Source: http://masscases.com/cases/app/92/92massappct547.html
Timestamp: 2019-01-24 04:11:47
Document Index: 478264930

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 15', '§ 15', '§ 15', '§ 47', '§ 15', '§ 15', '§ 15', '§ 4', '§ 15']

DELL'ISOLA vs. STATE BOARD OF RETIREMENT, 92 Mass. App. Ct. 547
MICHAEL DELL'ISOLA vs. STATE BOARD OF RETIREMENT & others. [Note 1]
92 Mass. App. Ct. 547
This court concluded that, in the circumstances of a pension forfeiture proceeding in which the hearing before the State Board of Retirement (board) followed the conviction of the member of the State employees' retirement system at a criminal jury trial, the board properly considered two hearsay exhibits that had not been admitted at the criminal trial, i.e., a transcript of the member's postarrest interview by the police and the arrest report, where the documents presented sufficient indicia of reliability. [549-551]
The State Board of Retirement correctly concluded that G. L. c. 32, § 15(4), and the case law interpreting the statute, mandated forfeiture of the pension of a member of the State employees' retirement system who had been convicted of possession of cocaine, where a direct factual link existed between the member's position as a correction officer and his conviction, in that the crime directly concerned actions the member had carried out when he served in his role that were inextricably intertwined with his position; accordingly, the judgment of the Superior Court required reversal and remand for consideration of the member's claim under the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution that forfeiture of his pension would be an excessive fine. [551-554]
HENRY, J. Michael Dell'Isola was a correction officer when he committed the crime of possession of cocaine. The State Retirement Board (board) subsequently conducted a hearing and made factual findings that Dell'Isola came into possession of the cocaine
only as a result of an arrangement with an inmate who had been in his custody and who at the time remained in the custody of the Middlesex County sheriff's office. This case thus requires us to consider whether, pursuant to G. L. c. 32, § 15(4), Dell'Isola's conviction requires forfeiture of his retirement allowance. [Note 2] General Laws c. 32, § 15(4), inserted by St. 1987, c. 697, § 47, provides that "[i]n no event shall any member [of the State employees' retirement system] after final conviction of a criminal offense involving violation of the laws applicable to his office or position, be entitled to receive a retirement allowance." Because how Dell'Isola came into possession of the cocaine was factually linked to his position as a correction officer, we hold that his criminal offense falls within the purview of § 15(4) and he is ineligible to receive a retirement allowance.
In 2011, Dell'Isola was a sergeant and a senior correction officer with the Middlesex County sheriff's office, having served in the office since 1982. An inmate under Dell'Isola's supervision at the Middlesex County jail in Cambridge, identified only as "George," offered Dell'Isola "a large amount of cash" and told Dell'Isola to contact George's mother. [Note 3] Dell'Isola met with George's mother at a Dunkin' Donuts and received $1,000 from her. George was later transferred to the Billerica house of correction, another facility overseen by the Middlesex County sheriff's office. While Dell'Isola was speaking by telephone with a fellow officer at that Billerica facility, George, who was with that
officer, [Note 4] shouted that Dell'Isola should call George's mother. Dell'Isola subsequently called George's mother, who told Dell'Isola that she first needed to speak with George. George's mother later told Dell'Isola he needed to speak with George's "cousin," who later called Dell'Isola. [Note 5] The cousin told Dell'Isola that he heard that Dell'Isola was "looking," and asked if he wanted "some" and if he wanted it "flake" or "solid." Dell'Isola responded that he would take half "flake" and half "solid." They agreed for the cousin to give Dell'Isola an ounce of cocaine as well as $2,500 in cash.
The board determined that, given the facts and circumstances of the conviction, in particular Dell'Isola's relationship and arrangements with the inmate George, Dell'Isola forfeited his retirement allowance under § 15(4). A judge of the Boston Municipal Court affirmed the board's decision. Dell'Isola filed for certiorari review by the Superior Court, which reversed the judgment issued from the Boston Municipal Court, and vacated the decision. [Note 6] The board then appealed to this court.
Discussion. a. The record. As a preliminary matter, we acknowledge the procedural posture of this case. In the vast majority of pension forfeiture cases, the member of the State employees' retirement system pleads guilty to one or more criminal
charges, and the facts at the forfeiture hearing are not disputed. See, e.g., State Bd. of Retirement v. Finneran, 476 Mass. 714, 716 n.3 (2017). In contrast, Dell'Isola's hearing followed a criminal jury trial, and the jury did not need to consider the connection between Dell'Isola's job and his possession of cocaine. The question is to what extent the board may consider evidence beyond the record established at Dell'Isola's criminal trial.
Although the exhibits were hearsay, that alone does not undercut their admissibility and reliability. See Embers of Salisbury, Inc. v. Alcoholic Bev. Control Commn., 401 Mass. 526, 530-531 (1988) (agency decision based on hearsay evidence, including trial transcript and stipulation as to anticipated testimony of witnesses); Commonwealth v. Durling, 407 Mass. 108, 120-122 (1990) (revocation of probation based on two police reports read in court and accepted in evidence); Costa v. Fall River Housing Authy, 453 Mass. 614, 627 (2009) (hearsay evidence may form basis of administrative decision). The hearing officer and the board found that both documents had the requisite indicia of reliability. The transcript bore a signature and certification from an approved court transcriber. Dell'Isola himself offered the statements
in the interview after he was advised of his right to remain silent, and the statements were consistent with the narrative of events presented in other documents. As to the police report, there was no suggestion that the trooper who filed the report had a personal interest in the case. The report contained observations and actions from that trooper, and the narrative was consistent with other evidence presented. The hearing officer also noted areas in both exhibits that were assigned decreased probative weight, including inaudible sections of the interview, and statements in the arrest report that were relayed from other officers. We discern no error in the admission of either document.
b. Forfeiture pursuant to G. L. c. 32, § 15(4). Judicial review pursuant to G. L. c. 249, § 4, is in the nature of certiorari and is limited, "allow[ing] a court to 'correct only a substantial error of law, evidenced by the record, which adversely affects a material right of the [member]. . . . In its review, the court may rectify only those errors of law which have resulted in manifest injustice to the [member] or which have adversely affected the real interests of the
general public.'" State Bd. of Retirement v. Bulger, 446 Mass. 169, 173 (2006), quoting from Massachusetts Bay Transp. Authy. v. Auditor of the Commonwealth, 430 Mass. 783, 790 (2000).
In contrast, a direct factual connection existed when the superintendent of the municipal water and sewer department stole
money from the town, and when a city employee broke into city hall and stole documents from his own personnel file to improve his chances of being reappointed to his position. See Gaffney v. Contributory Retirement Appeal Bd., 423 Mass. 1, 4-5 (1996); Maher v. Justices of Quincy Div. of Dist. Ct. Dept., 67 Mass. App. Ct. 612, 616-617 (2006), S.C., 452 Mass. 517 (2008), cert. denied, 556 U.S. 1166 (2009).
Furthermore, the board determined that Dell'Isola believed that he would be meeting someone acting on the inmate's behalf, based on the previous transaction where the inmate offered money through his mother. By Dell'Isola's own admission during the postarrest interview, he expected to receive both money and cocaine
during the transaction with the cousin. Unlike in Scully, 80 Mass. App. Ct. at 543, where it was insufficient that "some work-related conduct spark[ed] an investigation," the factual link is not based on the uncharged receipt of money. Rather, that conduct simply illuminates the manner in which Dell'Isola and the inmate conducted transactions. The cousin may have been the first to mention cocaine on the telephone, but Dell'Isola's own retelling of that conversation indicated that there were prior conversations about cocaine, based on the cousin already having heard that Dell'Isola was "looking." Dell'Isola's use of his position is not diminished because he came into possession of the cocaine through a series of communications facilitated by the inmate and not through a direct transaction with him.
We therefore conclude that the board's decision was supported by substantial evidence, and that G. L. c. 32, § 15(4), and the case law interpreting it mandate forfeiture where Dell'Isola was convicted of possession of cocaine under the facts of this case. [Note 7]
[Note 1] The Justices of the Boston Municipal Court Department.
[Note 2] This case was paired for argument with State Bd. of Retirement v. O'Hare, 92 Mass. App. Ct. 555 (2017).
[Note 3] The board did not make findings as to why George offered this money. The board did find that Dell'Isola acknowledged that he had a conversation with George regarding drug dealing, and that he acknowledged considering to act as an intermediary with George and the dealers he already knew. While the board noted that the record "strongly suggests that the agreement with George included an agreement regarding cocaine," the board did not make a finding on this question and the point was not critical to the decision.
[Note 4] The identify of that officer was not confirmed.
[Note 5] The record is not clear if Dell'Isola was on or off duty when speaking with the inmate's mother and cousin.
[Note 6] The Boston Municipal Court and Suffolk Superior Court decisions were entered prior to the release and without the benefit of both State Bd. of Retirement v. Finneran, 476 Mass. 714 (2017), and Essex Regional Retirement Bd. v. Justices of Salem Div. of Dist. Ct. Dept. of the Trial Ct., 91 Mass. App. Ct. 755 (2017).
[Note 7] Because we conclude that a direct factual link exists, we do not address the question whether there is a direct legal link. A legal link exists "when a public employee commits a crime directly implicating a statute that is specifically applicable to the employee's position. . . . The requisite direct legal link is shown where the crime committed is 'contrary to a central function of the position as articulated in applicable laws.'" Finneran, supra at 721, quoting from Garney v. Massachusetts Teachers' Retirement Sys., 469 Mass. 384, 391 (2014).