NOTICE: All slip opinions and orders are subject to formal 

revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound 

volumes of the Official Reports. If you find a typographical 

error or other formal error, please notify the Reporter of 

Decisions, Supreme Judicial Court, John Adams Courthouse, 1 

Pemberton Square, Suite 2500, Boston, MA, 02108-1750; (617) 557-

1030; SJCReporter@sjc.state.ma.us

SJC-11772

CHARLENE GALENSKI vs. TOWN OF ERVING & others.1

Franklin. January 6, 2015. - April 17, 2015.

Present: Gants, C.J., Spina, Cordy, Botsford, Duffly, Lenk, 

Hines, JJ.

Public Employment, Retirement benefits. School and School 

Committee, Retirement benefits, Group insurance. Municipal 

Corporations, Group insurance, Allocation of insurance 

premiums. Insurance, Group, Premiums. Retirement.

Civil action commenced in the Superior Court Department on 

November 21, 2012.

The case was heard by John A. Agostini, J., on motions for 

summary judgment.

The Supreme Judicial Court on its own initiative 

transferred the case from the Appeals Court.

Patricia M. Rapinchuk for the defendants.

Eric Lucentini (Sandra Lucentini with him) for the 

plaintiff.

DUFFLY, J. Charlene Galenski retired in 2012 after six 

years of service as a school principal in the town of Erving 

 

1 Board of selectmen of Erving and treasurer of Erving.
2

(town); she previously had been a long-time public school 

teacher in other municipalities in the Commonwealth. Galenski 

then sought continued health insurance coverage and contribution 

by the town to the cost of her group health insurance premiums. 

In 2001, the town had voted to adopt G. L. c. 32B, § 9E, which 

required it to contribute over fifty per cent of the health 

insurance premiums of all of its retirees. Before employing 

Galenski, however, the town had enacted a policy stating that it 

would contribute only to the group health insurance premiums of 

retired employees who had retired after a minimum of ten years 

of employment with the town. Although Galenski was permitted to 

remain a member of the town's group health insurance plan after 

she retired, the town determined she was not eligible for any 

contribution by the town to her health insurance premiums.

Galenski filed a complaint in the Superior Court contending 

that the town had violated her right to payment by the town of a 

portion of her group medical insurance premiums, as required 

under G. L. c. 32B, § 9E; she sought declaratory and injunctive 

relief, and also raised a claim of estoppel based on detrimental 

reliance. A judge of the Superior Court allowed Galenski's 

motion for summary judgment on the first two claims, denied the 

town's cross motion for summary judgment, and issued a permanent 
3

injunction prohibiting the town from enforcing its policy.2 The 

town appealed, and we transferred the case to this court on our 

own motion. We conclude that, because the town had voted to 

accept G. L. c. 32B, a local option statute that governs group 

health insurance for municipal employees, the terms of the 

statute govern whether and in what amounts the town must 

contribute to the cost of a retiree's health insurance premiums. 

Accordingly, the town's retirement policy imposing a minimum 

term of service as a prerequisite to premium contributions from 

the town is invalid.

1. Factual background. We recite the facts as set forth 

in the judge's decision, supplemented by undisputed facts in the 

record. In 1956, the town voted to accept G. L. c. 32B; by 

accepting certain local option provisions of that statute, the 

town was required to make group health insurance coverage 

available to retired employees. In 2001, the town's voters 

chose to accept G. L. c. 32B, § 9E.3 General Laws c. 32B, § 9E, 

 

2 Final judgment was entered only as to the first two 

claims; the claim for detrimental reliance is not before us.

3 The town of Erving (town) accepted G. L. c. 32B, § 9E, by 

a majority vote on the following ballot question, the language 

of which is prescribed by the statute:

"Shall the town, in addition to the payment of fifty 

percent of a premium for contributory group life, hospital, 

surgical, medical, dental, and other health insurance for 

employees retired from the service of the town . . . pay a 

subsidiary or additional rate?"
4

requires municipalities to contribute to the group health 

insurance premiums of retired employees at a rate determined by 

the municipality, but that rate must exceed fifty per cent of 

the cost of the insurance premiums.4

In February, 2006, the town enacted a retirement policy 

restricting participation in its group health insurance plan to 

those employees who retired from the town "after a minimum of 

ten (10) years of employment by the [t]own." The policy further 

provided that "[a]n eligible retiree with less than ten (10) 

years of employment with the [town] may choose to continue 

health insurance coverage through the [t]own's carrier at [one 

hundred per cent] of the retiree's cost."

Galenski began employment as the principal of Erving 

Elementary School on July 1, 2006.5 At that time, she was a 

long-time educator with over thirty years of creditable service6

as a public school teacher in the Commonwealth.7 As an active 

 

4 During the time frame at issue here, the town's rate of 

contribution under G. L. c. 32B, § 9E, was seventy-nine per cent 

of the cost of a retiree's health insurance premiums.

5 Charlene Galenski was informed of the town's retirement 

policy before she commenced employment.

6 An employee must have a minimum of ten years of creditable 

service to qualify for superannuation retirement. See G. L. 

c. 32, § 5 (1) (m).

7 Galenski spent the first thirty years of her public school 

teaching career in other municipalities, at least some of which 

had accepted G. L. c. 32B, § 9A or 9E.
5

employee, Galenski was enrolled in the town's health insurance 

plan, and the town contributed to the cost of her health 

insurance premiums. Galenski retired in good standing in 

October, 2012, after six years of service to the town.

At a meeting on October 1, 2012, the town's board of 

selectmen determined that Galenski, although eligible to 

continue to participate in the town's group health insurance 

plan, would be responsible for one hundred per cent of her 

insurance premiums. After her retirement, Galenski continued to 

participate in the town's group health insurance plan, paying 

the entire amount of the monthly premiums.8

2. Discussion. a. Standard of review. We review a grant 

of summary judgment de novo to determine whether, viewing the 

evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, all 

material facts have been established and the moving party is 

entitled to judgment as a matter of law. DeWolfe v. Hingham 

Ctr., Ltd., 464 Mass. 795, 799 (2013). See Mass. R. Civ. 

P. 56 (c), as amended, 436 Mass. 1404 (2002).

b. Statutory framework. General Laws c. 32B is a localoption statute governing various insurance benefits for 

employees of municipalities and other State political 

 

8 The judge's order on the town's cross motion for summary 

judgment noted that Galenski was at that time still paying one 

hundred per cent of the then approximately $1,200 monthly 

premium.
6

subdivisions. Cioch v. Treasurer of Ludlow, 449 Mass. 690, 690 

n.2 (2007). The purpose of G. L. c. 32B "is to provide a plan 

of group life insurance, group accidental death and 

dismemberment insurance and group general or blanket hospital, 

surgical, medical, dental and other health insurance for certain 

persons in the service of counties . . . , cities, towns and 

districts and their dependents." G. L. c. 32B, § 1.

As a local-option statute, G. L. c. 32B "does not take 

effect until a governmental unit accepts it." Connors v. 

Boston, 430 Mass. 31, 37 (1999). "Once accepted, however, it 

provides the exclusive mechanisms by which and to whom the 

[municipality] may provide group health insurance." Id. See 

Yeretsky v. Attleboro, 424 Mass. 315, 316-317 (1997). Where a 

municipality has exercised its local option to provide group 

health insurance for its employees through acceptance of G. L. 

c. 32B, "employees are automatically covered by group insurance 

unless the employee 'give[s] written notice . . . indicating 

that he is not to be insured for such coverages.'" McDonald v. 

Town Manager of Southbridge, 39 Mass. App. Ct. 479, 480 (1995), 

S.C., 423 Mass. 1018 (1996), quoting G. L. c. 32B, § 4.

Under the "default" provision of G. L. c. 32B, § 9, if 

group health insurance is offered to a municipality's active 

employees, such insurance coverage "shall be continued [for 

retired employees] and the retired employee shall pay the full 
7

premium cost, subject to the provisions of [G. L. c. 32B, § 9A 

or 9E,] whichever may be applicable." See Yeretsky v. 

Attleboro, supra at 317. In lieu of the default provision under 

G. L. c. 32B, § 9, a municipality adopting G. L. c. 32B may opt 

to accept one of these two local options, which require 

contributions by the municipality to a retiree's group insurance 

premiums. By adopting G. L. c. 32B, § 9A, a municipality 

chooses to pay fifty per cent of a retiree's insurance premiums; 

if a municipality adopts G. L. c. 32B, § 9E, the municipality 

then "may elect to pay 'a subsidiary or additional rate' greater 

than fifty per cent of a retiree's health insurance premium." 

Somerville v. Commonwealth Employment Relations Bd., 470 Mass. 

563, 565 (2015). In addition, G. L. c. 32B, § 9E, mandates that 

"[n]o governmental unit . . . shall provide different subsidiary 

or additional rates to any group or class within that unit."

c. Validity of the town's term of service requirement. 

The town contends that its term of service policy, restricting 

the town's obligation to contribute to retirees' health 

insurance premiums to those retirees who were employed by the 

town for a minimum of ten years, is consistent with the language 

and purpose of G. L. c. 32B, § 9E. The town relies on Cioch v. 

Treasurer of Ludlow, 449 Mass. at 696-697, for the proposition 

that a town policy or regulation permissibly may limit a 

retiree's eligibility for insurance coverage under G. L. c. 32B, 
8

§ 9E. The town construes the prohibition in G. L. c. 32B, § 9E, 

against affording different premium contribution rates to "any 

group or class" as meaning only that groups such as teachers, 

fire fighters, and police officers cannot, through collective 

bargaining, negotiate different rates of contribution for their 

members. The town argues that such collective bargaining by 

separate groups could expose a municipality to expensive 

administrative costs, thereby defeating what it views to be the 

Legislature's purpose of cost containment.

"[A] statute must be interpreted according to the intent of 

the Legislature ascertained from all its words construed by the 

ordinary and approved usage of the language, considered in 

connection with the cause of its enactment, the mischief or 

imperfection to be remedied and the main object to be 

accomplished, to the end that the purpose of its framers may be 

effectuated." Worcester v. College Hill Props., LLC, 465 Mass. 

134, 139 (2013), quoting Harvard Crimson, Inc. v. President & 

Fellows of Harvard College, 445 Mass. 745, 749 (2006). In 

interpreting a statute, we look first to its plain language. 

Worcester v. College Hill Props., LLC, supra at 138. 

Municipalities accepting G. L. c. 32B, § 9E, "shall . . . 

in addition to the payment of fifty per cent of a premium for 

contributory group life, hospital, surgical, medical, dental and 

other health insurance for employees retired from the service of 
9

the town, and their dependents, pay a subsidiary or additional 

rate" that is determined by vote of the municipality. "The word 

'shall' is ordinarily interpreted as having a mandatory or 

imperative obligation." Hashimi v. Kalil, 388 Mass. 607, 609 

(1983). The statute, by its terms, is mandatory, and "once 

accepted the municipality must comply with the statute's 

unambiguous mandates," notwithstanding that the statute was 

adopted voluntarily. Adams v. Boston, 461 Mass. 602, 609 

(2012). Because the town chose to adopt G. L. c. 32B, § 9E, the 

plain language of that section mandates that the town contribute 

more than fifty per cent of the premiums of "employees retired 

from the service of the town."

As stated, an "employee" within the meaning of G. L. 

c. 32B, is defined as "any person in the service of a 

governmental unit . . . who receives compensation for any such 

service, whether such person is employed, appointed or elected 

by popular vote, . . . provided, however, that the duties of 

such person require not less than [twenty] hours, regularly, in 

the service of the governmental unit during the regular work 

week of permanent or temporary employment." G. L. c. 32B, § 2. 

As a public school principal, Galenski held a position that 

falls within this definition. As an employee with more than 

thirty years of creditable service, Galenski was eligible to 

receive retirement benefits. See G. L. c. 32, § 5 (1) (m); note 
10

6, supra. Because she was a member of the town's group health 

insurance plan while employed as the principal of Erving 

Elementary School, Galenski was statutorily entitled to 

continued group health insurance as a retiree. See G. L. 

c. 32B, § 9. Cf. Lexington Educ. Ass'n v. Lexington, 15 Mass. 

App. Ct. 749, 752 (1983) (rejecting town's "self-imposed and 

super-statutory" minimum hours requirement for eligibility for 

health insurance benefits as inconsistent with statutory 

definition of "employee").

In describing contributions by a municipality to its 

retirees' insurance premiums, G. L. c. 32B, § 9E, further 

mandates that "[n]o governmental unit . . . shall provide 

different subsidiary or additional rates to any group or class 

within that unit." Identical language appears in G. L. c. 32B, 

§ 7A, which governs contributions to insurance premiums of 

active employees.

On the date of Galenski's retirement, the town's retirement 

policy provided, in pertinent part:

"For a retiree . . . to qualify for participation in 

the [t]own's group insurance . . . [t]he employee must 

qualify for county or teacher's retirement and must retire 

from the [town] after a minimum of ten (10) years of 

employment by the [t]own . . . , having been eligible for 

health insurance for all of the ten (10) years . . . .

". . .

"An eligible retiree with less than ten (10) years of 

employment with the [town] may choose to continue health 
11

insurance through the [t]own's carrier at [one hundred per 

cent] of the retiree's cost."

The requirement that a retiree "must retire from the [town] 

after a minimum of ten (10) years of employment by the [t]own" 

in order to receive contribution towards insurance premiums is 

not consistent with G. L. c. 32B, § 9E. The town's requirement 

of a minimum term of service places retirees like Galenski into 

a subclass of retirees who are not entitled to contribution to 

their health insurance premiums, despite otherwise qualifying 

for superannuation retirement benefits.

"[A] municipality may not enact a bylaw, policy, or 

regulation that is inconsistent with State law." Cioch v. 

Treasurer of Ludlow, 449 Mass. at 699. The town's retirement 

policy is inconsistent with G. L. c. 32B in two significant 

respects and, accordingly, is invalid. First, the retirement 

policy establishes different insurance premium contribution 

rates for different groups of employees, despite the "literal 

mandate of equal treatment for all groups of employees with 

respect to employer contributions toward insurance costs." See 

Swampscott Educ. Ass'n v. Swampscott, 391 Mass. 864, 867 (1984) 

(interpreting identical language in G. L. c. 32B, § 7A [d], 

which governs insurance premium contribution for active 

employees, where "town has undertaken voluntarily to pay more 

than [fifty per cent] of one group of employees' insurance 
12

costs"). Second, the retirement policy seeks to exempt the town 

from contributing to any portion of the insurance premiums for 

one group of employees, notwithstanding that the town has 

adopted G. L. c. 32B, § 9E, which by its plain language 

obligates the town to contribute more than fifty per cent of the 

costs of that group's insurance premiums.

Our interpretation of the clear statutory language is 

consistent with the Legislature's manifest purpose in enacting 

G. L. c. 32B, which is to provide group health insurance for 

municipal employees. See G. L. c. 32B, § 1. The statute 

provides local governments "with a volume of purchasing power 

sufficient to assure that their employees will receive the 

highest possible level of benefits at the lowest possible cost." 

Connors v. Boston, 430 Mass. at 39, quoting 1967 Senate Doc. 

No. 1174, at 4. The town argues that its retirement policy 

simply furthers the cost containment goals of G. L. c. 32B. 

This argument is unavailing. The purpose of the statute is to 

create "a 'comprehensive scheme of coverage' for governmental 

employees" by "gather[ing] them in large groups so as to effect 

economies of scale" (citation omitted). McDonald v. Town 

Manager of Southbridge, 39 Mass. App. Ct. at 480. The goal of 

cost containment does not, however, permit the town to seek 

further reduction of its costs through a policy that eliminates 

its obligation to contribute to the insurance premiums of a 
13

certain subset of retirees.

Invalidation of a town regulation is appropriate where "the 

purpose of the statute cannot be achieved in the face of the 

local by-law" (citation omitted). Connors v. Boston, supra at 

35. The town's term of service policy is inconsistent with the 

"comprehensive scheme of coverage" established by G. L. c. 32B, 

because it treats retired employees differently based on their 

years of service to the town, and precludes them from receiving 

benefits to which they are statutorily entitled. See McDonald

v. Town Manager of Southbridge, supra at 481.

The town's reliance on Cioch v. Treasurer of Ludlow, 449 

Mass. at 696-697, is misplaced. In that case, we addressed the 

validity of a municipality's policy requiring a retiree to have 

been enrolled in a group health insurance plan while an active 

employee in order to continue that coverage during retirement. 

Id. at 696. The plaintiff was a retiree who had been enrolled 

in her husband's health insurance plan while she was an active 

employee of a municipality. Three years after her retirement, 

when her husband retired, she sought to enroll in one of the 

municipality's health insurance plans. Id. at 692-693. We 

noted that the statute "accords municipalities substantial 

latitude in the adoption of 'such rules and regulations, not 

inconsistent with [G. L. c. 32B], as may be necessary for [its] 

administration.'" Id. at 697-698, quoting G. L. c. 32B, § 14. 
14

We upheld the municipality's policy because "[n]othing in the 

plain language of G. L. c. 32B, §[] 9 or 16, requires a 

municipality to permit a retiree who has not enrolled in a 

municipal health insurance plan while employed, to enroll in a 

municipal health insurance plan after she has retired, or 

precludes it from doing so." Cioch v. Treasurer of Ludlow, 

supra at 698. We concluded that, while a municipality 

permissibly could limit enrollment to active employees, it 

remained obligated by the statute to "provide[] for continued 

coverage of those employees during their retirement." Id. at 

699.

Finally, we reject the town's assertion that its "policy is 

not unlike pension benefits that are calculated based on years 

of service," and its suggestion that its policy furthers 

reasonable cost containment efforts because it should not be 

held "responsible for paying a significant portion of [an] 

employee's health insurance premium in retirement [who had 

worked for other municipalities]."9 To the contrary, the 

 

9 The town also claims that its policy is a valid exercise 

of its power under the Home Rule Amendment, which provides that 

a town may "exercise any power or function which the general 

court has power to confer upon it, which is not inconsistent 

with the constitution or laws enacted by the general court." 

Art. 89, § 6, of the Amendments to the Massachusetts 

Constitution. Because Massachusetts has "the strongest type of 

home rule," municipal action is presumed to be valid unless 

preempted by State law. Connors v. Boston, 430 Mass. 31, 35 

(1999). The town argues that its policy is not inconsistent 
15

Legislature was cognizant of the potential consequences to a 

town which, because it has chosen to accept G. L. c. 32B, § 9E, 

must, as the last employer in a retiree's long-term public 

service career, contribute to the premiums of such retirees. 

The Legislature enacted G. L. c. 32B, § 9A1⁄2, specifically to 

address those concerns. Where a retiree has served a number of 

municipalities, G. L. c. 32B, § 9A1⁄2,

10 creates a reimbursement 

scheme between those employing municipalities, and allows the 

municipality from which the employee retired to recover its 

proportional share of contributions from other municipalities 

 

with G. L. c. 32B, which establishes only a "sparse framework," 

and, therefore, that the Legislature did not intend to preempt 

municipal action such as the town's retirement policy. Our 

determination that the town's policy is in conflict with the 

language and intent of G. L. c. 32B, §§ 9 and 9E, disposes of 

this claim. Cf. Connors v. Boston, supra at 39-40, citing 

Boston Gas Co. v. Newton, 425 Mass. 697, 699 (1997) (addressing 

question of preemption, and holding that local executive order 

expanding definition of dependent was inconsistent with language 

and intent of G. L. c. 32B).

10 Pursuant to G. L. c. 32B, § 9A1⁄2,

"Whenever a retired employee or beneficiary receives a 

healthcare premium contribution from a governmental unit in 

a case where a portion of the retiree's creditable service 

is attributable to service in [one] or more governmental 

units, the first governmental unit shall be reimbursed in 

full, in accordance with this paragraph, by the other 

governmental units for the portion of the premium 

contributions that corresponds to the percentage of the 

retiree's creditable service that is attributable to each 

governmental unit. The other governmental units shall be 

charged based on their own contribution rate or the 

contribution rate of the first employer, whichever is 

lower."
16

where the retiree had been employed.

The plain language of this provision supports our 

interpretation of G. L. c. 32B, § 9E, as reflecting the 

Legislature's intent that a municipality that has chosen to 

adopt that section must contribute to the premiums of all of its 

retirees, regardless whether, as active employees, their years 

of creditable service were performed largely in other 

municipalities.11 We give effect to all provisions of a statute, 

which "must be viewed 'as a whole.'" Wolfe v. Gormally, 440 

Mass. 699, 704 (2004), quoting 2A N. Singer, Sutherland 

Statutory Construction § 46.05, at 154 (6th ed. 2000). The 

town's interpretation of the statutory scheme is inconsistent 

with G. L. c. 32B, § 9A1⁄2,, which reflects the Legislature's 

understanding that the last employer in line will be required to 

contribute to the insurance premiums of its retirees, 

notwithstanding that the retiree may have spent a substantial 

 

11 The town argues that, notwithstanding G. L. c. 32B, 

§ 9A1⁄2, it should be permitted to exclude retirees who served the 

town for fewer than ten years from its insurance premium 

contributions, arguing, essentially, that G. L. c. 32B, § 9A1⁄2, 

does not do enough to contain costs. The town contends that it 

should be permitted to further reduce costs by limiting the 

class of retirees eligible for premium contributions to those 

employed by the town for longer periods of service. The town 

notes, for example, that although it may seek reimbursement from 

other municipalities under G. L. c. 32B, § 9A1⁄2, it first must 

contribute to the premiums, and may seek reimbursement only the 

following year. It notes also that it must seek reimbursement 

based on the lower of the municipalities' rates of contribution. 

Concerns that the cost containment measures established by the 

statute are inadequate may be addressed to the Legislature.
17

portion of her career working for a different municipality.

Judgment affirmed.