Rotondi v. Contributory Retirement Appeal Board
463 Mass. 644
| Mass. | 2012Background
- Rotondi served as elected town moderator of Stoneham from 1993 to 2011 and earned $100 annually until 1999, then $200 thereafter, plus health insurance.
- In 2001 Rotondi joined the state retirement system as a DEP employee; he later sought to purchase credit for eight years as an elected moderator in Stoneham.
- Stoneham retirement board denied membership in 2002 for not applying within 90 days of election; Rotondi reapplied in 2003 and board deferred, seeking guidance on § 3(2)(d)’s $200 threshold.
- PERAC advised elected officials’ eligibility is not limited by the $200 threshold, but the board denied Rotondi based on the salary being $200 or less.
- CRAB and the Superior Court upheld the board’s interpretation; Rotondi and PERAC appealed; the cases were consolidated; remand occurred to examine legislative history.
- Court holds that the $200 threshold applies to any person, including elected officials, and that health insurance contributions and association dues are not fixed annual compensation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does § 3(2)(d) apply to elected officials? | Rotondi: elected officials exempt from § 3(2)(d). | Rotondi: § 3(2)(d) applies to any person under the statute. | Yes, applies to any person. |
| Is health insurance and association dues value part of fixed annual compensation? | Rotondi: benefits push annual compensation above $200. | Rotondi: benefits are not fixed annual compensation. | No; not part of fixed annual compensation. |
| Does electing official status affect membership eligibility under § 3(2)(d)? | Rotondi: elected status confers automatic membership | Rotondi: eligibility conditioned by § 3(2)(d) despite § 3(2)(a)(vi). | No automatic exemption; § 3(2)(d) governs eligibility universally. |
Key Cases Cited
- Bulger v. Contributory Retirement Appeal Bd., 447 Mass. 651 (Mass. 2006) (deference to agency expertise in retirement law; statutory interpretation)
- Brackett v. Civil Serv. Comm’n, 447 Mass. 233 (Mass. 2006) (agency deference; statutory interpretation)
- Protective Life Ins. Co. v. Sullivan, 425 Mass. 615 (Mass. 1997) (agency deference; statutory interpretation)
- Pelonzi v. Retirement Bd. of Beverly, 451 Mass. 475 (Mass. 2008) (regular compensation vs noncash benefits; retirement base)
- Hallett v. Contributory Retirement Appeal Bd., 431 Mass. 66 (Mass. 2000) (definition of regular compensation; retirement costs predictability)
- Boston Ass’n of Sch. Adm’rs & Supervisors v. Boston Retirement Bd., 383 Mass. 336 (Mass. 1981) (intent to control retirement costs; limits on compensation)