June 26, 1987
Subject:
Law Enforcement; Retirement; Supplemental Retirement Income Plan; Counties; Municipal Corporations
Requested By:
Sheriff John H. Baker, Jr.
Wake County Sheriff’s Department
Question:
May a local government employer use a local law enforcement officer’s salary increase, or a portion thereof, to fund the employer’s contribution to the Supplemental Retirement Income Plan as required in G.S. § 143-166.50(e)?
Conclusion:
No.
As of January 1, 1987, G.S. § 143-166.50(e) made all law enforcement officers employed by a local government employer a member of the Supplemental Retirement Income Plan as provided in Article 5 of Chapter 135 of the General Statutes. Contributions to the Supplemental Retirement Income Plan of Local law enforcement officers are provided for in three ways.
First, G.S. § 135-93(a) provides that each member "may elect to reduce his compensation" and contribute that amount to that officer’s own Supplemental Retirement Income Plan account. This provision is supported and supplemented by G.S. § 143166.50(e) which provides that an officer "may make voluntary contributions to the Supplemental Retirement Income Plan to be credited to" that officer’s individual account, provided the officer’s contribution does not exceed ten percent (10%) of the officer’s compensation within the calendar year.
Second, G.S. § 135-93(b) provides that a local government employer "may make contributions to the Supplemental Retirement Income Plan on behalf of any of its members. . . ." This provision authorizes local governments to make voluntary contributions to the Supplemental retirement Income Plan account of their employees.
Third, G.S. § 143-166.50(e) provides that local government employers of law enforcement officers shall contribute an amount equal to at least two percent (2%) of the officer’s monthly compensation to the Supplemental Retirement Income Plan to be credited to the officer’s account. The two percent (2%) contribution is effective on and after July 1, 1987 and the contribution is raised to five percent (5%) effective July 1, 1988.
The operative language in G.S. § 143-166.50(e) specifies that the contribution by the employer be "an amount equal to" at least two percent (2%) [five percent (5%) effective 7/1/88] of participating local officers’ monthly compensation. The language selected and ultimately enacted by the General Assembly clearly does not contemplate that the specified contribution be a percentage "of" the officers’ monthly compensation. If the General Assembly had intended for local government employers to require officers to fund this contribution by the officer paying a percentage "of" the officers’ own salary, or salary increase, the General Assembly would have clearly specified as such.
By the language specifying that the employer shall make a contribution of "an amount equal to" at least two percent (2%) [five percent (5%) effective 7/1/88] of participating local officer’s monthly compensation, it is clear that the General Assembly neither contemplated nor intended for this mandated contribution to be funded from the officer’s own salary, or salary increase.
LACY H. THORNBURG Attorney General
William W. Melvin Senior Deputy Attorney General