Authorizing the city of Beverly to continue the employment of John G. LeLacheur as police chief
Summary
This bill is a local special act authorizing the city of Beverly to keep John G. LeLacheur in the position of police chief beyond the usual retirement age limits, so long as he remains mentally and physically capable of performing the job. It allows him to continue serving until he reaches age 70, retires, or is relieved by the mayor, whichever comes first. The city may also require, at its own expense, an examination by an impartial physician to confirm his fitness for duty.
The bill also protects LeLacheur’s pension rights by providing that no additional retirement deductions will be taken from his pay after age 65, and that when he retires he will receive a superannuation retirement allowance as if he had retired at age 65. In effect, the measure creates an exception to the normal state retirement rules for one named municipal employee and preserves his retirement benefits while extending his service.
Impact
The bill would amend the application of Massachusetts public retirement law, specifically chapter 32 of the General Laws, for one Beverly police chief. It creates a narrow, local exemption allowing continued employment past age 65 and up to age 70, while preserving retirement calculations as though the employee had retired at 65. The practical effect is to override standard age-based service limits and retirement contribution rules for this individual and to give the city authority to manage the appointment subject to fitness-for-duty review.
Sentiment
The available record suggests the bill is routine and locally supported rather than controversial. It is a joint petition with local approval received, and there are no recorded committee transcripts or votes indicating opposition or debate. The tone of the measure is administrative and individualized, focused on accommodating a specific municipal staffing need while maintaining a fitness requirement and pension protections.
Contention
Any potential contention would likely center on the bill’s departure from ordinary retirement rules and the fact that it grants a special exception to a named individual rather than changing policy generally. Questions could arise about fairness, precedent for other municipal employees, and the fiscal impact of allowing continued service without additional retirement deductions while preserving a 65-year retirement allowance. However, the bill text itself builds in safeguards by requiring continued mental and physical capability and allowing the city to order an independent medical examination.