Title: Galenski v. Town of Erving
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: SJC-11772
State: Massachusetts
Issuer: Massachusetts Supreme Court
Date: April 17, 2015

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revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound 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 local-
option 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, § 9A½, specifically to 
address those concerns.  Where a retiree has served a number of 
municipalities, G. L. c. 32B, § 9A½,10 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, § 9A½, 
 
"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, § 9A½,, 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, 
§ 9A½, 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, § 9A½, 
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, § 9A½, 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.