Voters overwhelmingly approve rescinding of $5 transfer, Rotondi appeals
Published on July 30th, 2003
STONEHAM, MA - In a whirlwind-like flurry of activity that transpired at and followed the July 28 Special Town Meeting, voters rescinded Town Meeting moderator Michael Rotondi's ballyhooed $5 transfer, the Stoneham Retirement Board voted unanimously to reject Rotondi's application for admission into the town retirement system, and Rotondi filed an appeal of the Retirement Board's decision.
"Edie and I have been saying all along we wanted our vote back, and we got that," said Article 1 co-sponsor Terri Ghannam. "I think this was democracy at its best, and it feels good to have people respecting your voice when you're talking."
"Hopefully all elected officials learned that when they're asked a question, they are indeed to tell us the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth," added Ghannam. "If they aren't, then I would be more than willing to repeat this entire process all over again."
Previdi agreed with her co-sponsor about the action taken at Special Town meeting.
"It was wonderful to see all the people there, and I think we corrected something that needed to be corrected," said Previdi while also acknowledging that many people were at the meeting for Montvale Plaza. "Hopefully this won't happen again."
The Town Meeting and Retirement Board decision culminates a three month odyssey that began with Rotondi seeking admission into the town retirement system in April. Rotondi then transferred $5 from operating to personnel within his own budget before the May 8 Town Meeting, and then, through the admitted fault of many, wasn't able to fully explained the budget transaction to Town Meeting voters.
Rotondi endured a firestorm of criticism in the following months that climaxed with the July 28 Town Meeting vote to rescind the $5 transfer retroactive to June 31.
The fate of Rotondi's pension and long-term benefits now hang in the balance of the CRAB (Contributory Retirement Appeals Board), but local voters were able to make their voice heard.
"Either way I'm going to appeal the decision...it's an important issue and I'd like to be treated like other elected officials," said Rotondi who, in high theater, presented a notice of appeal to the Retirement Board prior to their unfavorable vote. "I'm appealing the fact that I should have, according to Massachusetts State Law, had a decision on my admission within 10 days of the application. "
"This has been going on for over 90 days since I originally approached the Retirement Board in April," added Rotondi. "You can't just keep voting continuance upon continuance...it's not proper."
The Retirement Board continued to hold to the assertion that Stoneham's precedent has been a $200 salary threshold for entrance into the town benefit system.
"When you first came to us in April, Michael, we informed you that the town had never granted a pension to anyone making a salary of less than $200," said Stoneham Retirement Board Chairwoman Jan Houghton, who released a letter from 1978 stating as much.
Section 32D states that "any person holding a position for which the annual compensation is fixed in an amount of $200 or less shall not be eligible for membership except by vote of the Board."
"Well, it wasn't reflected in the minutes of that meeting," shot back Rotondi. "Just because the town has never done it before doesn't mean that it's policy."
Stoneham Retirement Board Attorney Michael Sacco supported Houghton's claims that Rotondi was informed of the $200 minimum requirement, and that the "retirement statutes were among the most complex law statutes in the State."
"I think this is ludicrous that we're having this discussion as I was present when Jan informed you of the Town's policy concerning the salary requirements," said Sacco.
According to Town Clerk John Hanright, 670 voters crammed into a languid Town Hall auditorium, and almost immediately began fanning themselves with makeshift paper fans doubling as Town Meeting Warrants.
"I think one thing is that there was a lot of energy for Marty's articles (Articles 3 and 4), and there wasn't a lot of patience to listen to the fine details of state law," said Rotondi. "Essentially I just wanted to move forward."
When the dust had settled after almost an hour of discussion, approximately 640-650 people voted in favor of Article 1, with only the moderator speaking in his defense.
Rotondi stepped down as moderator prior to the discussion of Article 1, and was replaced on an interim basis by Finance and Advisory Board Chairman Peter D'Angelo after approval from the Town Meeting audience.
When Rotondi stepped to the podium to state his case, a voice from the back hollered for him to identify himself.
"I'm Michael Rotondi of 6 Franklin Place," said Rotondi to a host of hisses, jeers and disapproving boos from the audience.
"No hissing," retorted D'Angelo as he scolded the animated Town Meeting audience.
"The action I took was to overcome a discriminatory action by the Stoneham Retirement Board," said Rotondi, who used a pair of letters from PERAC as evidence that he was entitled to the pension. "PERAC has written a letter in mid-June supporting my contention that any paid elected official is entitled to a pension, and they have also written a letter to every community in Massachusetts reinforcing the letter they had sent to me."
Rotondi further continued his assertion that the hubbub over the transfer was simply "a series of miscommunications that led to a misunderstanding."
The reaction of the audience and the decisive final vote on Article 1 surprised many town officials.
"I thought nobody spoke in his favor, and I couldn't believe it," said Selectman Cosmo Ciccarello. "It was all one-sided, and I kind of felt bad for him, to be honest with you."
"I kept my mouth shut last night (at Town Meeting)," added Ciccarello. "My wife told me to keep my mouth shut. Personally, I think the kid hurt himself...people should now realize what he did."
Rotondi, who was re-elected in April and is not up for re-election until April 2004, wasn't concerned about a possible future backlash after the $5 snafu.
"I don't think so, but I don't really want to speculate on that," said Rotondi. "I think people know I run a good meeting, and this was a quirky set of events. There was miscommunications in a process, and I'm more focused on that than the personal stuff."
Subscribe and get Home Delivery of The Independent
Save 36% off the newstand price — that's like 18 FREE issues!