By David R. Smith

John Buonomo

The state’s Supreme Judicial Court ruled April 2 that the Somerville Retirement Board is not obligated to pay former Middlesex County Register of Probate John Buonomo his nearly $39,000 annual pension earned during his time on the Board of Aldermen (BOA).

Buonomo was convicted in 2009 on 18 counts of breaking into a depository, eight counts of larceny under $250 and eight counts of embezzlement by a public officer during the time he was register of probate. Bunomo had argued he should receive the pension, as the crimes of which he was convicted were unrelated to his role on the BOA.

“We conclude that even though Buonomo’s convictions involved violations of the laws applicable to his office or position as register of probate, he nonetheless forfeited his entitlement to a retirement allowance from the retirement board of Somerville (board) related to his prior service as a member of the board of aldermen,” the SJC wrote in its opinion. Accordingly, we reverse the decision of the Superior Court that reached a contrary conclusion.”

Buonomo retired from his position as a Somerville alderman in January 0f 2000 and began receiving pension benefits from the board. In November 2000, he was elected register of probate of Middlesex County.

After his election, Buonomo was eligible to join the state employees’ retirement system as a member in service, but he chose instead to continue receiving his retirement allowance from the board. As a consequence, he remained an inactive member of the Somerville retirement system, while at the same time working and collecting his salary as register of probate.

Sgt. Brian P. Connors of the State Police filed an application in District Court in August 2008 for the issuance of a criminal complaint, charging Buonomo with the charges on which he was eventually convicted.

In support of the application, Connors alleged that in June 2008, State Police assigned to the Public Protection, Anti-Terrorism, Corruption and Technology Unit of the Middlesex County District Attorney’s office commenced an investigation into suspected ongoing theft of monies from cash vending machines attached to photocopiers located in the registry of deeds section of a building in Cambridge that housed the Middlesex South Registry of Deeds, as well as the Middlesex Division of the Probate and Family Court Department and the Registry of Probate. Initial estimates of the losses were reported to be approximately $2,000 per month over the course of 18 months. Personnel from the registry and other witnesses identified Buonomo as someone who had been observed accessing several of the cash vending machines without authority or permission to do so.

As a result of the information they gathered, officers conducted video surveillance for six weeks, focusing on two areas where the machines were located. On diverse dates between June 23 and Aug. 5, 2008, Buonomo was observed unlocking machines in the registry of deeds section of the building with a key, opening them, removing money, closing the machines and then leaving the area. Marked currency was used during the course of the investigation.
He pleaded guilty Oct. 15, 2009, to all 34 charges in Superior Court. Buonomo was sentenced to two and a half years in a house of correction on the charge of breaking into a depository, and he was given a concurrent sentence of two years on the charge of embezzlement by a public officer. He was placed on supervised probation for 10 years, which took effect from and after his house of correction sentences. He was ordered to pay a fine of $1,000.

In a letter dated Nov. 24, 2009, the retirement board notified Buonomo that it intended to revoke his pension. At Buonomo’s request, the board held an evidentiary hearing on the matter. In a decision dated Jan. 21, 2010, the board informed Buonomo that, in light of his criminal convictions, it had voted to forfeit his pension.

Buonomo appealed the board’s decision to the District Court, which reversed the board’s decision and reinstated Buonomo’s pension. In a memorandum of decision and order dated May 28, 2010, a judge determined, among other things, that the board lacked a basis for revoking Buonomo’s pension because the crimes of which Buonomo was convicted did not arise from or otherwise involve his work as a Somerville alderman, for which he was receiving the retirement allowance.

The board responded by filing a complaint July 14, 2010. The single justice ordered the matter transferred to the Superior Court for disposition. The parties proceeded to file cross motions for judgment on the pleadings. In a memorandum of decision and order dated April 27, 2012, a judge allowed Buonomo’s motion, denied the board’s motion and entered a judgment affirming the decision of the District Court.

The judge stated that although it was undisputed that Buonomo’s criminal convictions were directly related to his position as register of probate, they were not related to his position as a Somerville alderman. Buonomo’s misconduct, the judge continued, neither occurred while he was an alderman nor involved any of his duties in that capacity. The judge said that although the the range of crimes leading to forfeiture of retirement benefits had been broadened under state law, it still required a connection between the offenses and the member’s office or position. In the judge’s view, because the board was unable to establish a direct link between Buonomo’s criminal convictions and his position as a Somerville alderman, the board could not initiate forfeiture proceedings. Therefore, the judge concluded that the District Court judge did not commit a substantial error of law by holding that Buonomo was not required to forfeit his retirement allowance. The board appealed the judge’s decision, the case was entered in the Appeals Court and transferred to the SJC, which disagreed with the District Court’s interpretation of the relevant statute.

“The statute does not say that the office or position whose laws were violated be the same as the one from which the member is receiving a retirement allowance,” the decision stated. “There simply is no such limiting language. We will not add words to a statute that the Legislature did not put there, either by inadvertent omission or by design.

“By pleading guilty to (the charges) by a public officer, Buonomo violated the laws applicable to the office of register of probate, a position of public trust, and thereby forfeited his entitlement to any retirement allowance under (state law).”