2002_1202_packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Likewise, in the present case, the State Defendants did not follow a judicial process for finding facts and reaching a legal conclusion. The State Defendants learned that Plaintiffs had received PERA service credit at the same time they received annual service credit through the Hastings Relief Association. There is no evidence the State Defendants undertook any specific factual in��estigation ��ith respect to Plaintiffs' firefighter service or considered legal arguments from competing parties. Rather, the State Defendants' acts would be considered legislative or administrative in nature. In both cases, review by certiorari is not available. See Western Area Business and Civic Club v. Duluth School Board Independent District No. 709, 324 N. W.2d 361, 364 (Minn. 1982). 3. The individual plaintiffs are entitled to receive pension service credits through the Hastings Relief Association for the period of 1990 to 1997. The issue in this case is apparently one of first impression. While the 1989 pE� amendment clearly precludes firefighters from obtaining PERA pension credit for work they perform in connection with their volunteer duties, Minn. Stat. � 424A does not prohibit volunteers fram receiving relief association pension credit �cith respect to work they perform as a salaried tire department employee. There is no case law addressing this alleged inconsistency. The State Defendants argue that the dual pension situation that e�sts in this case is inconsistent �� ith the goal of the 1989 PERq amendment and that allowing Plaintiffs to obtain service credit under both systems amounts to impermissible "double dipping". The parties agree this case does not present a PERA issue. Indeed, PER4 chose not to reimburse the City of Hastings and Plaintiffs for the PERA contributions they made in connection with unscheduled, non-mandatory overtime work. pERA is, apparently, willing to �I