According to court papers, Parente argued that her pension should be calculated to include $7,200 she received annually for expenses, the $26 a day she was paid for traveling to the State House, and $1,560, the estimated value of the parking space provided to her and other lawmakers by the state.
But the Contributory Retirement Appeal Board and a Superior Court judge both disagreed with Parente. Yesterday, the Appeals Court reached the same conclusion.
“It is plain that the Legislature intended the $7,200 to be for General Court members’ expenses, not additional compensation or wages, even in the broad category of ‘regular compensation,’ ’’ Judge William J. Meade wrote for the unanimous three-judge panel.
“Parente, as a state representative, was not given the $7,200 allowance in exchange for her service in the General Court, but it was provided to assist her in serving the Commonwealth by providing a means to pay for the expenses associated with working as a representative,’’ Meade wrote.
Meade said: “While Parente was not required to turn in receipts or proof of expenses to receive the annual allowance, this does not mean there was no requirement that the allowance be used for the stated reasons… . Simply because Parente did not have to prove that she had any expenses in order to receive the annual allowance does not then mean it was intended to be additional compensation for her services.’’
The court also concluded that the parking space was, under state pension law, not part of her regular income, but a form of assistance provided by her employer to do her job effectively.
According to state Treasurer Steven Grossman’s office, Parente’s pension is now $53,432 annually. If she had been allowed to add just the value of the parking spot and the $7,200 in annual expense payment, her pension would have grown to $60,432.
John R. Ellement can be reached at ellement@globe.com.
