Adams v. City of Boston
461 Mass. 602
Mass.2012Background
- G. L. c. 41, § 108L (the Quinn Bill) creates a shared-funding system: municipalities pay a portion of incentive pay for police education, and the Commonwealth reimburses half.
- The reimbursement provision states municipalities “shall be reimbursed by the commonwealth for one half the cost of such payments” upon board certification.
- A 1976 amendment added a payment provision detailing base salary increases for various educational achievements; the text has remained unchanged since then.
- Two CBAs between Boston and police unions provided that if reimbursement fell short, the city would reduce its own payment to match the Commonwealth’s actual reimbursement—i.e., fifty percent plus reimbursement.
- Milton v. Commonwealth held that reimbursement rights are conditional on funds appropriated by the General Court and not an absolute right to payment.
- In fall 2009 Boston reduced § 108L payments to 58.73% of full benefits after the Commonwealth reimbursed only 8.73% of the requested amount for FY2010.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether CBAs conflict with § 108L. | Pls argue CBAs mandate full payment regardless of reimbursement. | Boston argues statute allows shared funding and CBAs are not conflictual. | CBAs do not materially conflict with § 108L. |
| Does § 108L unambiguously require one hundred percent payment by municipalities? | Plaintiffs contend 108L requires full payment irrespective of reimbursement. | Defendant contends shared funding and reimbursement create a contingent obligation. | Text ambiguous; provisions harmonized to reflect contingent, shared funding. |
| Do the conflicts provisions of G. L. c. 150E, § 7(d) apply to § 108L? | § 7(d) yields CBAs to statutes; CBAs conflict and are invalid. | § 108L is not enumerated in § 7(d); statutes not listed prevail over CBAs only if conflict exists. | § 7(d) does not resolve in plaintiffs’ favor; no material conflict found. |
| What is the court's construction of the statute's purpose and mechanics? | Statute intended full funding by municipalities irrespective of reimbursement. | Statute envisions shared funding and contingent payments. | 108L requires only fifty percent from municipalities plus actual reimbursement; CBAs valid. |
Key Cases Cited
- Milton v. Commonwealth, 416 Mass. 471 (1993) (reimbursement rights are conditional on available funds)
- Boston Hous. Auth. v. National Conference of Firemen & Oilers, Local 3, 458 Mass. 155 (2010) (evergreen clause conflict with three-year cap; interpretation of statutory text)
- School Comm. of Natick v. Education Ass’n of Natick, 423 Mass. 34 (1996) (statutes not enumerated in §7(d) prevail over conflicting CBAs)
- Sommerville v. Somerville Mun. Employees Ass’n, 80 Mass. App. Ct. 686 (2011) (harmonize statute and CBA where no direct conflict)
- Dedham v. Dedham Police Ass’n (Lieutenants & Sergeants), 46 Mass. App. Ct. 418 (1999) (fresh acceptance not required for amendments not germane to original statute)
- Cambridge v. Attorney Gen., 410 Mass. 165 (1991) (voluntary statutes binding once accepted)
- Broderick v. Mayor of Boston, 375 Mass. 98 (1978) (fresh acceptance principle for later amendments)