On appeal from Final Agency Decision of the Board of Trustees, Police and Firemen's Retirement System.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
Before Judges Parker, R. B. Coleman and Lyons.
Larry S. Loigman (Loigman) appeals from two final administrative agency determinations of the Board of Trustees, Police and Firemen's Retirement System (the Board), dated April 11, 2006, and February 6, 2007, dismissing his complaint. We affirm.
The following factual and procedural history is relevant to our consideration of the issues advanced on appeal. On February 9, 2004, the Board approved an application submitted by A.S. for an accidental disability retirement allowance. Following that decision, Loigman requested various documents relating to A.S.'s application and the Board provided some of them. Loigman then wrote to the Board and argued that A.S. was not entitled to a pension, and the Board determined that plaintiff had no standing to challenge the award. Loigman did not appeal that determination.
Instead, on June 4, 2004, Loigman filed a two-count complaint in lieu of prerogative writs, naming the Division of Pensions and Benefits of the Department of the Treasury, the Board, Frederick H. Weaver (Director of the Division of Pensions and Benefits), Wendy Jamison (Jamison) (Secretary of the Board), and unknown persons as defendants. Loigman claimed an impact on the fiscal integrity of the moneys of the people of New Jersey because defendants failed to discharge their fiduciary responsibilities in a careful, diligent, prudent, and proper fashion and failed to restrict pension benefits to individuals entitled by law to benefits. Loigman also alleged a conspiracy among defendants to conceal records; to improperly investigate applications for disability pensions; to fail to maintain an office for investigation of complaints; and to fail to accept complaints from members of the public regarding disability pensions improperly or illegally secured. Loigman gave as an example the case of "A.S.," stating that "A.S." was not eligible to receive accidental disability retirement benefits and defendants knew this and concealed information from the public.
Defendants sought to dismiss the complaint and the Law Division denied the motion, but transferred the complaint to the Board without any specific instructions.
By letter dated January 13, 2005, Jamison, as Secretary of the Board, addressed Loigman's claims. On behalf of the Board, she dismissed his complaint, and her letter constituted a final administrative agency determination.
Loigman appealed the determination to us, and we heard oral argument on November 30, 2005. On December 12, 2005, we reversed and remanded. We explained:
Here, the Board concluded that appellant had no standing to challenge [A.S.'s] pension award. But, that was not the issue before the Board following the transfer of the complaint by the Law Division. While that complaint used [A.S.'s] application as an example of the Board's mismanagement, the demand for relief broadly challenged the Board's administration of the pension system. It does not appear that the Board even considered those allegations in arriving at its determination.
We added, appellant's "complaint essentially asks the Board for a declaratory ruling with regard to the allegations in the complaint of fraud and mismanagement in the administration of the pension fund. The Board did not address these allegations." Further, "because the Board failed to address any allegations in the complaint that had been transferred to the Board from the Law Division, we vacate the January 13, 2005 determination and remand to the agency for further proceedings consistent with this opinion."
On December 23, 2005, Jamison wrote Loigman, stating that at the meeting on January 9, 2006, the Board would consider a letter Loigman wrote on December 12, 2005, our decision of December 12, 2005, and whether an administrative hearing was warranted. Loigman replied that he was not available on that date, and Jamison wrote that the Board would then consider this matter at its meeting on February 6, 2006.
At the meeting on February 6, 2006, which was not transcribed, Loigman claims that no decision was announced. Later that same day, Loigman wrote to Jamison and complained of due process violations, and again ...