Rotondi fires back at critics
Published on May 28th, 2003
STONEHAM, MA - On the same day that the Town's Retirement Board upheld its decision that Town Moderator Michael Rotondi does not qualify for a pension as a $200 a year elected official, Rotondi defended a $5 Town Meeting transfer that will force the board to grant those benefits.
Yesterday afternoon, the Retirement Board again tabled discussion on Rotondi's pension until July 1st, when a $5 transfer authorized at Town Meeting will switch over from the Moderator's operating budget to personnel.
According to Retirement Board Chairwoman Janice Houghton, although Rotondi had argued that elected officials are eligible for retirement benefits regardless of their salary, the board found no such clause.
"The way the law reads, you have to make over $200 unless the board makes an exception for that. In 20 years, the town of Stoneham has never made that exception," explained Houghton. "However, starting July 1, he'll make $205, so he will be eligible," she added.
While Houghton does not know the exact amount that Rotondi will receive annually under the Town's pension system, she did claim that the amount could be substantial if Rotondi worked for another state agency that paid significantly more than $205.
"Potentially it could be a lot of money. He might just end up with the ten years of service in Stoneham, so it's a future unknown. It's certainly more than $5," said Houghton, who added that the benefits are based on the highest three-year average that a person earns while working for a state entity.
The extra $5 a year that Rotondi will earn starting July 1 has been surrounded by controversy in recent weeks after several town officials and residents complained that they were unaware of the implications of the transfer when the issue was presented at Town Meeting.
According to those critics, Rotondi misrepresented the facts about the transfer when Stoneham resident Terri Ghannam questioned the purpose of the shift in funds. At the time, Rotondi characterized the fund exchange as an intra-department transfer and did not further elaborate on the issue.
However, according to Rotondi, who was out of town when the Stoneham Independent first reported on the transfer last week, he was unable to comment extensively on the specifics of the transfer because his responsibilities as Moderator prohibited him from doing so.
"When an issue is presented that directly affects a moderator, it's standard practice for us not to speak about that issue. My brevity in discussing any issues was related to me following proper procedure," explained Rotondi.
Rotondi also lashed out at Cosmo Ciccarello for his recent statements claiming that the Moderator lied to the public. According to Rotondi, Ciccarello's statements stem from a tendency of the 7-term selectman to inappropriately politicize non-political events.
"First off, I question Mr. Ciccarello's comments. Everybody knows that Cosmo's a loose cannon and I think his comments are growing increasingly political and unprofessional," said Rotondi.
"I informed the Town Administrator what I was doing and I assumed that he would tell the Board of Selectmen what was going on. Since there were no questions, I assumed that we'd go forward. The fact that I have to hear Cosmo slander me is, I think, inappropriate," Rotondi added.
Reiterating what he has said in the past about Rotondi, Ciccarello said that while he feels Rotondi should be eligible for a pension, his actions at Town Meeting were inexcusable.
"I've always felt that if you're an elected official, you're entitled to a pension. I don't have a problem with that," said Ciccarello. "I have no hidden agenda. I spoke the truth. My good name is all that counts to me. It means more than a pension or any type of money. Maybe his name isn't that important to him. I'm certainly not going to lie to the people for $5," continued Ciccarello.
According to Rotondi, Ciccarello represents just one of the many persons who passed judgement without first consulting with the Moderator about his side of the story. However, when Rotondi has had the opportunity to discuss his feelings on the subject, people have changed their opinions, the moderator claimed.
Citing Eddie Previdi and Terri Ghannam as examples, Rotondi claims that both citizens, who wrote separate letters to the town's local papers about the subject, expressed their regrets for commenting on the issue before first consulting with Rotondi.
While Previdi admitted that she recently contacted the Stoneham Sun in an unsuccessful bid to pull her letter to the editor from the newspaper, she said that her opinion about Rotondi's actions at Town Meeting have not changed.
"Maybe Michael's hoping that's how I feel. I've always felt that he we was a good moderator and that's why I was so upset when I read about this in the papers. I told him that if I did anything that hurt somebody that I would go back and retract the letter. At this time, I can only go by what was in the papers and by what Cosmo said," Previdi explained.
Echoing stronger sentiments than Previdi, Ghannam said that she would never retract her letter.
"I will not retract a single syllable of that letter. He had opinions as to why he did what he did and he's entitled to his opinions, but I still feel he was wrong," said Ghannam. "He's just trying to get out of something he did because he knows that if he runs for re-election he's done," she speculated.
While Rotondi stood by his statements that the two women expressed regrets about their comments, the Moderator believes that these exchanges draw attention away from the larger issue, that he was unfairly denied retirement benefits.
"For someone to say they would hold up an article, that says something," began Rotondi. "But look, the real story here is that the retirement board is discriminating against me. That's the real issue, not a $5 transfer. Why won't anybody talk about that?" asked Rotondi.
"I just think it's sad that some individuals have to turn someone's benefits into petty politics," the nine-year veteran Moderator added.
While Rotondi makes no quibbles about requesting the $5 transfer so that he could collect a pension, he feels that state law clearly reads that elected officials are eligible for a pension regardless of their yearly salary.
"The retirement board did offer an opinion and they're still sticking to a wrong interpretation about the law. That's why I'm saying the $5 doesn't matter. The local Retirement Board can take legal action that forces me to file for an appeal and I felt it was inappropriate for this double standard to apply to me," said Rotondi, who further claimed that the Public Employment Retirement Commission will send a letter to the Retirement Board explaining a specific law that allows for moderators to collect a pension.
According to Rotondi, Massachusetts state law, specifically section 32, section 4, subsection 1, subsection O, clearly backs his assertions. The Stoneham Independent was unable to verify the existence of the state statute in time for the release of this article.
Subscribe and get Home Delivery of The Independent
Save 36% off the newstand price — that's like 18 FREE issues!