DocketNumber: No. 04AP-1335.
Citation Numbers: 2006 Ohio 5236
Judges: KLATT, P.J.
Filed Date: 10/5/2006
Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 7/6/2016
{¶ 2} Pursuant to Civ.R. 53(D) and Loc.R. 12(M) of the Tenth District Court of Appeals, this matter was referred to a magistrate who issued a decision, including findings of fact and conclusions of law. (Attached as Appendix A.) Relying upon R.C.
{¶ 3} Respondents have filed objections to the magistrate's decision. Respondents first argue that the magistrate erred by looking to language in R.C.
{¶ 4} Although R.C.
{¶ 5} R.C.
{¶ 6} Contrary to the conclusion reached by the magistrate, we fail to see how the governor's obligation under R.C.
{¶ 7} Respondents also argue that relators have no clear right to a writ of mandamus because R.C.
{¶ 8} R.C.
In the event of a proposal to close a state institution * * * the employing unit responsible for the institution's operation shall establish a retirement incentive plan for persons employed at the institution.
{¶ 9} R.C.
A retirement incentive plan established under this section shall be consistent with the requirements of section
{¶ 10} Contrary to respondents' contention, we fail to find ambiguity in this statutory language. R.C.
{¶ 11} Respondents argue that the meaning of the word "announced" is ambiguous. Again, we disagree.
{¶ 12} The polestar of statutory interpretation is legislative intent, which a court best gleans from the words the General Assembly used and the purpose it sought to accomplish. Where the wording of a statute is clear and unambiguous, this court's only task is to give effect to the words used. State v.Elam (1994),
{¶ 13} The word "announced" is not specifically defined in R.C.
{¶ 14} The parties stipulated that on February 4, 2003, the superintendent of ACDC released a memorandum to all ACDC employees which stated in relevant part:
Due to the unprecedented crisis in the state budget, ODMRDD has determined that Apple Creek Developmental Center (ACDC) will close. Our Department projects this to occur by June 30, 2006.
{¶ 15} Furthermore, on or about February 5, 2003, ODMRDD posted an article on its website entitled "ODMRDD NamesDevelopmental Centers To Be Closed." The first sentence of the article states:
Developmental Centers in Apple Creek and Springfield will be closed as a result of severe budget deficits facing the State of Ohio.
{¶ 16} Under any reasonable interpretation, these communications from the superintendent of ACDC and from ODMRDD constituted public announcements of ODMRDD's proposal to close ACDC, thereby triggering the requirements set forth in R.C.
{¶ 17} Respondents contend that requiring ODMRDD to offer employees early retirement opportunities while the desirability of the closure is still being debated is unduly expensive and potentially disruptive to the continued operation of the developmental center. Essentially, respondents challenge the General Assembly's wisdom in enacting these provisions. However, it is not this court's role to second-guess the General Assembly's policy decisions. Respondents concede that the plain purpose of R.C.
{¶ 18} Respondents also object to the magistrate's decision because the decision purports to require respondents to offer an ERIP to eligible employees of Springview. Respondents point out that all of the relators are employees, or former employees of ODMRDD, working or formally working at ACDC. None of relators worked at Springview. Therefore, respondents contend that relators lack standing to seek a writ of mandamus requiring respondents to offer an ERIP to Springview employees. Apparently, relators do not dispute this contention.1
{¶ 19} We agree that none of the relators have standing to assert any rights with respect to the Springview facility. Therefore, we sustain this objection.
{¶ 20} Lastly, respondents argue that this action is moot as to all relators except the seven ACDC employees who retired between February 4, 2003, when the closure announcement was made, and June 19, 2005, the date ODMRDD offered the ERIP. We agree.
{¶ 21} Making the ERIP available retroactively to February 4, 2003 to those ACDC employees who did not retire prior to June 19, 2005 (the date on which the ERIP was instituted) would be a vain act because those employees worked during that period of time. Employees cannot retroactively retire. Mandamus will not lie to compel a vain act or to resolve a dispute that has become moot.State ex rel. Morenz v. Kerr,
{¶ 22} Following an independent review of this matter, we find that magistrate has properly determined the facts and, therefore, we adopt the magistrate's findings of fact. We adopt the magistrate's conclusions of law as modified by this opinion. In accordance with the magistrate's decision, as modified, we grant a writ of mandamus ordering respondents to construe the effective date of the ERIP for the seven eligible ACDC employees/relators as February 4, 2003. In doing so, respondents have the discretion to limit the number of eligible employees as provided by law and to only offer a one-year purchase of service credit. R.C.
Objections sustained in part and overruled in part; writ ofmandamus granted.
Petree and McGrath, JJ., concur.
Relators, :
v. : No. 04AP-1335
William E. Green, Superintendent, : Apple Creek Developmental Center and Kenneth W. Ritchey, Director, : Ohio Department of Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities, :
Respondents. :
Jim Petro, Attorney General, Nicole S. Moss, Sloan T.Spalding, and Jack W. Decker, for respondents.
Findings of Fact:
{¶ 24} 1. There are 52 relators in this action who are employees or former employees of the ODMRDD, employed or formerly employed at ACDC.
{¶ 25} 2. ACDC is one of 12 facilities in the state of Ohio operated under the jurisdiction of the ODMRDD. As such, ACDC is a "state institution" as that term is used in R.C.
{¶ 26} 3. William E. Green is the superintendent of ACDC.
{¶ 27} 4. On February 4, 2003, Green authored a memorandum directed to all employees of ACDC informing the employees of the following:
Due to the unprecedented crisis in the state budget, ODMRDD has determined that Apple Creek Developmental Center (ACDC) will close. Our Department projects this to occur by June 30, 2006. * * *
* * *
There will obviously be a great deal of work needed on behalf of both the residents and you, the staff of ACDC, in order to accomplish this task. We will immediately begin designing a placement model to assist residents and their guardians/love ones, based upon individual choice, to select state-operated or community residential services.
In addition, the collective bargaining agreements shall be adhered to for bargaining unit members and the Ohio Administrative Code will be followed for bargaining unit exempt employees. There will be an early retirement incentive program (ERIP) offered at ACDC and the Department is also looking at additional alternatives such as (i.e., employment opportunities which may occur in other centers).
{¶ 28} 5. The following day, on February 5, 2003, an article was placed on the website for ODMRDD indicating that "Developmental Centers in Apple Creek and Springfield will be closed as a result of severe budget deficits facing the State of Ohio. * * * Springview will close by June 30, 2005, and Apple Creek by June 30, 2006."
{¶ 29} 6. R.C.
{¶ 30} 7. On June 1, 2004, the closure commission presented its report to the governor and recommended that both ACDC and Springview Developmental Center ("Springview") be closed.
{¶ 31} 8. On June 20, 2005, Green issued a memorandum to all employees of ACDC informing them of the Early Retirement Incentive Plan ("ERIP") which had been approved. That memorandum provided the following relevant information:
We have received approval to make available the mandatory 1 year Early Retirement Incentive Plan (ERIP) for Apple Creek Developmental Center (ACDC) by the end of the month and will soon have an effective date. The plan will be open on the effective date and remain in effect until the day that ACDC closes. * * *
You are eligible for the Retirement Incentive Plan if you meet the eligibility requirements of Section
• A member, who has passed his or her sixtieth birthday and has (or will have with the ERI) five or more years of total service credit; or
• A member who has (or will have with the ERI) twenty-five or more years of service credit and has attained his or her fifty-fifth birthday; or
• A member who has (or will have with the ERI) thirty or more years of total Ohio service credit, regardless of age.
{¶ 32} 9. Seven of the relators identified in the within action retired after February 4, 2003 but before June 19, 2005.2
{¶ 33} 10. On April 1, 2005, an ERIP was offered to the employees of Springview, scheduled to close between July 1 and July 9, 2005. Just as the ERIP for ACDC, the ERIP for Springview allowed for the purchase of one year of service credit.
{¶ 34} 11. On September 8, 2004, an arbitrator found that the grievance regarding the time of and the extent of the ERIP was not arbitrable under the collective bargaining agreement.
{¶ 35} 12. On December 13, 2004, relators filed the within mandamus action alleging the following: (1) respondents were required to make available an ERIP relative to the closure of ACDC and Springview in February 2003, when it was first "announced" that those centers would be closed; and (2) respondents were required to offer a five-year ERIP to relators because such a plan was approved in August 1989 when the Broadview Developmental Center closed.
Conclusions of Law:
{¶ 36} The Supreme Court of Ohio has set forth three requirements which must be met in establishing a right to a writ of mandamus: (1) that relator has a clear legal right to the relief prayed for; (2) that respondent is under a clear legal duty to perform the act requested; and (3) that relator has no plain and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of the law.State ex rel. Berger v. McMonagle (1983),
{¶ 37} As stated previously, there are two issues in the present case: (1) whether respondents were required to make available an ERIP relative to the closure of ACDC and Springview in February 2003 when it was first "announced" that those centers would be closed; and (2) whether respondents were required to offer a five-year ERIP to relators because such a plan was approved in August 1989 when the Broadview Developmental Center closed.
{¶ 38} Relative to the first issue, relators contend that respondents were required to offer an ERIP as of February 4, 2003, the date of Green's memorandum indicating that ACDC and Springview were slated for closure. Relators contend that Green's memorandum constituted the "announcement" anticipated by R.C.
{¶ 39} Relative to the second issue, relators contends that respondents were required to offer them the maximum number of years permitted by law under R.C.
{¶ 40} R.C.
{¶ 41} Pursuant to R.C.
Any classified or unclassified employee of the employing unit who is a member of the public employees retirement system shall be eligible to participate in the retirement incentive plan established by the employee's employing unit if the employee meets the following criteria:
(1) The employee is not any of the following:
(a) An elected official;
(b) A member of a board or commission;
(c) A person elected to serve a term of fixed length;
(d) A person appointed to serve a term of fixed length * * *.
(2) The employee is or will be eligible to retire under section
(3) The employee agrees to retire under section
{¶ 42} R.C.
Participation in the plan shall be available to all eligible employees except that the employing unit may limit the number of participants in the plan to a specified percentage of its employees who are members of the public employees retirement system on the date the plan goes into effect. The percentage shall not be less than five per cent of such employees. * * *
{¶ 43} Furthermore, pursuant to subsection (D), each retirement incentive plan "shall provide for purchase of the same amount of service credit for each participating employee, except that the employer may not purchase more service credit for any employee than the lesser of the following: (1) Five years of service credit; (2) An amount of service credit equal to one-fifth of the total service credited to the participant under this chapter, exclusive of service credit purchased under this section."
{¶ 44} R.C.
(A) As used in this section:
(1) "State employing unit" means an employing unit described in division (A)(2) of section
(2) "State institution" means a state correctional facility, a state institution for the mentally ill, or a state institution for the care, treatment, and training of the mentally retarded.
(B) In the event of a proposal to close a state institution * * *, the employing unit responsible for the institution's operation shall establish a retirement incentive plan for persons employed at the institution.
* * *
(D)(1) A retirement incentive plan established under this section shall be consistent with the requirements of section
{¶ 45} Partially in response to the anticipated closures of ACDC and Springview, the Ohio Legislature passed R.C.
(B) * * * Notwithstanding any other provision of law, if the governor announced on or after January 1, 2003, and prior to the effective date of this section the intended closure of a developmental center and if the closure identified in theannouncement has not occurred prior to the effective date of this section, the closure identified in the announcement shall be subject to the criteria set forth in this section as if theannouncement had been made on or after the effective date of this section * * *.
(C) * * * Notwithstanding any other provision of law, if the governor announced on or after January 1, 2003, and prior to the effective date of this section the intended closure of a developmental center and if the closure identified in theannouncement has not occurred prior to the effective date of this section, not later than ten days after the effective date of this section, the governor shall notify the general assembly in writing of the prior announcement and that the governor intends to close the center identified in the prior announcement, and the notification to the general assembly shall constitute, for purposes of this section, the governor's official, public announcement that the governor intends to close that center.
* * * When the governor notifies the general assembly as required by this division, the legislative service commission promptly shall conduct an independent study of the developmental centers of the department of mental retardation and developmental disabilities and of the department's operation of the centers, and the study shall address relevant criteria and factors * * *.
* * *
(D) The legislative service commission shall complete the study required by division (C) of this section, and prepare a report that contains its findings, not later than sixty days after the governor makes the official, public announcement that the governor intends to close one or more developmental centers as described in division (C) of this section. * * *
Not later than the date on which the legislative service commission is required to complete the report under this division, the mental retardation and developmental disabilities developmental center closure commission is hereby created as described in division (E) of this section. * * * (E)(1) A mental retardation and developmental disabilities developmental center closure commission shall be created at the time and in the manner specified in division (D) of this section. * * *
The closure commission shall meet as often as is necessary for the purpose of making the recommendations to the governor that are described in this division. The closure commission's meetings shall be open to the public, and the closure commission shall accept public testimony. * * * The closure commission shall meet for the purpose of making recommendations to the governor, which recommendations may include all of the following:
(a) Whether any developmental center should be closed;
(b) If the recommendation described in division (E)(1)(a) of this section is that one or more developmental centers should be closed, which center or centers should be closed;
(c) If the governor's notice described in division (C) of this section identifies by name one or more developmental centers that the governor intends to close, whether the center or centers so identified should be closed.
(2) The mental retardation and developmental disabilities developmental center closure commission, not later than sixty days after it receives the report of the legislative service commission under division (D) of this section, shall prepare a report containing its recommendations to the governor. * * * Upon receipt of the closure commission's report, the governor shall review and consider the commission's recommendation. The governor shall do one of the following:
(a) Follow the recommendation of the commission;
(b) Close no developmental center;
(c) Take other action that the governor determines is necessary for the purpose of expenditure reductions or budget cuts and state the reasons for the action.
The governor's decision is final. Upon the governor's making of the decision, the closure commission shall cease to exist. Another closure commission shall be created under this section each time the governor subsequently makes an official, publicannouncement that the governor intends to close one or more developmental centers.
(Emphasis added.)
{¶ 46} Relators and respondents have spent the majority of their briefs discussing what constitutes the "announcement" of a proposed closing to trigger the effective date of a retirement incentive plan created under R.C.
(D)(1) A retirement incentive plan established under this section shall be consistent with the requirements of section
(Emphasis added.)
{¶ 47} As stated previously, relators contend that the February 4, 2003 memorandum from Green constitutes the "announcement" for purposes of triggering the effective date of the ERIP in question. In contrast, respondents contend that, for all practical purposes, the date of the "announcement" must be significantly later due to the numerous hurdles which must be crossed before a center can be closed. According to respondents, there are many "proposals" and "announcements" regarding the closure of any state institution. As such, the parties contend that the word "announcement" is ambiguous and make numerous arguments suggesting that this court interpret the word one way or another. However, upon review of the entire matter, the magistrate finds this to be a relatively easy question to answer.
{¶ 48} R.C.
* * * Notwithstanding any other provision of law, if the governor announced on or after January 1, 2003, and prior to the effective date of this section the intended closure of a developmental center and if the closure identified in theannouncement has not occurred prior to the effective date of this section, the closure identified in the announcement shall be subject to the criteria set forth in this section as if theannouncement had been made on or after the effective date of this section * * *.
(Emphasis added.)
{¶ 49} Furthermore, subsection (C) provides:
* * * Notwithstanding any other provision of law, if the governor announced on or after January 1, 2003, and prior to the effective date of this section the intended closure of a developmental center and if the closure identified in theannouncement has not occurred prior to the effective date of this section, not later than ten days after the effective date of this section, the governor shall notify the general assembly in writing of the prior announcement and that the governor intends to close the center identified in the prior announcement, and the notification to the general assembly shall constitute, for purposes of this section, the governor's official, public announcement that the governor intends to close that center.
(Emphasis added.)
{¶ 50} R.C.
{¶ 51} With respect to relators' second issue, the magistrate finds that the statute is equally clear here. Pursuant to R.C.
{¶ 52} Based on the foregoing, the magistrate finds that relators have demonstrated that they are entitled to a writ of mandamus ordering respondents to construe the effective date of the offering of the ERIP for the eligible employees of Apple Creek Developmental Center and Springview Developmental Center from the date in early January when Governor Robert Taft announced his intent to close these centers. In doing so, respondents have the discretion to limit the number of eligible employees to five percent of the employees and, to the extent that any of those employees who are relators herein who would have been eligible, they can then decide whether they would have accepted respondents' offer or not. Furthermore, respondents clearly had the discretion to only offer a one-year purchase of service credits.