AGO: “Transfer right” provision vague

By
|
Posted on Jun 08 2000
Share

The Attorney General’s Office has advised the Legislature to clarify the provisions of a proposed measure which will allow for the transfer of retirement service credit between spouses.

Assistant Attorney General Elliot A. Sattler said the language in HB 12-109 which creates the “transfer right” is vague and confusing, thus it could be subject to various interpretations.

“This deficiency could create problems in implementing this proposal unless the legislative intent is stated in more definitive language,” Mr. Sattler said.

The concept of allowing one spouse to advance or transfer service credit to the other spouse is not contrary to either the CNMI Constitution or applicable statutory law. He said the Legislature may establish requirements that set forth reasonable criteria to determine a Retirement Fund participant’s vesting eligibility, retirement eligibility and retirement benefits.

However, the AGO prefers that the House Committee on Judiciary and Government Operations be advised more on the implementation of this legislation by the affected agencies such as the Retirement Fund and its Board of Trustees, the Secretary of Finance and individuals who may benefit from this concept when adopted.

Should the Legislature adopt a proposal permitting the transfer of Retirement Fund Credits between spouses, the bill should be amended to clarify what section or sections of applicable CNMI law are being amended; what constitutes a “pay advance” or “transfer” of these credits; what is a “retirement contribution” or “service credit” and whether such “pay advance” or “transfer” is solely for the purpose of determining retirement eligibility or whether such credit may also be used to compute the monetary benefits to be received by the retiree.

Disclaimer: Comments are moderated. They will not appear immediately or even on the same day. Comments should be related to the topic. Off-topic comments would be deleted. Profanities are not allowed. Comments that are potentially libelous, inflammatory, or slanderous would be deleted.