Murphy, Hesse, Toomey & Lehane Attorney Speaks on COVID-19 and Chapter 32 at the MACRS 2020 Legal Panel
Matthew Feeney, an attorney with Murphy, Hesse, Toomey & Lehane, LLP, presented at the Massachusetts Association of Contributory Retirement Systems’ Annual Legal Panel on September 3, 2020, held via webinar. This webinar serves the primary mission of the Massachusetts Association of Contributory Retirement Systems, which is to preserve, strengthen and educate the 104 public retirement systems of the Commonwealth while promoting the rights and benefits of our respective members, present or future, and to uphold the public interest in the proper administration of contributory retirement systems. Speakers at the panel included: Judith A. Corrigan of PERAC, Lisa M. Maloney of Middlesex County Retirement System and Michael Sacco of Worcester Regional Retirement System.
Mr. Feeney’s presentation focused largely around COVID-19 and Chapter 32. He went into detail about procedural adjustments versus substantive application and adjustments. He also spent time discussing the impacts of COVID-19, personally and professionally, along with explaining the federal COVID-19 legislations and how they are related to Chapter 32 and furloughs.
Mr. Feeney heads up MHTL’s Chapter 32 public retirement practice and is well versed in all matters pertinent to the statute. Specifically, he provides frequent guidance to public retirement boards relative to the litany of member related issues that arise, and he frequently represents public retirement boards with litigation in varying forms.
With nearly fifteen years of experience as an Assistant District Attorney prior to joining MHTL, Mr. Feeney is one of MHTL’s most experienced litigators. In addition to his Chapter 32 work, Mr. Feeney also provides internal reviews and investigations for public entities as well as general litigation work before administrative bodies and courts upon behalf on municipal clients.
Attorney Felicia Vasudevan, a partner at Murphy, Hesse, Toomey & Lehane, LLP, received a favorable decision on behalf of her client, Marshfield Public Schools. The Plaintiff appealed the district court’s judgement that upheld a decision of the Massachusetts Bureau of Special Education Appeals (“BSEA”). However, as the notice was filed more than 30 days after entry, the First Circuit ultimately dismissed the appeal for being untimely. The Plaintiff also appealed the district court’s order, denying her motion to vacate. Read More
Following our Alert from March 16, 2023, Civility is Dead – The Supreme Court Rules Municipal Control of Public Speak Limited to Reasonable Time/Place/Manner Restrictions, which discussed the holding to the Supreme Judicial Court’s decision in Barron v. Kolenda and the Town of Southborough (SJC-13284), we promised to bring you more detailed guidance on developing a Public Speak policy for your public body or municipality. The Barron case involved a constitutional challenge to the Town of Southborough’s public comment policy, which attempted to impose a code of civility on members of the public who participated in public comment before public bodies. In Barron, the court interpreted the state constitution to mean that public bodies may request, but not require, that public commentators be respectful and courteous. Instead, a public body may set restrictions on reasonable time, place, and manner comments to ensure that the meeting retains an orderly and peaceable manner.