ADAMS, Mass. — As the Fire District continues to navigate the state's mandatory retirement age for firefighters, one thing is clear: legislative action is needed.

 

District voters will see an article on its annual meeting warrant authorizing the district to petition the state general court to enact special legislation for firefighters 65 and older to continue service.

 

Whether this authorization will apply to specific individuals or extend across the entire department remains unclear, pending confirmation of liability coverage for firefighters aged 65 and older.

 

In April, the Fire District questioned the impact of the retirement mandate after four Dalton firefighters, including the interim chief, had to retire. 

 

With Chief John Pansecchi set to retire, First Assistant Engineer David Lennon intends to run for the chief position, while Edward Capeless plans to run for Lennon's current role.

 

However, this mandate would also affect Capeless, so the district would need to seek a home-rule bill to waive the mandated retirement. 

 

The board agreed that seeking a waiver is necessary; however, whether it will apply department-wide or be issued on an individual basis remains uncertain.

 

"I think our number one priority should be moving forward with legislation," Pansecchi told the Prudential Committee. 

 

During a previous meeting, Lennon brought examples from other communities which have had to deal with the mandatory retirements and how they used home-rule petitions through the Legislature to keep older firefighters on. 

 

Some had done it by department and some by individuals, and got district meeting votes before applying. 

 

Dalton had filed a home-rule petition last year but its fire chief was forced to retire because the bill is still sitting on Beacon Hill. 

 

According to the district's attorney, if implemented carefully, a support or special officers category could be designated to allow those over 65 to continue serving, with limitations, Pansecchi said. 

 

Under this category the support members or special officers would be limited to exterior duties and be required to wear a uniform to differentiate them from active firefighters. 

 

Before considering this option, committee members first want to ensure these positions would be covered by the district's insurance. 

 

Lennon previously suggested having fire company members who are 65 and older not wear fire gear at a scene, but rather a coat or vest that will show they are affiliated with the department.

 

The district continues to seek clarification on whether these members can operate apparatus and are covered by insurance. 

 

What is the district's liability, in the case one of these older members is driving the apparatus and hits someone, one board member asked. 

 

Out of the five members who are 65-plus, only two drive, Pansecchi said. 

 

Only one of them has been involved in an accident, under circumstances similar to previous incidents multiple individuals have done, where the apparatus pinched the side wall, he said. 

 

During a previous meeting, Pansecchi said the Fire Department has documentation dated 2021 from its insurance company saying the district is covered for everything, except for heart circulation after 70. 

 

At this meeting, Pansecchi cautioned that the company may have changed its policies and the department is working to verify the current coverage age.