Home 
Labor and Personnel Quinn cut leaves many communities responsible for payments
As part of budget cuts during the worst economic downturn in 70 years, the state slashed its reimbursements for the Police Career Incentive Pay program, better known as the Quinn Bill.
The state’s 50 percent share of Quinn Bill bonuses should have been $58 million for fiscal 2010, but the state appropriated just $10 million. This will have differing implications for the 254 communities that have adopted the program, which boosts the salaries of police officers with college degrees.
Communities that have adopted the Quinn Bill should begin by consulting with their municipal or labor counsel to determine where they stand.
Quinn Bill communities fall into three categories:
• Some communities agreed through collective bargaining to assume the state’s share of the Quinn Bill in the event of a shortfall. These communities are responsible for ensuring that the full Quinn Bill stipend is paid.
• Other communities have collective bargaining agreements that stipulate that the community is only responsible for its share of Quinn Bill payments. These communities are not responsible for the state’s share. Some police unions, however, may try to claim that failure to pay the full amount is a violation of Sections 148 and 150 of Chapter 149 regarding the payment of wages. Such violations, if proved, result in treble damages plus attorneys’ fees paid to the employee. While such an interpretation of the law is not necessarily accurate, the MMA has called on the Legislature and the governor to enact corrective language to clarify that failure to pay the state’s share is not a violation of Chapter 149.
• Another group of communities adopted the Quinn Bill, but have no contract language at all regarding the state’s share. It appears that cities and towns without contract language could be required to pay the full amount – both the municipal share and any shortfall in the state share – due to a 1990 decision by the Supreme Judicial Court. In that case, which involved the town of Milton, the court held that the state’s share of the Quinn Bill is subject to appropriation each year, and, therefore, communities are required to ensure the full payment of the stipend regardless of what the state appropriates.
The MMA has asked the governor and legislative leaders to enact legislation immediately to ensure that cities and towns do not have to cover any state shortfall unless there is a specific local agreement to do so.
In addition to cutting funding for the Quinn Bill, which was enacted in 1970, the Legislature and the governor also barred any officers hired as of July 1 from participating in the incentive program.
Labor and Personnel Quinn cut leaves many communities responsible for payments
Quinn cut leaves many communities responsible for payments
As part of budget cuts during the worst economic downturn in 70 years, the state slashed its reimbursements for the Police Career Incentive Pay program, better known as the Quinn Bill.
The state’s 50 percent share of Quinn Bill bonuses should have been $58 million for fiscal 2010, but the state appropriated just $10 million. This will have differing implications for the 254 communities that have adopted the program, which boosts the salaries of police officers with college degrees.
Communities that have adopted the Quinn Bill should begin by consulting with their municipal or labor counsel to determine where they stand.
Quinn Bill communities fall into three categories:
• Some communities agreed through collective bargaining to assume the state’s share of the Quinn Bill in the event of a shortfall. These communities are responsible for ensuring that the full Quinn Bill stipend is paid.
• Other communities have collective bargaining agreements that stipulate that the community is only responsible for its share of Quinn Bill payments. These communities are not responsible for the state’s share. Some police unions, however, may try to claim that failure to pay the full amount is a violation of Sections 148 and 150 of Chapter 149 regarding the payment of wages. Such violations, if proved, result in treble damages plus attorneys’ fees paid to the employee. While such an interpretation of the law is not necessarily accurate, the MMA has called on the Legislature and the governor to enact corrective language to clarify that failure to pay the state’s share is not a violation of Chapter 149.
• Another group of communities adopted the Quinn Bill, but have no contract language at all regarding the state’s share. It appears that cities and towns without contract language could be required to pay the full amount – both the municipal share and any shortfall in the state share – due to a 1990 decision by the Supreme Judicial Court. In that case, which involved the town of Milton, the court held that the state’s share of the Quinn Bill is subject to appropriation each year, and, therefore, communities are required to ensure the full payment of the stipend regardless of what the state appropriates.
The MMA has asked the governor and legislative leaders to enact legislation immediately to ensure that cities and towns do not have to cover any state shortfall unless there is a specific local agreement to do so.
In addition to cutting funding for the Quinn Bill, which was enacted in 1970, the Legislature and the governor also barred any officers hired as of July 1 from participating in the incentive program.
Written by MMA Legislative Director David Baier
