Twomey v. Town of Middleborough

• Citation: 468 Mass. 260,10 N.E.3d 618
• Decision Date: 02 June 2014
• Docket Number: SJC–11435.
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court
• Parties: GAIL E. TWOMEY & others v. TOWN OF MIDDLEBOROUGH & others (and a consolidated case ).

468 Mass. 260
10 N.E.3d 618

GAIL E. TWOMEY & others¹
v.
TOWN OF MIDDLEBOROUGH & others² (and a consolidated case³ ).

SJC–11435.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts,
Plymouth.

Argued Feb. 6, 2014.
Decided June 2, 2014.

[10 N.E.3d 619]

Sandra C. Quinn, Boston, for Gail E. Twomey & others.

Thomas J. Burns, III, West Bridgewater, for Charles Armanetti & others.

Leo J. Peloquin for the defendants.

Present: IRELAND, C.J., SPINA, CORDY, BOTSFORD, GANTS, DUFFLY, & LENK, JJ.

SPINA, J.

In this case, we consider which municipal entity, the board of selectmen or the town meeting, has the authority to establish the percentage of the total monthly premium for insurance coverage by a health maintenance organization (HMO) that is to be paid by a town's retired employees. We conclude that, pursuant to G.L. c. 32B, § 16, the board of selectmen has such authority.

1. Statutory framework. Under the Home Rule Amendment, art. 89, § 6, of the Amendments to the Massachusetts Constitution, municipalities of the Commonwealth may choose to provide health insurance coverage to their employees. See Cioch v. Treasurer of Ludlow, 449 Mass. 690, 695, 871 N.E.2d 469 (2007). General Laws c. 32B is a so-called “local option” statute that governs the provision of group insurance (medical and certain other coverages) once a municipality has voted to accept the terms of the statute.⁴ See Connors v. Boston, 430 Mass. 31, 37, 714 N.E.2d 335 (1999); Yeretsky v. Attleboro, 424 Mass. 315, 316–317, 676 N.E.2d 1118 (1997). Recognizing that various municipalities may have different priorities, we have said that “a municipality is permitted to adopt ‘only those provisions of the statute that best accommodate its needs and budget.’ ” Cioch, supra at 697, 871 N.E.2d 469, quoting Yeretsky, supra at 317, 676 N.E.2d 1118. Where the municipality at issue is a town, acceptance of many, but not all, of the provisions of G.L. c. 32B is “by vote of the inhabitants at a town meeting.” Yeretsky, supra at 317 n. 5, 676 N.E.2d 1118. See G.L. c. 32B, § 10.

When it was enacted, G.L. c. 32B, inserted by St. 1956, c. 730, § 1, authorized municipalities to offer certain employees and their dependents group indemnity health insurance coverage. See G.L. c. 32B, §§ 1, 3. Beginning in 1971, municipalities were given the option of making available to such individuals the services of an HMO by accepting G.L. c. 32B, § 16, inserted by St. 1971, c. 946, § 5.⁵ See Yeretsky, 424 Mass. at 317, 676 N.E.2d 1118

[10 N.E.3d 620]

(statutory language governing traditional indemnity group health insurance programs differs from language governing HMOs). Section 16 takes effect in a town when it is accepted “by vote of the board of selectmen.” G.L. c. 32B, § 16.

General Laws c. 32B, § 16, states, in pertinent part:

“Upon acceptance of this section ..., the appropriate public authority of the governmental unit shall enter into a contract ... to make available the services of [an HMO] to certain eligible and retired employees and dependents ..., on a voluntary and optional basis, as it deems to be in the best interest of the governmental unit and such eligible persons as aforesaid.... The appropriate public authority shall negotiate such a contract of insurance for and on behalf and in the name of the governmental unit for such a period of time not exceeding five years as it may in its discretion, deem to be the most advantageous to the governmental unit and the persons insured hereunder.... Eligible persons ... shall pay a minimum of ten percent of the total monthly premium cost or rate for coverage under this section, ... provided ... that such eligible persons shall in no event be required to pay more than fifty percent of such total monthly premium cost or rate.... The appropriate public authority may adopt such rules and regulations as may be necessary for the administration of this section” (emphasis added).

The term “governmental unit” is defined as “any political subdivision of the [C]ommonwealth.” G.L. c. 32B, § 2. With respect to a town, the “appropriate public authority” that shall contract for the services of an HMO is “the selectmen.” Id.

2. Factual and procedural background. The facts are taken from the parties' joint statement of material facts, which we have supplemented with undisputed facts from the record. The Twomey plaintiffs are retired public school employees in the town of Middleborough (town), and each receives a retirement allowance from the Massachusetts Teachers' Retirement System (MTRS) pursuant to G.L. c. 32. The Armanetti plaintiffs are retired town employees, including former teachers, police officers, fire fighters, and other public servants. Those individuals who are retired teachers receive a retirement allowance from the MTRS, and the other retired employees receive an allowance from the Plymouth County Retirement System pursuant to G.L. c. 32. The Armanetti plaintiffs also include the Middleborough Retirees Insurance Group (MRIG), a voluntary association of individuals comprised of retired town employees.

The town is a municipal corporation and a political subdivision of the Commonwealth. It operates under an open town meeting form of government. The town meeting is a legislative body,⁶ and it makes appropriations with respect to the town's budget. Registered voters are authorized to place matters necessitating action on a town meeting warrant pursuant to G.L. c. 39, § 10.⁷ A board of selectmen acts as

[10 N.E.3d 621]

the chief executive officer of the town,⁸ and it appoints a town manager to handle the town's affairs. See generally D.A. Randall & D.E. Franklin, Municipal Law and Practice § 6.13 (5th ed. 2006).

The town offers group health insurance coverage to both its active and retired employees pursuant to G.L. c. 32B.⁹ One of the insurance plans that the town offers to retirees pursuant to G.L. c. 32B, § 16, is HMO Blue New England (HMO Blue).¹⁰ At all relevant times, the Twomey plaintiffs and the Armanetti plaintiffs were enrolled in this plan. The portion of the premium cost for which they were responsible was deducted from their retirement allowances and transferred to the town pursuant to G.L. c. 32. At the time each plaintiff retired, the town paid ninety per cent of that retiree's insurance premium for HMO Blue coverage, and the retiree paid the remaining ten per cent.¹¹

On April 16, 2009, MRIG submitted a written request to the board of selectmen, in accordance with G.L. c. 39, § 10, to include an article in a town meeting warrant (article 9), pertaining to “freezing” the percentage of the town's contribution to the health insurance premiums for retired employees at ninety per cent.¹² Article 9 was certified for inclusion on the warrant for a special town meeting to be held on May 26, 2009. On May 7, 2009, the warrant was published in the Middleboro Gazette, a local newspaper.

[10 N.E.3d 622]

On May 11, 2009, the board of selectmen voted that “the contribution to be put in by retirees be the same as the general government employees, including the end of co-pay reimbursements effective July 1, 2009.” ¹³ The effect of this vote was to increase the portion of the premium paid by retired employees for HMO Blue coverage from ten per cent to twenty per cent. At the time of this vote, the board of selectmen was aware that a special town meeting had been scheduled for May 26, and that article 9 would be considered by registered voters. The town's treasurer proceeded to mail letters to retired employees, including the Twomey plaintiffs and the Armanetti plaintiffs, informing them that the portion of the HMO premium for which they were responsible had increased to twenty per cent of the total premium, effective July 1, 2009.

On May 26, 2009, the special town meeting was held. A quorum was present to conduct business, and article 9 was approved.¹⁴ However, the town never implemented it. Since July 1, 2009, retired employees have been paying twenty per cent of the premium for their HMO coverage in accordance with the vote of the board of selectmen.

On October 30, 2009, the Twomey plaintiffs filed an action in the Superior Court against the town, the board of selectmen, and the town manager (collectively, the defendants), challenging their refusal to comply with the vote of the May 26, 2009, special town meeting to pay ninety per cent of the HMO premiums for retired employees. Count I of the second amended complaint, filed on July 15, 2010, sought a declaratory judgment pursuant to G.L. c. 231A, stating that the proper and lawful vote of the special town meeting could not be set aside by a vote of the board of selectmen. Count II of the second amended complaint requested relief in the nature of mandamus. The Twomey plaintiffs sought an order, retroactive to July 1, 2009, requiring the defendants to implement the vote of the special town meeting and to make the Twomey plaintiffs whole for the premium payments that they had made in excess of the amount authorized by the special town meeting.

On June 1, 2010, the Armanetti plaintiffs filed a complaint for declaratory relief pursuant to G.L. c. 231A in the Superior Court. They presented the same claim that had been raised by the Twomey plaintiffs, namely, that the board of selectmen did not have the authority to ignore the vote of the special town meeting and raise the HMO premium contribution percentage for retired town employees from ten per cent to twenty per cent.¹⁵ The Twomey plaintiffs and the defendants subsequently filed a motion pursuant to Mass. R. Civ. P. 42(a), as amended, 423 Mass. 1402 (1996), to consolidate the two civil actions for the purpose of deciding the town meeting claims. The Armanetti plaintiffs opposed the motion. Nonetheless, on January 5, 2011, the motion was allowed.

[10 N.E.3d 623]

On June 3, 2011, the Twomey plaintiffs and the Armanetti plaintiffs filed separate motions for summary judgment pursuant to Mass. R. Civ. P. 56, 365 Mass. 824 (1974).¹⁶ They asserted that the May 26,...