Mary Byrne
After weeks of controversy, the Belmont Contributory Retirement Board voted Wednesday to re-elect Thomas Gibson as the fifth member – immediately after unanimously voting to change the board’s investment strategy.
Gibson has served on the board since 1996. He secured the seat Wednesday with a 3-0-1 vote. Ex-officio member Donna Tuccinardi abstained.
Preceding Gibson’s election, the board – which manages $150 million in town pension funds – voted to transfer its liquid assets to the Massachusetts Pension Retirement Investment Management Board (PRIM).
“I’m trying to keep as much [Massachusetts General Law] Chapter 32 experience and expertise on this board as we can,” said member Ross Vona, who moved to elect Gibson. “I don’t know if anyone can say not having [Gibson] here at this point would not make sense.
The board had deadlocked 2-2 in previous meetings. The Select Board was expected to resolve the impasse at a meeting Friday morning, but the meeting has been canceled.
Under Scrutiny
Scrutiny of the board grew after a Feb. 26 meeting when board members voted 2-1 to elect Gibson.
The Public Employee Retirement Administration Commission (PERAC), the state agency that oversees the Belmont board, invalidated the result the next day. Director John W. Parsons wrote that the Retirement Board violated a 2009 PERAC memo requiring four voting members to be present and vote when a fifth member is selected.
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 state law by not including the intention to vote on its agenda. According to the complaint filed in Middlesex Superior Court, the Select Board sought to prohibit Gibson from taking the oath of office for a new term.
Speaking by phone Wednesday afternoon, Select Board Chair Roy Epstein said there is “no reason to proceed with litigation.”
“The litigation was based on Open Meeting Law violation,” he said. “They still want to deny it happened, but because they took a proper vote today, there’s no reason to proceed.”
‘One Step Closer’
Some retirement board members viewed the decision to transfer assets to PRIM as a step closer to a system of “best practices.”
“My goal when I joined this board was to bring a fresh perspective to the process,” said member Brian Antonellis, who changed his vote from ‘No’ to ‘Yes’ this week. “Over the time here, I’ve seen the need to implement best practices … I think the action of the board today going to PRIM has been one step closer to that.”
Antonellis noted his frustration with the process.
“In general, I think this has been the most disappointing process in my 40 years in Belmont,” he said. “Through the last three meetings, I’ve stated a lot about my feelings, and unfortunately, this has taken a political path that I just don’t agree with.”
Vona said Antonellis captured what retirees and other members of the pension system have repeatedly told him. Vona also acknowledged that the desire to move assets into PRIM seemed to be the “stumbling block” hindering a consensus on the fifth member.
“I appreciate those words, and, hopefully, we can work together and move forward and do the best, not just for the retirees and the system, but the town as well,” he said.
The board is expected to discuss a cost determination and timeline for the move at its next regular meeting.
“It’s something we’ve been thinking for a long time made sense,” Epstein said, referring to the vote to move assets to PRIM. “I don’t know why the Retirement Board suddenly decided today it was important to change their strategy, but I’m glad they did.”
