Commonwealth of Massachusetts | Public Employee Retirement Administration Commission
Five Middlesex Avenue, Suite 304, Somerville, MA 02145
Ph 617 666 4446 | Fax 617 628 4002 | TTY 617 591 8917 | www.mass.gov/perac
Domenic J. F. Russo, Chairman | A. Joseph DeNucci, Vice Chairman
Mary Ann Bradley | Paul V. Doane | Kenneth J. Donnelly | James M. Machado | Donald R. Marquis
Joseph E. Connarton, Executive Director
M E M O R A N D U M
TO: All Retirement Boards
FROM: Joseph E. Connarton Executive Director
RE: SJC decision in Maher v. Retirement Board of Quincy
DATE: November 14, 2008
The Supreme Judicial Court issued its much-anticipated determination in the matter of Maher v. Retirement Board of Quincy on November 6, 2008. A copy of the decision is attached. Maher addresses whether a member’s pension forfeiture, mandated by the operation of G.L. c. 32, § 15(4), violated his rights under the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The Court has held that his Constitutional rights were not violated and his pension was properly forfeited.
Maher was a chief plumbing and gas inspector for the City of Quincy. He wanted to strengthen the possibility of being reappointed to his post by an incoming mayor. Consequently, in late 2001, he and another employee broke into City Hall and while there, Maher examined his personnel file and removed part of it. In gaining entry to the Human Resources office at City Hall, Maher damaged the door to that office. He later pled guilty to three crimes: breaking and entering in the daytime with intent to commit a felony; stealing in a building; and wanton destruction of property. He was given probation for each conviction, had to make restitution in the amount of $393, and had to pay a fine in the amount of $500.
Maher retired for superannuation in 2002. Following his convictions, the Quincy Retirement Board properly instituted forfeiture proceedings against him. The Board determined that Maher had been convicted of crimes related to his office or position, and that his pension should be forfeited. Maher appealed to the District Court. After a complicated history of decisions by various courts, the case finally found its way to the SJC.
Maher’s argument before the SJC was that the District Court judge had erred in concluding that Maher had not met his burden of proving that the forfeiture violated the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The Eighth Amendment provides:
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
The SJC determined that the total amount of pension forfeiture, approximately $576,000, compared to the gravity of the offenses to which Maher had pled guilty, was not “grossly disproportional.” Therefore, the SJC upheld the lower court, affirming that Maher’s pension was properly forfeited under the law.
Of note, the SJC declined to decide whether the excessive fines clause of the U.S. Constitution applies to pension forfeiture. The Court rendered its decision by assuming, “without deciding, that…the District Court judge correctly ruled that the excessive fines clause applied to the pension forfeiture provision of G.L. c. 32, § 15(4).” With this assumption as a backdrop, the SJC reached its determination by conducting an analysis as to whether the forfeiture was excessive, comparing the magnitude of the forfeiture and the gravity of the triggering offenses. By not addressing whether the excessive fines clause of the 8th Amendment applies to pension forfeiture, the SJC has left the door open for future appeals of pension forfeiture determinations on the basis of such excessive fines clause.
In concluding that Maher should forfeit his pension, the SJC looked at the harm caused by his offenses and the maximum penalties set by the Legislature as punishment for the offenses. The SJC also emphasized, “[W]e view the potential harm to the public trust caused by Maher’s actions as equally important to our analysis as any potential harm his actions might have caused to the public fisc.”
The SJC has remanded this case to the District Court where judgment will enter for the Quincy Retirement Board.
/b
p:\legal\perac memos\maher memo to boards.doc
Attachment