Rockett v. State Board of Retirement

932 N.E.2d 280, 77 Mass. App. Ct. 434, 2010 Mass. App. LEXIS 1139
CourtMassachusetts Appeals Court
DecidedAugust 24, 2010
DocketNo. 09-P-368
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 932 N.E.2d 280 (Rockett v. State Board of Retirement) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Massachusetts Appeals Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Rockett v. State Board of Retirement, 932 N.E.2d 280, 77 Mass. App. Ct. 434, 2010 Mass. App. LEXIS 1139 (Mass. Ct. App. 2010).

Opinion

McHugh, J.

Edward Rockett, a retired Associate Justice of the Probate and Family Court, appeals from a judgment of the [435]*435Superior Court dismissing his appeal from a decision of the Contributory Retirement Appeal Board (CRAB). The CRAB decision denied Rockett’s request to “buy back” for retirement purposes twelve years of his pre-judicial public service, nine of which he spent as an assistant register of probate (assistant register) and three of which he spent as an elected, uncompensated member of the Marblehead school committee. For the reasons that follow, we affirm the Superior Court judgment.

Background. The facts found by a magistrate in the Division of Administrative Law Appeals (DALA), as supplemented by the uncontested portion of the administrative record, reveal that Rockett served as an elected member of the Marblehead school committee from 1967 to 1970. Like other members of the school committee, Rockett was not compensated for his service and made no contributions to any retirement system.

From April, 1972, to May, 1981, Rockett was an assistant register in Essex County. While so employed, he was a member of the State employees’ retirement system (SERS), which is defined and governed by G. L. c. 32, §§ 1-28. Throughout his employment as an assistant register, Rockett made regular contributions to SERS through salary deductions.

In June, 1981, Rockett was appointed an Associate Justice of the Probate and Family Court, a position he held for almost twenty-five years until his retirement in 2006. In his judicial capacity, Rockett was a member of the judicial retirement system, a separate system governed by G. L. c. 32, §§ 65A-65J. Again, he made contributions to that system through salary deductions.

In 1982, shortly after his appointment to the bench, Rockett withdrew all of his contributions from SERS and used the money to pay personal expenses. He made the withdrawal because the approximately nine years of “creditable service” he had earned while employed as an assistant register fell short of the ten years of service required to qualify for a SERS pension. See G. L. c. 32, § 10(2)(b1/2).2

Several years after he withdrew his accumulated contribu[436]*436tions from SERS, Rockett learned of the existence of G. L. c. 32, § 4(l)(a), the pertinent provision of which says that, in calculating creditable service, a “member in service . . . shall be credited with a year of creditable service for each calendar year during which he served as an elected official.”3 Rockett believed that the “elected official” provision of § 4(1 )(a) applied to his service on the Marblehead school committee, and that, when his three years of school committee service were added to his nine years of service as an assistant register, he had enough total service to qualify for a SERS pension upon reaching age fifty-five.

Propelled by that belief, Rockett wrote to the State Board of Retirement (board) in November, 2004, asking to buy back his service as assistant register by redepositing his withdrawn contribution plus interest and asking for credit for his service as a school committee member.4 The board denied Rockett’s request, stating, in essence, that until G. L. c. 32, § 4(l)(o), was amended in 1994, no statutory buy back provision was available to transform unpaid school committee service into creditable service.5 In the process, the board inferentially rejected Rockett’s claim that [437]*437the elected official provision of § 4(1 )(a) entitled him to credit for the three years he had served on the school committee.

Pursuant to G. L. c. 32, § 16(4), Rockett appealed the board’s denial. After a hearing, a DALA magistrate issued a decision (DALA decision) denying the appeal on grounds slightly different from those the board had articulated. The DALA decision stated that, although c. 32, § 4(l)(o), did contain a buy back provision applicable to unpaid school committee service, that provision was applicable only to SERS members. Rockett’s withdrawal of his contribution in 1982, the DALA decision said, ended his membership in SERS and the buy back provisions were unavailable to him thereafter. Rockett appealed again, this time to CRAB, which affirmed the pertinent portions of the DALA decision.6

Rockett appealed the CRAB decision to the Superior Court pursuant to G. L. c. 30A, § 14. A judge of that court issued a memorandum of decision allowing CRAB’s motion for judgment on the pleadings. A judgment dismissing Rockett’s appeal thereafter entered. This appeal followed.

Discussion. Here, Rockett raises two principal contentions. First, he contends, as he has from the outset, that the elected official provision of c. 32, § 4(l)(a), applies to his service as a member of the Marblehead school committee and that, when his school committee service is tacked to his years of service as an assistant register, he has sufficient service for a SERS pension. Second, he claims that CRAB and the Superior Court judge erred in concluding that he was not entitled to buy back his SERS service and realize the pension for which his years of service qualify him. Neither contention is persuasive.

In considering Rockett’s claims, we recognize that “retirement law is notoriously complex” and that CRAB has been charged [438]*438with a principal role in interpreting G. L. c. 32, the governing statute. Namay v. Contributory Retirement Appeal Bd., 19 Mass. App. Ct. 456, 463 (1985). We accept the facts found by CRAB when there is substantial evidence to support them, see Fergione v. Director of the Div. of Employment Security, 396 Mass. 281, 283 (1985), and also accept the reasonable inferences CRAB draws from the facts. See Salem v. Massachusetts Commn. Against Discrimination, 44 Mass. App. Ct. 627, 641 (1998). That said, “[t]he construction of the statute is a matter of law and although the opinion of CRAB is entitled to some weight the courts cannot be bound by an erroneous statutory construction by an administrative body.” McDonough v. Contributory Retirement Appeal Bd., 15 Mass. App. Ct. 14, 15 (1982). Accord Bristol County Retirement Bd. v. Contributory Retirement Appeal Bd., 65 Mass. App. Ct. 443, 451 (2006) (“where a question of law is involved, we act de novo”).

When we review the record with those principles in mind, it is at once apparent that Rockett’s contention regarding the elected official provision of § 4(l)(a) runs headlong into a series of insuperable obstacles. The first of those is the statutory text, which provides “the principal source of insight into Legislative purpose.” Providence & Worcester R.R. v. Energy Facilities Siting Bd., 453 Mass. 135, 142 (2009), quoting from New Bedford v. Energy Facilities Siting Council, 413 Mass. 482, 485 (1992), S.C., 419 Mass. 1003 (1995). In pertinent part, § 4(l)(a), as amended through St. 1947, c. 660, § 3, states as follows:

“Any member in service shall, subject to the provisions and limitations of sections one to twenty-eight inclusive, be credited with all service rendered by him as an employee in any governmental unit after becoming a member of the system pertaining thereto',

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Hunter v. Contributory Retirement Appeal Board
952 N.E.2d 456 (Massachusetts Appeals Court, 2011)
State Board of Retirement v. Contributory Retirement Appeal Board
27 Mass. L. Rptr. 507 (Massachusetts Superior Court, 2010)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
932 N.E.2d 280, 77 Mass. App. Ct. 434, 2010 Mass. App. LEXIS 1139, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rockett-v-state-board-of-retirement-massappct-2010.