pension.
There are two problems with the Appellate Division’s interpreta-
tion of the statute and the result in this case:
First, the Appellate Division neglected to examine the legislative
history because it determined that the language of the statute was
not unclear or ambiguous and application of that language did not
lead to an absurd result. This, however, is incorrect.
The phrase “Any member of the retirement system as of the ef-
fective date of P.L.1999, c. 428…” is ambiguous. The phrase can be
read either as the board and Appellate Division have interpreted it,
namely that an officer must be a member of the system as of Jan. 18,
2000, to receive a 20-year service pension or the phrase can be read
to indicate that, as of the effective date of the statute, any member
of PFRS who has 20 years of service credit may put in for a 20-year
service pension. Therefore, the language as written in the statute
clearly is ambiguous because the same phrase may be interpreted
to mean two completely different things.
Second, had the board and the court examined the legislative
history of the statute, they would have learned that the purpose of
N.J.S.A. 43:16A-5(3) was to make the provisions of PFRS more sim-
ilar to those of the State Police Retirement System (SPRS), which
contains a provision allowing for a “20-and-out” service pension.
The sponsor’s statements to both the Senate and Assembly bills
that became N.J.S.A. 43:16A-5(3) provide as follows:
This bill would allow a member retiring after 20 years of cred-
itable service to receive a total retirement allowance of 50 per-
cent of final compensation.
Yet further indication that the legislative intent in passing
N.J.S.A. 43:16A-5 was to provide all members of PFRS with the abil-
ity to retire on a 20-year service pension can be found in the official
legislative history curated by the New Jersey State Law Library. A
newspaper article written contemporaneously with the passage of
the legislation that became Chapter 428, under the title “Early re-
tirement OK’d for cops, firefighters,” provides as follows:
TRENTON -- Gov. Christie Whitman signed a law yesterday al-
lowing police officers and paid firefighters to retire with pensions
after 20 years and to give pensions to survivors whose spouses die
while off duty. The law permits many emergency-services person-
nel to retire if they chose to while in their 40s with a pension set at
half their highest annual salary...State troopers and their families
currently enjoy the 20-year retirement and their survivors’ quality
for life pensions currently...One sponsor, Assemblyman John Kelly,
R-Essex, said it was only fair to match benefits between troopers
and local police.
The article does not indicate that the benefit conferred by the
legislation is only available to employees who are members of the
PFRS as of the effective date of the legislation. Therefore, it is ap-
parent that the legislature and executive in passage and enactment
of Chapter 428 intended to grant members of PFRS the option of
receiving a service retirement with 20 years of pension credit. This
necessarily includes members of PFRS who have transferred their
PERS time into the PFRS system. Inelegant statutory drafting is not
a valid basis upon which to circumvent legislative and executive
intent.
Accordingly, your PBA attorneys and representatives are working
to ensure that the correct result is achieved in clarifying the provi-
sions of N.J.S.A. 43:16A-5(3), reversing the Tasca decision and en-
suring that the intent of the legislature and executive in enacting
Chapter 428 is enforced.
A former municipal police officer, county corrections officer and mu-
nicipal prosecutor, Stuart J. Alterman has represented law enforce-
ment officers for more than 25 years in all areas of employment is-
sues. He is an NJ State PBA Lifetime Silver Card recipient.
www.njcopsmagazine.com
■ FEBRUARY 2019 25