Court Opinion

ID: 9744429
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 22:02:56.310871+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:24:49.185720
License: Public Domain

Braucher, J.
(dissenting in part). I agree with most of what is said in the opinion of the court, but I do not think the 1972 statute was intended to apply to court officers who before August 16, 1972, had attained age sixty-five while classified in Group 1. As applied to such employees the result reached by the court treats court officers more harshly than others whose classification is changed. Although the Legislature has power to direct that result, I do not believe it intended to exercise that power.
Statute 1972, c. 740, § 10, amending G. L. c. 221, § 72, *788was approved on July 17, 1972, and took effect on August 16, 1972. The amendment was part of the legislation establishing the Appeals Court, and its primary purpose was the insertion of references to that court. Late in the enactment process, however, § 10 was modified to provide that court officers attending this court, the Appeals Court or the Superior Court in any county “shall hold office during good behavior but not beyond age sixty-five” (emphasis supplied).1 The italicized language first appeared in a committee report made on July 5,1972,2 and the Legislature was prorogued on July 9, 1972.3 Legislative materials show nothing relevant except the change in statutory text.
Before the 1972 amendment to § 72, the court officers who had attained age sixty-five were classified as members of Group 1, established by G. L. c. 32, § 3 (2) (g), as amended. A member of Group 1 is required to retire on the last day of the month in which he attains age seventy; a member of Group 2 is required to retire on the last day of the month in which he attains age sixty-five.4 But “no member who attains age sixty-five while classified in Group 1 may thereafter be classified in Group 2, irrespective of change of employment.”5 No such provision is contained in the definition of Group 4, designed for police, firemen, and like employees.6
Court officers are subject both to G.L.c. 221, § 72, and to G. L. c. 32, §§ 1-28. Burnside v. Bristol County Bd. of Retirement, 352 Mass. 481, 485 (1967). On previous occasions, when classifications were changed, the Legislature *789showed itself sensitive to the harsh effects abrupt change can have on employees many of whom have rendered twenty or thirty years of faithful service. E.g., G. L. c. 32, § 5 (1) (a) and (c). St. 1969, c. 110, § 2. Here, however, in the traditional confusion of the days of prorogation, the Legislature enacted a badly drafted amendment which simply did not fit the retirement system. Our task in this situation, in my view, is to reconcile the conflicting statutes in such a way as to produce a harmonious whole, so far as that can be done without departing from clearly expressed legislative commands. Cf. Chief of Police of Dracut v. Dracut, 357 Mass. 492, 499 (1970).
I would read the 1972 amendment to G. L. c. 221, § 72, as transferring court officers from Group 1 to Group 2, subject to all the provisions of our statutes governing such transfers. On this reading, those who had attained age sixty-five while classified in Group 1 would not be classified in Group 2. They would remain subject to involuntary retirement at age seventy. Contrast Kingston v. McLaughlin, 359 F. Supp. 25, 27 (D. Mass. 1972), affd. 411 U. S. 923 (1973), where the plaintiffs, if not subject to the amendment, would not have been subject to involuntary retirement at all. Since all but six of the present plaintiffs attained age sixty-five while classified in Group 1, they would on my reading remain in Group 1 and would be subject to involuntary retirement at age seventy rather than at age sixty-five.

 1972 Sen. Doc. No. 1277, p. 12.

 1972 House Journal, p. 2249.

 1972 Senate Journal, pp. 1970-1971.

 G.L.c. 32, § 1, defining “Maximum Age,” as appearing in St. 1967, c. 826, § 1. G.L.c. 32, § 3 (2) (e) and (f), both as amended.

 G. L. c. 32, § 3 (2) (g), Group 2, as amended through St. 1972, c. 284, § 1.

 See St. 1967, c. 826, § 3; 1967 House Doc. No. 5316, p.17.