize:
(1) whether the agency's action violates express or
implied legislative policies, that is, did the agency
follow the law; (2) whether the record contains
substantial evidence to support the findings on which
the agency based its action; and (3) whether in applying
the legislative policies to the facts, the agency clearly
erred in reaching a conclusion that could not reasonably
have been made on a showing of the relevant factors.
[Stallworth, 208 N.J. at 194 (quoting In re Carter, 191
N.J. 474, 482-83 (2007)).]
We do not substitute our own judgment for an agency's, even if we might
have reached a different result. Ibid. In addition, courts generally "afford
substantial deference to an agency's interpretation of a statute that the agency is
charged with enforcing. An appellate court, however, is 'in no way bound by
the agency's interpretation of a statute or its determination of a strictly legal
issue.'" Richardson v. Bd. of Trs., Police & Firemen's Ret. Sys., 192 N.J. 189,
196 (2007) (quoting In re Taylor, 158 N.J. 644, 658 (1999)).
A-2090-17T1
11
We affirm substantially for the reasons expressed by the ALJ in her cogent
and comprehensive Initial Decision, which was adopted by the Board without
modification. We add the following comments.
Both the plain language of N.J.S.A. 53:5A-6 and its legislative history
fully support the Board's decision. Appellants did not transfer from any of the
titles enumerated in subsection (a). They are not eligible for the retirement
benefits they seek.
As the ALJ found, adopting appellants' position would render the
inclusion of the enumerated titles set forth in subsection (a) superfluous. "A
construction that would render any part of a statute inoperative, superfluous or
meaningless, is to be avoided." Hoffman v. Hock, 8 N.J. 397, 406-07 (1952)
(citing 2 Sutherland, Statutory Construction § 4705 at 339 (3d ed. 1943)). It
would also be contrary to the maxim of ejusdem generis. See Lewis v. Bd. of
Trs., PERS, 366 N.J. Super. 411, 416 (App. Div. 2004) (stating "the inclusion
of specific words and phrases controls or limits more general words and phrases
in interpreting" statutory language). Had the Legislature intended to include all
titles pensionable under the PERS or PFRS, it would not have listed the
enumerated titles in the 1997 amendment.
A-2090-17T1
12
Appellants' reliance on LaRosa is misplaced.3 The controlling facts in
LaRosa are readily distinguishable from this matter. In LaRosa, each appellant
was previously employed by the ABC and the Division of Gaming and
Enforcement (DGE) as inspectors. They became members of the State Police
on April 12, 1997, after voluntarily transferring from those inspector positions.
LaRosa, slip op. at 4. We noted subsection (a) unambiguously states that
creditable service for purposes of the SPRS includes service as an inspector in
the ABC. Id. at 12. Therefore, "all of appellants' service to the State – including
their stints in PERS – qualify as creditable service under this subsection." Id. at
13. We rejected the Board's position that such PERS creditable service is eroded
by subsection (b). Ibid. Central to that determination was the fact that the
creditable service at issue was accrued in one of the titles enumerated in
subsection (a); whereas appellants in this matter were not employed in any of
the enumerated titles. LaRosa provides no support for appellants' position.
On appeal, appellants argue for the first time that the Board's decision
violates the public policy to construe pension statutes liberally. We disagree.
3
The court will engage in the following analysis of this unreported decision for
the limited purpose of demonstrating that it is factually distinguishable from this
matter. See Ryan v. Gina Marie, L.L.C., 420 N.J. Super. 215, 224 n.2 (App.
Div. 2011).
A-2090-17T1
13
We recognize that a person deemed eligible for benefits is entitled to a
liberal interpretation of the pension statute, Krayniak v. Bd. of Trs., 412 N.J.
Super. 232, 242 (App. Div. 2010), because "pension statutes are 'remedial in
character' and 'should be liberally construed and administered in favor of the
persons intended to be benefitted thereby,'" Klumb v. Bd. of Educ. of
Manalapan-Englishtown Reg. High Sch. Dist., 199 N.J. 14, 34 (2009) (quoting
Geller v. N.J. Dep't of Treasury, Div. of Pensions & Annuity Fund, 53 N.J. 591,
597-98 (1969)).
These well-established interpretative principles do not apply to eligibility
determinations. Krayniak, 412 N.J. Super. at 242; Smith v. State of New Jersey,
Div. of Pensions and Benefits, 390 N.J. Super. 209, 213 (App. Div. 2007). In
light of the fiduciary duties imposed on fund administrators, pension fund
eligibility guidelines "must be carefully interpreted so as not to obscure or
override considerations of . . . a potential adverse impact on the financial
integrity of the [f]und." Krayniak, 412 N.J. Super. at 242 (alterations in original)
(quoting Smith, 390 N.J. Super. at 213).
The issue here is eligibility for a specific benefit – a full service credit
transfer – not the amount owed under that disputed benefit. Because appellants
A-2090-17T1
14
are ineligible for the pension benefits they seek, the rule of liberal construction
does not apply.
Appellants' remaining arguments lack sufficient merit to warrant
discussion in a written opinion. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(E).
In conclusion, the Board's final decision was not arbitrary, capricious, or
unreasonable. The Board correctly determined that the five named State
Troopers and others similarly situated were not eligible for full SPRS value for
prior service credits in the PFRS. Rather, they were only eligible for one percent
of final compensation for each year of such service credit.
Affirmed.
A-2090-17T1
15