Chapter 10, Article 11 NMSA 1978 may be cited as the “Public Employees Retirement Act”.
HISTORY:
Laws 1987, ch. 253, § 1.
Notes to Decisions
Constitutionality.
Although the Public Employees Retirement Act conferred property rights that vested upon accumulating the minimum earned service credits, those rights did not include the right to receive pension benefits exempt from tax, and the repeal of the tax exemption for such benefits did not violate N.M. Const. art II § 18 and 20 or U.S. Const. amends. V §§ and XIV, § 1. Pierce v. State, 1996-NMSC-001, 121 N.M. 212, 910 P.2d 288, 1995 N.M. LEXIS 406 (N.M. 1995).
Title of the bill repealing the tax exemption for benefits under the Judicial Retirement Act, 10-12B-1 NMSA 1978 et seq., the Public Employees Retirement Act, the Magistrate Retirement Act, 10-12C-1 NMSA 1978 et seq., and the Educational Retirement Act, 22-11-1 NMSA 1978 et seq., was sufficiently related to the contents of the bill to pass muster on constitutional grounds under N.M. Const. art IV § 16. Pierce v. State, 1996-NMSC-001, 121 N.M. 212, 910 P.2d 288, 1995 N.M. LEXIS 406 (N.M. 1995).
Employees.
Grant of mandamus writ in a class action ordering refund of service credit cost was improper when cost statute was ambiguous, permitting application of “rejection-of-literal language” approach; thus, the higher cost under board’s regulation was lawful. State ex rel. Helman v. Gallegos, 1994-NMSC-023, 117 N.M. 346, 871 P.2d 1352, 1994 N.M. LEXIS 123 (N.M. 1994).
Where a magistrate claimed entitlement to retirement benefits under the Public Employees Retirement Act, he was not an elected official entitled to benefits; the magistrate did not become an elected official because his election after retirement merely allowed the magistrate to retain his status as an elected official when he began his successive term and he did not become an elected official when he began the successive term. Rainaldi v. Public Employees Retirement Bd., 1993-NMSC-028, 115 N.M. 650, 857 P.2d 761, 1993 N.M. LEXIS 207 (N.M. 1993).
Evidence.
In a mandamus proceeding seeking to compel a city and its city council to make remittance for money allegedly owing because of the city’s alleged failure to exempt itself from the Public Employees Retirement Act, former 5-5-2, 1953 Comp. there was sufficient evidence to support the court’s finding that the city had, in fact, exempted itself from the Act; even though there was no record of exemption in the files of the public employees’ retirement board at the time of trial, the board’s chairman had, on one point, driven over 300 miles in an attempt to convince the city to voluntarily come under the Act’s provisions. State ex rel. Wilson v. Hobbs, 1957-NMSC-063, 63 N.M. 83, 313 P.2d 1053, 1957 N.M. LEXIS 937 (N.M. 1957).
OPINIONS OF ATTORNEY GENERAL
Analysis
Authority of city to pay part of premium.
Generally.
Under 1987 N.M. Laws, ch. 253, § 139, which allowed members of the public employees retirement association to purchase service credit and retire under the Public Employees Retirement Act, a public employee was not permitted to purchase service, retire, and promptly return to public employment. 1988 N.M. Op. Att'y Gen. No. 88-45, 1988 N.M. AG LEXIS 49.
Authority of city to pay part of premium.
The City of Las Cruces may not pay a portion of its retirees’ health insurance premium costs for employees who retire under the Public Employees Retirement Act (“PERA”). 1989 N.M. Op. Att'y Gen. No. 89-04, 1989 N.M. AG LEXIS 21.
Construction with other law.
Public employees retirement association may not calculate a retiree’s benefits by including a lump sum annual leave payment of 586.56 hours where that retiree was covered under the Albuquerque police officers’ association’s collective bargaining agreement with the city, that permitted cash compensation upon termination for “any” unused vacation. 1998 N.M. Op. Att'y Gen. No. 88-23, 1988 N.M. AG LEXIS 26.
Correctional officers.
The legislature determined that correctional officers are “policemen” within the meaning of state statutes and, therefore, intended that they be excluded from social security coverage. Likewise, correctional officer specialists, whose custodial and security duties are virtually identical to that of correctional officers and whose police-type duties are concomitant with the performance of other duties in the nature of supervising the work of prisoners, must also be considered as coming within this legislative classification of “policemen” for purposes of the exclusion from social security coverage. 1981 Op. Atty. Gen. No. 81-3, 1981 N.M. AG LEXIS 22, (decided under former 10-11-1J(1) NMSA 1978).