|
Kaho'ohanohano v. State Page 26 of 46
<br /> C.
<br /> Therefore, as described by the Committee of the Whole, the intent of article XVI, section 2 was in part to provide the
<br /> legislature with the flexibility to "reduce benefits as to . . . persons already in the system in [ ] so [ ] far as their future
<br /> services were concerned[,]" but "[i]t could not, however, reduce the benefits attributable to past services." Committee
<br /> of the Whole Report No. 18, Journal of the Constitutional Convention of 1950, Vol. 1 at 330 (emphases added). As
<br /> discussed above, in 1999, through Act 100, the legislature retroactively divested the ERS of$346.9 million worth of
<br /> employer contributions for 1997, 1998, and 1999. 1999 Haw. Sess. L. Act 100, §§ 1, 9 at 368, 370 ("section 1 shall
<br /> take effect retroactive to July 1, 1996"). This divestment related to the past services of ERS members during 1997,
<br /> 1998, and 1999.E
<br /> Hence, the court was wrong in stating that "the dialogue started by Delegate Tavares and Sakakihara at the 1950
<br /> Constitutional Convention] did address or raise certain concerns regarding the soundness of the system. But that
<br /> appeared to address more of the obligation of the employers to fund the system, and this [c]ourt is not yet convinced
<br /> that Act 100 is a refusal or a rejection of the State to fund" the system. It would be inconsistent with the delegates'
<br /> statements and the Committee of the Whole report to conclude that the delegates intended to afford legislative
<br /> flexibility to the extent that the legislature could ultimately diminish or impair the benefits already accrued and
<br /> contractually guaranteed. That would be in direct conflict with the intent of the delegates in adopting the constitutional
<br /> provision.
<br /> XXXV.
<br /> A.
<br /> In conjunction with Trustees' sixth argument, in order to achieve the goal of protecting the integrity of the ERS
<br /> system, the delegates to the 1950 Constitutional Convention clearly manifested the intent to adopt and follow the then
<br /> New York system. As Delegate Ohrt stated during the 1950 Constitutional Convention, "The present system is
<br /> patterned on the New York system and the New York Constitution has what is in Proposal No. 129." Proceedings of
<br /> the Constitutional Convention of Hawaii of 1950, Vol. 2, at 494 (emphasis added). Proposal No. 129, which
<br /> ultimately became article XVI, section 2, stated in its original form, "Membership in the employees' retirement system
<br /> of the State shall be a contractual relationship, the benefits of which shall not be diminished or impaired." Id.
<br /> (emphasis added). Similarly, the New York Constitution states, "After July first, nineteen hundred forty, membership
<br /> in any pension or retirement system of the state or of a civil division thereof shall be a contractual relationship, the
<br /> benefits of which shall not be diminished or impaired." N.Y. Const. Art. 5, § 7 (emphasis added).
<br /> Later in the proceedings, Delegate Mau explained that in amending the Hawaii Constitution to include Proposal No.
<br /> 129, "we will not be violating any precedents; as a matter of fact, we would be following the great State of New
<br /> York." Id. (emphasis added). Thereafter, Delegate Ohrt, in response to Delegate Heen's question regarding the
<br /> similarity between the proposed language and the "language employed in the New York Constitution," explained that
<br /> the language in Proposal No. 129 was "taken from the New York Constitution." Id. (emphasis added). Additionally, in
<br /> response to a question regarding the necessity of a constitutional amendment, Delegate Ohrt explained,
<br /> I've seen a great deal of work here on the Convention floor.New York State has taken the leadership in this--in pensions,trying to save
<br /> the taxpayers some money. This was done in 1938 in New York. It's functioning well and we think that we are entitled to the same
<br /> protection.Now,our system is practically the same as the New Yorks sy tem.U-2-61i
<br /> Id. at 497 (emphasis added).
<br /> B.
<br /> Shortly before the proceedings as to Proposal No. 129 were completed, the delegates added the word "accrued" before
<br /> "benefits." In adding the word "accrued," the delegates did not express an intent to diverge from following the New
<br /> York system which they had recently lauded numerous times, as discussed supra. Instead, the delegates only sought to
<br /> indicate that there "can be no impairment of past benefits, but that [the] future benefits can be changed by the
<br /> legislature[.]" Id. at 498 (emphasis added).
<br /> http://www.state.hi.us/jud/opinions/sct/2007/26178.htm 8/12/2008
<br />
|