Boston council committee reviews home-rule petition to raise firefighter Leo J. Bracken’s disability pension to 100%

The Boston City Council Committee on Government Operations on March 27 reviewed Docket 0268, a home-rule petition to increase retired Boston Fire Department Lieutenant Leo J. Bracken’s accidental disability pension to 100% of regular compensation.

Councilor Ed Flynn, the petition sponsor, said Bracken sustained severe injuries on Oct. 17, 2019, after falling more than 20 feet at a firehouse and that the injuries left him "totally and permanently injured and incapacitated for further service as a firefighter." Flynn said the petition would increase Bracken’s pension to 100%, cover full medical costs and raise survivor benefits.

"He served the city of Boston with honor and distinction for over 35 years," Flynn said, urging the committee to support the petitioner and his family.

Chair Pilar Zapata, chair of the committee, said the body’s role was not to relitigate the injury but to determine whether the petition’s language could achieve the sponsors’ intended outcome and be administered by the retirement system. Zapata noted legal and administrative questions about applying Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 32, section 7, to set an accidental disability pension at 100%.

"Our responsibility as a legislative body is twofold," Zapata said, adding that the committee must ensure any special act is "fair, consistent, and sustainable." She asked the sponsors to refine language so the petition would be both legally sound and administratively implementable.

Michael O'Reilly, legislative agent for the petitioner representing the Massachusetts Association of Contributory Retirement Systems, told the committee that approving the petition as a special act would "take[] it out of section 7" and create a standalone structure under the special law. "Upon approval from the legislature, that's what this would basically do," O'Reilly said.

O'Reilly and members discussed tax treatment and precedent. O'Reilly cautioned that no pension is entirely tax-free and said taxing effects would be similar whether the benefit is 72% or 100% of compensation. Chair Zapata and councilors also flagged that creating a separate legal classification could produce a pension outcome that exceeds what a member could earn while actively working, an uncommon result the legislature scrutinizes.

Councilor Weber asked whether approving a 100% pension would create a floodgate for other disabled retirees to pursue the same benefit and whether the 100% amount would be nontaxable. O'Reilly replied that special acts are evaluated case by case and that the Commonwealth has "roughly" two dozen such special acts administered locally; he also reiterated there is no fully tax-free pension.

Committee members discussed precedent, citing a 2024 legislative framework that allows 100% pensions in narrow circumstances for catastrophic injuries resulting from violent acts. Several members said that while there are equity arguments for Bracken’s case, sponsors should be aware of potential statutory barriers at the state level.

The petitioner, Lieutenant Leo J. Bracken, spoke briefly and thanked the committee. Chair Zapata and the sponsors committed to continue refining petition language in consultation with the Boston Retirement Board, state legislative staff and counsel to address legal and administrative concerns before advancing the petition.

The committee did not take a vote and adjourned the hearing/working session. The sponsors said they will return with revised language and follow up with relevant state and retirement-system officials.