Jesse Floyd
Mary Byrne
The controversy over the appointment of Thomas Gibson as the fifth member of the Belmont Contributory Retirement Board continues to build, with Gibson under scrutiny as he considers scheduling a retirement board meeting for next week.
On Tuesday, the state’s Public Employee Retirement Administration Commission (PERAC) invalidated the retirement board’s controversial vote to reappoint Gibson, who has served for more than two decades.
In a separate action, the Select Board filed an Open Meeting Law complaint against the Retirement Board, alleging the vote to appoint Gibson as the fifth member violated the law. According to the complaint, filed Wednesday in Middlesex Superior Court, the Select Board seeks to prohibit Gibson from taking the oath of office for a new term.
For previous coverage, click here.
Retirement Board Vice Chair Walter Wellman called the vote to select Gibson on Monday, Feb. 26, when one of the members, Town Accountant Donna Tuccinardi, was absent.
Tuccinardi and member Brian Antonellis had voted in favor of another candidate in two previous deadlocked votes, and the Select Board was expected to resolve the issue by appointing the fifth member.
In an interview with The Voice on Monday, Wellman said with Tuccinardi away, he saw an opportunity to break a month-long impasse, so he decided to take it.
“I’ve never seen anything like this,” said PERAC General Counsel Judith Corrigan, who has been with the organization for 25 years.
In a letter to Gibson on Tuesday, PERAC Executive Director John W. Parsons invalidated the vote, saying it violated a 2009 PERAC memo requiring four voting members to be present and vote when the fifth individual is selected.
Gibson said Wednesday the Retirement Board appealed the PERAC ruling, and he plans to schedule a board meeting next week to discuss litigation and “finalize the selection, once and for all, before the selection defaults to the Select Board on March 7.”
Later that afternoon, Town Counsel George A. Hall sent an email to Gibson. The email summarizes the controversy and says Gibson has a financial interest in his seat because board members receive a $3,000 annual stipend. That financial interest, Hall writes, prohibits Gibson from participating in any board actions concerning his appointment. Participation, Hall points out in the email, is not limited to voting.
“If you persist in trying to orchestrate and direct the BRB’s strategy with regard to your own reappointment, it will be reasonable to conclude that you are violating the State Ethics Act willfully, and I expect the Select Board will direct me to report it to the State Ethics Commission accordingly,” Hall writes.
“Attorney Hall has been advised of corrective actions that have been and will be taken to remedy the issues complained of, in a sincere effort to de-escalate the matter and conserve public resources,” Gibson said in an email. “It is hoped that his client will look upon those steps favorably and withdraw its (Open Meeting) complaint.”
Gibson did not provide details and Hall didn’t respond to an email seeking comment.
According to Corrigan, Gibson asked for an expedited ruling on his appeal and for the PERAC decision to be stayed until his appeal is decided.
Corrigan said this is the first time anyone has challenged the 2009 directive.
