Elected or appointed officials who do not participate in the employer's time keeping system are required to prepare a "Record of Work Activities" [ROA] recording the individual's work activities for a period of three consecutive months in order to receive retirement service credit. Should the official fail to record, sign and submit an ROA "within the required time frame," crediting service for retirement purposes is suspended until such time as an ROA that complies with regulatory requirements is properly submitted.
In the instant situation the official [Petitioner] served as an elected City Council member and did not participate in the City's time keeping system. Petitioner, however, prepared and submitted an ROA, reporting 60 hours of work over the first three months of 2012, or an average of 3.33 six-hour workdays per month. In July 2012, the City Council, including Petitioner, issued a resolution establishing Petitioner's days per month based on her ROA, and that figure was reported to and ultimately certified by the New York State and Local Retirement System [Retirement System] in August 2012. Petitioner's term as a City Council member ended in December 2015.
Subsequently Petitioner, then serving as the City's Comptroller, submitted a revised ROA to the Retirement System, increasing her reported hours for the same three-month period of service as an elected member of the City Council and requested that her retirement service credit be recalculated. Ultimately the Pension Integrity Bureau of the Retirement System [Bureau] advised Petitioner that her revised ROA for her service as a City Council member had been submitted "well outside of the windows to submit or amend an ROA, must be rejected". Petitioner appealed the Bureau's determination.
Following an evidentiary hearing, a Hearing Officer found that Petitioner was not entitled to a recalculation of her service credit as her revised ROA was both untimely and failed to encompass an alternative period of three consecutive months within the same calendar year as her initial ROA.
The Retirement System adopted the Hearing Officer's findings of fact and conclusions of law and denied Petitioner's application.
Petitioner appealed the Retirement System's determination but the Appellate Division sustained the Retirement System's decision.
Click HERE to access the Appellate Division's decision posted on the Internet.