2002_1202_packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

checked out for more than 30 days in a year. The By-laws do not place any limitations on how many and under what circumstances its members may obtain pension credit under PERA. The State Defendants assert that even if the two pension schemes are not inherently inconsistent, the Plaintiffs ha�e failed to meet their burden of showing they actually worked as volunteers from 1990 through 1997. This argument overlooks the fact that Plaintiffs' membership in the Hastings Relief Association, rather than any particular volunteer duties, is what govems their entitlement to pension credit. Plaintiffs' participation in the Hastings Relief Association is governed by factors other than the number of hours they actually worked as volunteers during the relevant years. It is the volunteer's pro�mity to a fire and his or her almost continuous a�ailability that lies at the heart of the volunteer firefighter system. Plaintiffs ha�e presented sufficient evidence, through the affida�its of Mark Holmes and their attachments and the Hastings Relief Association's annual reports, that Plaintiffs complied with all of the requirement for membership in the Association from 1990 to 1997. Plaintiffs do not need to prove anything else in that regard. Neither the Hastings Relief Association's By-laws nor Minn. Stat. 5 424A prohibit Plaintiffs from receiving relief association pension credit for the relevant years. Although there is merit to the State Defendants' contention that the dual pension benefits presents an opportunity for "double dipping", it is for the Legislature, not this Court, to change this situation. The Legislature did so uith respect to PERA and has the authority to amend the relief association pension provisions a1so. Plaintiffs are entitled to receive pension service credit from the Hastings Relief Association for the years 1990 to 1997. The State Defendants may not deny 13