397 Mass. 255, 258 (1986). If she cannot prove that she was an employee, rather Appeal Board, than a contracted employee and the evidence shows that she was a contracted employee then – – she does not prevail. Another of Ms. is that because the Independent State Harris’s argument Auditor’s Report (Ex. E) demonstrates that on the Use of Contract Employees by Certain State Agencies “no employee, including a paid through the Ms. ‘contracted employee’, could be ‘03’ account,” Harris was impliedly not paid through the 03 account. (Pet. Br.) I have read and reread Ms. argument, and, frankly, I do not understand her argument that she could not have been Harris’s paid through the 03 account. In any event, her argument, which is based on an implication, as she admits, runs straight into unequivocal contrary evidence that Ms. Harris was indeed paid through the 03 account. Ms. next argument is that even if MCB paid Ms. Harris through the Harris’s “mistakenly” 03 account, she is still eligible to purchase back her service. She argues that the Legislature intended to create a comprehensive retirement system, not “an arbitrary system where eligibility could be denied based on mistake or gamesmanship by a (Pet. Br.) At the payroll manager.” hearing, Ms. Harris presented no evidence that she was mistakenly paid through the 03 account, a payroll manager engaged in gamesmanship, or MCB did not comply with and “relevant law established (Pet. Br.) She does not cite to the record for her argument. She does not procedure.” cite legal authority for her argument that she should be able to purchase service based the “on account that she have been paid (Pet. Br.)(emphasis in the original.) should from.” In fact, the law is against Ms. Harris. CR-10-789 Young v. State Board of Retirement, (CRAB 2018). As the Contributory Retirement Appeal Board stated: Because our decision turns on the statutory exclusion of contracted Commonwealth employees from the retirement definition of law’s “employee,”
Appeal Board, 397 Mass. 255, 258 (1986). If she cannot prove that she was an employee, rather than a contracted employee – and the evidence shows that she was a contracted employee – then she does not prevail. Another of Ms. Harris’s argument is that because the Independent State Auditor’s Report on the Use of Contract Employees by Certain State Agencies (Ex. E) demonstrates that “no employee, including a ‘contracted employee’, could be paid through the ‘03’ account,” Ms. Harris was impliedly not paid through the 03 account. (Pet. Br.) I have read and reread Ms. Harris’s argument, and, frankly, I do not understand her argument that she could not have been paid through the 03 account. In any event, her argument, which is based on an implication, as she admits, runs straight into unequivocal contrary evidence that Ms. Harris was indeed paid through the 03 account. Ms. Harris’s next argument is that even if MCB “mistakenly” paid Ms. Harris through the 03 account, she is still eligible to purchase back her service. She argues that the Legislature intended to create a comprehensive retirement system, not “an arbitrary system where eligibility could be denied based on mistake or gamesmanship by a payroll manager.” (Pet. Br.) At the hearing, Ms. Harris presented no evidence that she was mistakenly paid through the 03 account, a payroll manager engaged in gamesmanship, or MCB did not comply with “relevant law and established procedure.” (Pet. Br.) She does not cite to the record for her argument. She does not cite legal authority for her argument that she should be able to purchase service based “on the account that she should have been paid from.” (Pet. Br.)(emphasis in the original.) In fact, the law is against Ms. Harris. Young v. State Board of Retirement, CR-10-789 (CRAB 2018). As the Contributory Retirement Appeal Board stated: Because our decision turns on the statutory exclusion of contracted Commonwealth employees from the retirement law’s definition of “employee,”
Harris%20%28Vernessa%29%20v.%20Boston%20Retirement%20System%20-%20Decision%20-%2007-13-2018.docx