Order Michigan Supreme Court
Lansing, Michigan
June 4, 2010 Marilyn Kelly,
Chief Justice
140484 Michael F. Cavanagh
Elizabeth A. Weaver
Maura D. Corrigan
Robert P. Young, Jr.
ROBERT M. O’BRIEN, Stephen J. Markman
Petitioner-Appellant, Diane M. Hathaway,
Justices
v SC: 140484
COA: 294388
Ingham CC: 09-000186-AA
PUBLIC SCHOOL EMPLOYEES’
RETIREMENT BOARD,
Respondent-Appellee.
_________________________________________/
On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the December 21, 2009
order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not
persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
CORRIGAN, J. (concurring).
I concur in the Court’s decision to deny the application for leave to appeal. I write
to express my shock and disbelief at the salary of petitioner Robert M. O’Brien as a
school superintendent, to urge legislative attention to the statutory scheme that gave rise
to this expenditure, and to alert the public to this use of its tax dollars.
Petitioner was a Huron Valley School District superintendent from 1998 until his
retirement in 2006. Petitioner made regular contributions to the Public Employees
Retirement Fund during that time. This case concerns petitioner’s dispute with
respondent Public School Employees’ Retirement Board over the amount of his
remuneration that may be considered “compensation” under the public school employees
retirement act of 1979, MCL 38.1301, et seq., for purposes of determining his monthly
pension benefit. An employee’s retirement benefit is calculated based on his “final
average compensation,” which is an average of the employee’s reportable
“compensation” for the 36 consecutive months during which the employee had the
highest compensation. MCL 38.1304(12). Petitioner contests the final average
compensation calculated by the Office of Retirement Services. Petitioner appealed to the
Michigan Public Schools Retirement Board (Board), which denied his request that his
retirement allowance be increased from $8,346.92 per month to $15,601.95 per month.
The circuit court affirmed. The Court of Appeals denied leave to appeal. O’Brien v
2
Public School Employees’ Retirement Board, unpublished order of the Court of Appeals
issued December 21, 2009 (Docket No. 294388).
Petitioner now seeks leave to appeal to this Court, claiming that respondent erred
in several respects in calculating the final average compensation used to determine his
retirement benefits and that certain terms used in the retirement act are unconstitutionally
vague. I agree with the Court’s decision to deny leave to appeal. I write separately to
express my amazement at the amount petitioner was compensated for serving as a public
employee and to draw legislative and public attention to these alarming facts. Given the
considerable concern over public expenditures in the current economic climate, I believe
the facts of this case signal a need for legislative scrutiny.
For the year ending June 30, 2001, petitioner earned a total of $158,911.00. For
the year ending June 30, 2006, petitioner earned a total of $418,965.00. The chart below
shows petitioner’s compensation from 2001 to 2006:
Year Ending June 30 Total Remuneration
2001 158,911.00
2002 244,726.00
2003 328,902.00
2004 356,662.00
2005 388,121.00
2006 418,965.00
According to the Board’s Decision and Order, December 11, 2008 (Docket No.
2008-221 PSRS) at 15-16, the $418,965.00 petitioner received in 2006 included:
$154,181.00 as a gross salary;
$24,500.00 as deferred compensation;
$17,369.07 for days worked beyond allotted vacation and personal days;
$20,101.00 for reimbursement for contributions to the Member
Investment Plan;
$114,111.86 for the purchase of two years service credit by Huron
Valley School District or the equal cost of an investment by
3
petitioner;1
$30,836.20 for merit pay;
$57,839.04 for longevity.
These amounts are eye-popping. I question which individuals and bodies are
responsible for this use of tax dollars and whether the legislature and the public are aware
that this is happening.
1
The Board’s opinion explains this component of petitioner’s compensation as follows:
The Act provides for a MPSERS [Michigan Public School Employee
Retirement System] member to purchase service credit. MCL 38.1369f[.]
The member’s annual retirement benefit amount increases with an increase
in the amount of service time, and a member may expand his service time
by purchasing service credit. In this matter, the Petitioner’s employment
contracts stated that Huron Valley would purchase:
... retirement credit in MSPERS for the
SUPERINTENDENT’S benefit ... or at the
SUPERINTENDENT’S election, pay the cost of such year
into an investment of the SUPERINTENDENT’S choice. [Id.
at 23.]
I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the
foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.
June 4, 2010 _________________________________________
0601 Clerk