SJC hears Quinn Bill case

On Nov. 8, the state’s highest court heard arguments in a case that will determine whether municipalities must make up for a state funding shortfall in the Police Career Incentive Pay Program, even when the union contract specifies that the municipality is not liable.

The city of Boston is being sued by its police union, which claims that its officers are entitled to their full incentive payments, regardless of whether the state funds its 50 percent share of the so-called Quinn Bill program – this despite the fact that the union’s collective bargaining agreement states that the city is not responsible for the state’s share.

The Supreme Judicial Court’s ruling in the case is expected to set precedent across the state regarding responsibility for payment.

The 40-year-old Quinn program was created as an incentive for police officers to earn degrees in the fields of criminal justice and law enforcement. Once a police officer receives a degree and that degree is certified by the Department of Education, he or she is entitled to an increase in salary: 10 percent for an associate’s degree, 20 percent for a bachelor’s, and 25 percent for a master’s. The statute that created the local-option program called for the state to reimburse participating municipalities in the next fiscal year for 50 percent of the salary increases.

The state, however, began drastically reducing its support for the program in fiscal 2010 and eliminated funding for it this year.

Most of the 254 communities that adopted the Quinn Bill (M.G.L. Ch. 41, Sec. 108L) never anticipated that the state would renege on its share and didn’t address payment responsibilities in their collective bargaining agreements.

A handful of communities, however, included protective language in their contracts. The police contracts in Boston clearly state that the city is only responsible for its 50-percent share of Quinn payments, regardless of the level of state fudning.

At the SJC hearing, attorneys for the Boston police officers claimed that responsibility for Quinn payments is not identified in Chapter 150E, Section 7(d), the state law that governs collective bargaining, as something that can be bargained, and so the city’s contract provision is invalid.

The police also argued that the intent of the Quinn legislation was that payment be made in full to the officers. The statute’s silence on who is responsible for payment implies that the municipality – the body adopting the local option – is responsible.

The city countered that the union agreed to the contract provision regarding Quinn payments and, because the statute is silent on the matter, the role of the contract is to clarify. The city argued that state law can’t anticipate every possible condition, and contracts are used to fill in gaps when the law is unclear.

The city also argued that the statute implies that municipalities are only responsible for their 50 percent share, and municipalities would not have adopted the local option without this level of certainty. The Quinn statute clearly states that the municipality will pay half and the state will pay half; nowhere does it say that one will pick up the other’s share if they don’t pay, the city argued.

The SJC received a number of briefs prior to the oral arguments, including one from the MMA on behalf of the city of Boston.

A ruling on the case is expected in late winter.