State Board of Retirement v. Finneran
476 Mass. 714
| Mass. | 2017Background
- Thomas M. Finneran served as Speaker of the Massachusetts House and as a State Representative; he participated in drafting the 2001 legislative redistricting plan and suggested changes benefiting his district.
- A federal three-judge panel found the redistricting plan had a discriminatory effect; a civil suit revealed Finneran had been involved in the plan's development.
- Finneran falsely testified in a deposition denying prior knowledge or participation in the plan; a federal grand jury later indicted him and he pleaded guilty in 2007 to obstruction of justice (18 U.S.C. § 1503), receiving probation and a fine.
- The State Board of Retirement halted Finneran’s pension under G. L. c. 32, § 15(4) (forfeiture after conviction of an offense violating laws applicable to the office); an administrative hearing officer and the board found forfeiture appropriate.
- A Boston Municipal Court judge reversed, finding no direct link between the conviction and Finneran’s office; the Supreme Judicial Court granted review and reversed the municipal judge, affirming forfeiture.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Finneran’s pension is forfeitable under G. L. c. 32, § 15(4) | Board: conviction involved conduct directly tied to his role as Speaker and thus violates laws applicable to his office | Finneran: no direct factual or legal link between his false testimony and duties as Speaker; statute must be narrowly construed | Court: Forfeiture affirmed — false testimony about actions taken in his capacity as Speaker establishes a direct factual link to his office |
| Whether the statute requires a crime be committed during official duties or reference public employment | Board: §15(4) requires a direct link, not that crime reference employment or be done at work | Finneran: statute should not be stretched; must be closely tied to official duties | Court: Agrees with precedent that direct factual link suffices; crime need not occur during work nor explicitly reference office |
| Whether a direct legal link (violation of law specifically applicable to the office) is required here | Board: factual link is sufficient; legal link not necessary | Finneran: demanded proof of a law specifically tied to his office | Held: Not necessary to decide; factual link exists and is sufficient for forfeiture |
| Whether pension forfeiture violates the Eighth Amendment as an excessive fine | Finneran: forfeiture (~$433,400 present value) is disproportionate to his sentence and thus excessive | Board: offense was a felony tied to public-office conduct with significant potential penalties; forfeiture is proportional | Court: Forfeiture not excessive under Eighth Amendment given felony nature and maximum penalties available |
Key Cases Cited
- State Bd. of Retirement v. Bulger, 446 Mass. 169 (SJC 2006) (statute §15(4) is penal and must be construed narrowly)
- Retirement Bd. of Somerville v. Buonomo, 467 Mass. 662 (SJC 2014) (forfeiture where officeholder violated laws specifically applicable to position)
- Gaffney v. Contributory Retirement Appeal Bd., 423 Mass. 1 (SJC 1996) (requires a direct link between the criminal offense and the office)
- Garney v. Massachusetts Teachers' Retirement Sys., 469 Mass. 384 (SJC 2014) (no forfeiture where criminal conduct lacked connection to public duties)
- Public Employee Retirement Admin. Comm'n v. Bettencourt, 474 Mass. 60 (SJC 2016) (Eighth Amendment excessive-fines proportionality analysis applied to pension forfeiture)