Posts tagged "Commissioners"

Commissioners of the Bristol County Mosquito Control District v. State Reclamation and Mosquito Control Board, et al. (Lawyers Weekly No. 10-184-13)

NOTICE: All slip opinions and orders are subject to formal revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound volumes of the Official Reports.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;     SJC‑11320   COMMISSIONERS OF THE BRISTOL COUNTY MOSQUITO CONTROL DISTRICT[1] vs.  STATE RECLAMATION AND MOSQUITO CONTROL BOARD & another.[2]     Bristol.     September 3, 2013.  ‑  October 30, 2013. Present:  Ireland, C.J., Spina, Cordy, Botsford, Gants, Duffly, & Lenk, JJ.       Mosquito Control.  Statute, Construction.  Moot Question.       Civil action commenced in the Superior Court Department on October 8, 2009.   The case was heard by Raymond P. Veary, Jr., J., on motions for summary judgment.   The Supreme Judicial Court on its own initiative transferred the case from the Appeals Court.     Richard E. Burke, Jr., for the plaintiffs. Amy Spector, Assistant Attorney General, for the defendants.       BOTSFORD, J.  The dispute in this case concerns the authority of the plaintiff commissioners of the Bristol County Mosquito Control Project (Bristol project), an entity that operates under G. L. c. 252 and is subject to oversight by the defendant State Reclamation and Mosquito Control Board (board), to establish unilaterally the compensation rates for the individuals who are employed by the Bristol project to carry out its mosquito control programs and functions.  At the heart of this dispute is the meaning of G. L. c. 252, § 14D (§ 14D), which was enacted in 2008.  The plaintiffs initiated this action in 2009, seeking a declaration that under § 14D, they have the authority to hire and set the compensation rates for the project’s employees and to retain legal counsel; they also sought an order of mandamus requiring the defendant Treasurer and Receiver General (Treasurer) to pay those employees the salary increases due to them.  On cross-motions for summary judgment, a Superior Court judge allowed the board’s motion and dismissed the complaint.  We conclude that the summary judgment record is insufficient to determine whether the plaintiffs are entitled as matter of law to the relief they seek.  Accordingly, we vacate the judgment of the Superior Court and remand for further proceedings. Statutory scheme.  General Laws c. 252 governs the structure and function of the board as well as local mosquito control districts and projects such as the Bristol project.  We summarize its relevant provisions.     The board is established by G. L. c. 252, § 2, and, pursuant to that section, exists within the State agency formerly known, and referred to in § 2, as the Department of Food […]


Posted by Massachusetts Legal Resources - October 30, 2013 at 7:23 pm

Categories: News   Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,