Court Opinion

ID: 9646409
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 12:59:15.731151+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:11:37.910307
License: Public Domain

Pashman, J.,
concurring. Every rule has its exception and no word more aptly describes this case. Here, the Court has determined that Chief Makwinski’s conduct was not so egregious as to constitute the dishonorable service which would require total forfeiture of his pension. However, as *93the Court observes, the fact pattern in this case is “unique.” See ante at 91. Not only was Chief Makwinski’s misconduct free of venal motivation, it was specifically directed toward the betterment of the community. The Knights of Columbus Meeting Hall, which Makwinski had Officer Brechka repair while he was on duty, was a community center in the true sense of the word. It was used free of charge by numerous groups, including many charitable organizations and the Carteret Police Department. As the opinion of the Court points out, the repair work was a community project which was contributed to by many persons, including numerous nonmemhers of the Knights of Columbus. See ante at 91.
An employee’s lack of an improper motive for his misconduct will not automatically preclude his service from being considered, dishonorable. Nevertheless his motivation is a valid factor to be weighed. We are not encouraging a group of modern-day “Eobin Hoods.” The subjective belief of a wrongdoer will not protect his pension where he acts outrageously. However, the Chief’s concern for the speedy repair of the meeting hall is readily understandable, though his choice of the means to this .end was certainly wrongful.
The paramount importance of public employees acting honestly in accordance with the public trust placed in them is self-evident. I fully support the rule that dishonorable service requires total forfeiture of pension rights, even one which has “vested” after 25 years of honorable service. However, Makwinski’s service was not rendered dishonorable for purposes of this principle by this single, isolated improper act. Yet, plaintiff’s misconduct was serious enough to require our strenuous disapproval, and we trust that our terminating plaintiff’s accrual of pension rights as of the date of his misconduct some five years before, he retired will make that point. In a different factual setting, a public employee should not expect to retain any part of his pension.
Justice Sullivan joins in this opinion.