AUSTIN - On Friday, the Texas Supreme Court concluded that the consent of a retirement fund’s board has no bearing on whether a city of Dallas ordinance is valid and enforceable.
Court records show the city filed a petition with the high court after an appellate court found in favor of The Employees’ Retirement Fund of the City of Dallas.
“We must decide whether a city ordinance may bestow on a third party the perpetual right to ‘veto’ categories of future lawmaking,” the opinion states. “We hold that such an alienation of lawmaking authority is impermissible.”
A court of appeals previously held that the city cannot amend Chapter 40A of its own code of ordinances unless the board of trustees of the Employees’ Retirement Fund agrees to the amendment.
Chapter 40A describes the Fund as a “trust fund” and a “public entity” that is “established for the exclusive purpose of providing benefits to members and their beneficiaries.”
According to the opinion, in 2017, without securing board approval, the city council amended Chapter 8 of the City Code to read: “A person who has served on the board of the employees’ retirement fund pursuant to Section 40A-3(a)(1) of this code, 5 as amended, for three consecutive terms, of whatever length of time, will not again be eligible to serve on that same board until at least one term has elapsed, whether service was as a member, chair, or other position on the board.”
The Fund disagreed with the city’s position, invoking its authority to interpret Chapter 40A to adopt a resolution regarding board term limits, the opinion states.
Litigation ensued and the trial court rendered judgment in favor of the city, which was reversed on appeal, court records show.
On appeal to the Supreme Court, the city defended Section 8-1.5(a-1) as valid because that provision does not amend Chapter 40A. The Fund, conversely, argued that Section 8-1.5(a-1), despite its location in the Code, plainly amends Chapter 40A.
Case No. 22-0102