Firefighter may serve past age 65

Summary#

This bill would create a special law for Barton Temple, a firefighter in Holland, Massachusetts. It would let him continue serving until age 70, subject to fitness and the select board’s discretion; its stated purpose is to authorize his continued employment. The bill has been introduced and is not law.

  • Temple may continue working only while mentally and physically capable. He may serve until age 70, retirement, or the select board relieves him of his duties or does not reappoint him—whichever comes first.
  • The select board may, but does not have to, require an annual examination by an impartial physician it designates. The town would pay for an examination it requires.
  • After Temple turns 65, no further deductions may be made from his regular compensation under Chapter 32 for service after that age.
  • When he retires, his retirement allowance must equal what he would have received had he retired at age 65.
  • The bill applies to Temple alone; it does not change the rules for other Holland firefighters.

What it means for you#

  • Barton Temple: The bill would allow him to keep serving after age 65, but would not guarantee employment until age 70. The select board could end his service or not reappoint him earlier.
  • Town of Holland: The town could require annual fitness examinations and would pay for them if it did. The bill does not require the town to continue Temple’s employment.
  • Other firefighters and the public: The bill does not directly change their employment, retirement benefits, or services.

Money#

No cost estimate is provided in the available material.

  • The town would pay for annual physician examinations if it chooses to require them.
  • The bill sets Temple’s retirement allowance at the amount he would have received upon retiring at 65, and stops the specified Chapter 32 deductions from his compensation for later service.
  • No publicly available information on any other financial effect.

What is unclear#

  • The materials do not include Chapter 32 or explain how current law applies to Temple. The bill says it applies despite any conflicting general or special law.
  • The bill does not set standards for deciding whether Temple is mentally and physically capable, or give him a way to challenge that decision.
  • It does not explain how the select board’s decisions about relieving him of duties or not reappointing him would be made.
  • The bill calls for an “impartial” physician but does not explain how impartiality would be determined.
  • The bill would take effect upon passage, but passage is uncertain because it is still introduced and referred to committee.

Case for#

  • The bill appears intended to let Holland retain Temple’s services past age 65 while requiring that he remain capable of doing the job.
  • The town would keep discretion to end his service or not reappoint him, and could require annual medical examinations.
  • Setting his retirement allowance at the age-65 amount makes clear that continued service would not raise that allowance under this bill.

Case against#

  • The bill allows continued service without requiring annual examinations or setting a clear process for assessing fitness.
  • The bill gives the select board sole discretion over ending his service or not reappointing him, without spelling out a decision process.
  • The town could face examination costs, but the bill provides no estimate of those costs or of the broader financial effect of continued employment.