|
1. PERSONNEL BOARD HAS AUTHORITY TO CONSTRUE
CITY'S RULES:
A City of Miami Beach Personnel Rule provides that
no person who holds a classified position shall engage in any other
employment or pursue any other gainful occupation than that involved
in his or her City duties, except as such other work shall be formally
approved by a supervisor and by the City Manager. Angelo Paloumbis,
a classified employee working in code enforcement, was fired for moonlighting
at a night club without having received approval from either his supervisor
or from the City Manager. On appeal to the Personnel Board, his termination
was reversed and he was ordered reinstated. In reaching its decision,
the Personnel Board interpreted the rule as requiring an actual conflict
of interest between City employment and the outside employment, which
had not been demonstrated. The City sought Circuit Court certiorari
review of the Personnel Board’s decision. The Court agreed with
the City, rejected the Personnel Board’s interpretation of the
rule, quashed the Personnel Board’s decision and held that the
Personnel Board is limited to determining the truth or untruth of a
charge against an employee, and is thus simply a fact-finding body
unable to construe the rules it enforces and mandated to accept the
City’s interpretation of those rules. On further review by the
Third District Court of Appeal, the Appellate Court reversed: Of necessity
it is the Personnel Board’s task to apply, thus interpret, the
rules and to do so in a rational fashion. Its administrative interpretation
is entitled to judicial deference as long as it is within range of
possible permissible interpretations. Deference is particularly given
where the Board is acting in its field of expertise. Here, the rule
lends itself to several interpretations, including the Personnel Board’s
interpretation that the rule applies only where there is an actual
employee conflict of interest. The cause was remanded to the Circuit
Court for the sole purpose of determining whether there is sufficient
substantial competent evidence before the Personnel Board to uphold
the Personnel Board’s conclusion that there is no actual conflict
of interest in Paloumbis’s double employment. Paloumbis v. City
of Miami Beach, 28 Fla. L. Weekly D395a (Fla. 3d DCA, February 5, 2003).
2. BUCK SURVEY SHOWS ECONOMIC PENSION FUNDING ASSUMPTIONS FOR 2001
PLAN YEAR:
Buck Consultants, Inc. has issued its Survey on Economic
Assumptions used for funding defined benefit pension plans for the
2001 Plan Year. Many of the 312 surveyed employers are Fortune 1000
companies. The survey found that the average funding interest rate
reported was 8.07% (a -.09% change from 1998, the most recent previous
survey). The highest concentration of plan sponsors (37%) used a funding
interest rate of 8.00%. The average equivalent salary increase rate
was 5.02% (down .18% from 1998). The highest concentration of plan
sponsors (25%) used a salary increase rate of 5.00%. A majority of
plans (66%) used the accrued benefit (unit credit) method for determining
contributions, followed by the aggregate method (15.7%). And 91% of
those surveyed used a calendar plan year. Remember that these data
are from 2001 -- over one year ago -- and obviously do not take into
consideration market performance last year.
|
