Stipend for Non-Specific Club is Regular Compensation

In Florio v. Massachusetts Teachers’ Retirement System (CR-18-509), the Contributory Retirement Appeal Board (CRAB) affirmed a Division of Administrative Law Appeals (DALA) decision that deemed Michael Florio’s stipends for advising a high school EMT club as “regular compensation” under G.L. c. 32. Florio had served as a teacher in New Bedford Public Schools and received annual stipends pursuant to a collective bargaining agreement (CBA) provision that set a standard stipend for any unlisted clubs. When he retired, MTRS denied including those stipends in his pension calculation, prompting the appeal.

The central legal issue was whether a CBA must list the specific name of each extracurricular club in order for a stipend to qualify as regular compensation. CRAB concluded that the CBA's reference to a specific stipend for “any clubs not listed” sufficiently set forth the service for compensation purposes, in accordance with both statutory language and MTRS regulations. The Board emphasized that the statutory focus is on the service performed, not the identity of the student group, and relied on precedent including Fazio v. CRAB, which similarly upheld compensation for advising a non-specifically listed club.

CRAB rejected MTRS’s argument that allowing general references to clubs could burden the retirement system, noting the lack of evidence supporting this concern and emphasizing the Legislature’s intent to give full credit to teachers for contractually specified additional services. The Board distinguished Kozloski v. CRAB, where stipends were excluded due to the absence of any CBA reference, unlike in Florio’s case where a compensation amount for club advising was explicitly included. Accordingly, CRAB affirmed that Florio’s stipends were properly considered regular compensation.