Directing the city of Boston Police Department to waive the maximum age requirement for police officers for Adam Watt
Summary
H3928 is a special, individual-specific local bill that directs the Boston Police Department to waive the maximum age requirement for original appointment as a police officer for Adam Watt. The bill states that, notwithstanding any general or special law to the contrary, including Chapter 43 of the Acts of 2007, Boston must treat Watt as eligible for certification for original appointment if he meets all other departmental requirements.
The measure is narrowly tailored to one named person and does not broadly change hiring standards for all police applicants statewide. It would operate as a local exception to existing age-limit rules for police appointments in Boston, allowing the department to bypass the maximum age restriction only for this applicant and only for the purpose of original appointment certification.
Impact
If enacted, the bill would create a one-time exemption from Boston’s police hiring age cap for Adam Watt, overriding conflicting provisions of general or special law, including the 2007 act referenced in the text. It would affect the City of Boston Police Department’s appointment process by requiring the department to waive the maximum age requirement for this individual, while leaving the underlying age-limit framework in place for others.
Sentiment
The available record shows no committee transcript, vote tally, or recorded debate, so there is no documented public sentiment from legislative discussion. Based on the bill’s structure, it appears to be a routine local petition measure, typically introduced with support from local officials, and the text notes that local approval was received. There is no evidence in the provided materials of opposition or controversy in committee or on the floor.
Contention
The main point of contention inherent in the bill is the departure from standard age-based eligibility rules for police hiring, which could raise fairness or precedent concerns because it grants a personal exemption to a named applicant. Any objection would likely focus on whether special legislation should be used to override uniform hiring standards, while supporters would emphasize the applicant-specific nature of the relief and the local approval noted in the filing. No specific opposing arguments are documented in the materials provided.