MMA testimony to Public Service Committee on several bills, including Quinn Bill change

The Honorable Aaron M. Michlewitz, House Chair
The Honorable William N. Brownsberger, Senate Chair
Joint Committee on Public Service
State House, Boston
 
Dear Representative Michlewitz, Senator Brownsberger and Members of the Committee:
 
On behalf of the cities and towns of the Commonwealth, the Massachusetts Municipal Association wishes to offer comments on four bills before the Committee at today’s hearing. Our comments focus on legislation relative to residency requirements, surviving spouse benefits, and the Police Career Incentive Pay Program. These issues are at the core of municipal management’s responsibility to protect services and prudently allocate taxpayer dollars at the local level.
 
Public Safety Residency Requirements
The MMA strongly opposes H. 2271, which would increase the residency requirement for public safety employees in civil service communities from 10 miles to 50 miles. Currently, the law requires that police officers and firefighters reside no more than 10 miles from the communities in which they work. Many communities have included residency provisions in their collective bargaining contracts, and this bill may interfere with those agreements. A majority of communities have not included any residency provisions in their contracts at all, as the 10-mile range works well for them, and these municipalities would suddenly face serious management issues. We strongly ask you to oppose this legislation and any legislation that weakens residency requirements for public safety officials.
 
Surviving Spouse Benefits
We oppose S. 1223 and S. 1289, bills that would allow for pension benefits to be granted to surviving spouses if they remarried prior to July 1, 2000. Currently, pension benefits are terminated or reduced if a surviving spouse remarries, which is consistent with Social Security and the standard policies and practices received by 95 percent of the residents of Massachusetts. This bill would retroactively qualify an unknown number of individuals to receive retirement benefits that are not provided to remarried surviving spouses. Essentially, this legislation would guarantee these benefits for life, even though a surviving spouse has remarried and is no longer on his or her own. This unfunded mandate would drive up costs for taxpayers and increase unfunded pension liabilities.
 
Police Career Incentive Pay Program
The MMA strongly supports H. 2373, which would clarify the funding obligation for the Police Career Incentive Pay Program, commonly referred to as the Quinn Bill. The legislation, enacted by the Legislature in 1970, provides salary increases for municipal police officers who obtain additional levels of education. In 2010, 254 communities had adopted the program at local option. When the Quinn Bill was established, municipalities and the Commonwealth split the cost of the salary increases 50-50. As budgets became constrained, the state steadily decreased its payments, and now contributes no funding whatsoever to meet this statutory obligation. Of course, no community would have adopted this program in the first place had they known that the state would excuse itself from this commitment.
 
This legislation would do two very important things to protect communities from incurring 100 percent of the increased costs associated with the Quinn Bill. First, this bill would clarify that cities and towns are not responsible for the state’s 50 percent share of the Quinn Bill, even if they do not have such language in their collective bargaining agreements (CBAs). Many municipalities that adopted the program in recent years included language in their CBAs that protects them from incurring the state’s costs, a practice that emerged after the state began to underfund the Quinn Bill and other reimbursement accounts. Early adopters of the program generally did not include this language, potentially exposing them to the entire cost. This bill would free them of that unfunded mandate and unintended obligation.
 
Second, in a city or town in which an existing collective bargaining agreement provides for payment of the full amount of the program regardless of reimbursement by the Commonwealth, the amending language would not take effect until the completion of the CBA. The language would, however, take effect at the expiration of the agreement even if there is a provision that provides for the automatic extension of the agreement while a successor one is reached. This provision is crucial to responsibly moving communities and local taxpayers away from the burden of what otherwise is a massive new unfunded mandate.
 
Thank you for your interest in these very important local government concerns. The MMA looks forward to working with you on these measures and others throughout the legislative session. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to have your office contact MMA Legislative Analyst Katie McCue at (617) 426-7272 at any time.
 
Sincerely,
Geoffrey C. Beckwith
Executive Director, MMA