• The Providence Retirement Board today takes up the issue of retirement benefits for former tax officials Anthony Annarino and the late Rosemary Glancy.
BY MIKE STANTON
Journal Staff Writer
PROVIDENCE
-- The Providence Retirement Board will meet today to ponder a question with implications for Mayor Vincent A. Cianci Jr. if he is convicted of federal corruption charges. What retirement benefits, if any, should be due public officials convicted in Operation Plunder Dome?
The Journal has learned that an independent hearing officer has urged the board to revoke the retirement benefits of former tax officials Anthony Annarino and the late Rosemary Glancy for dishonorable service. Although Glancy died last year, the retirement benefits due her heirs is still at stake.
The special counsel's report remains secret, and the board will probably discuss the matter in private today after it convenes at 10:30 a.m. in the city clerk's office, on the third floor of City Hall. Any vote, however, would occur in public session.
Lawyer Vincent F. Ragosta Jr., the special counsel hired by the Retirement Board to investigate Annarino and Glancy's pensions, confirmed his recommendation, but declined to release the report.
Mayor Cianci serves as an ex-officio member of the 11-member Retirement Board, but rarely attends its meetings. He said last night that he had not read Ragosta's report and did not plan to attend today's meeting.
The Retirement Board meets about six weeks before Cianci, his former top aide, Frank Corrente, and his chief of staff, Artin Coloian, are scheduled to go on trial on federal corruption charges.
State law and city ordinance call for the reduction or elimination of the pensions of public officials convicted of corruption. Each case is judged individually, with particular weight given to the severity of the crime and the official's position. But City Council President John J. Lombardi noted in 2000, in urging revocation of Annarino's pension, that "the course of action taken by the City of Providence now will set precedent for impending cases."
Lawyers representing Annarino, who is serving a 30-month federal prison term, and the estate of Glancy, who died after being sent to prison, have argued that their clients deserve part of their pension, because their convictions were minor blemishes on years of honorable service.
But Ragosta argues that Annarino and Glancy don't deserve a penny because they cost taxpayers considerable money and betrayed the public trust after being well-paid public servants for so many years.
"The Rhode Island Supreme Court has pointed out in other cases the sanctity of the public trust," Ragosta said. "Once that is breached, it is irreparable."
Annarino, who rose to Providence tax collector in his 29 years at City Hall, retired abruptly in 1999, the day after he was indicted, and cashed out as much of his pension as he could -- $36,365.46. That left Annarino with a $3,510.66 monthly pension check, which the Retirement Board cut off about a year later -- eight months after Annarino pleaded guilty.
If his pension is revoked, Annarino would have to return $20,000 in interest that accrued on his contributions over the years, plus the monthly checks he received before he was cut off. He would also never receive another monthly check.
Annarino pleaded guilty in March 2000 to attempted extortion, for taking $500 in bribes from businessman Antonio R. Freitas, who was working undercover for the FBI, in return for waiving tax payments. Annarino also admitted taking at least $6,000 from at least 10 other people, in return for tax favors, in the two years prior to his indictment.
Glancy, who rose to deputy tax assessor in her 26 years at City Hall, was convicted of conspiracy and extortion in 2000 for her role in helping Freitas lower his property taxes in return for bribes to Tax Board Chairman Joseph Pannone.
In a secret videotape played at Glancy's trial, Pannone told Freitas that Glancy was "my right arm" in his schemes to lower people's taxes for bribes. In gratitude, Pannone said, he threw Glancy some money and took her to lunch.
There is about $46,000 available in Glancy's pension, which would go to her heirs. A city official could not provide a breakdown yesterday of how much of that was interest that the city would keep if the pension is revoked.
Whatever the Retirement Board does, the matter will ultimately be resolved in the courts, which must ratify the board's decision. State courts have held in the past, in cases ranging from state judge Antonio Almeida to former Gov. Edward D. DiPrete, that convicted public officials are not entitled to any of their pensions.
Ragosta argues that a vote by the Retirement Board to reduce, rather than revoke, Annarino and Glancy's pensions would undermine the integrity of the pension system.
"If a pension is such a prized [reward] for public service, then the standard for receiving it should be high," Ragosta said. "A pension shouldn't just be there as a financial escape hatch for someone facing criminal charges."
