By DAN TOMASELLO

LYNNFIELD — The Massachusetts Appeals Court has reversed a Superior Court judge’s ruling that the town violated state law when former Fire Chief Mark Tetreault’s contract was not renewed in 2018.

The Board of Selectmen unanimously voted in June 2018 not to renew Tetreault’s contract during a meeting held in executive session. The selectmen voted to appoint Tetreault as fire chief in December 2013. He previously served as Barnstead, New Hampshire’s fire chief.

After the selectmen voted not to renew Tetreault’s contract, Massachusetts Appeals Court Associate Justice Marguerite Grant stated in a decision issued on Feb. 24 that the former fire chief filed a lawsuit seeking “declaratory relief.”

“The plaintiff, Mark Tetreault, maintains that when he signed his employment contract as fire chief of the town of Lynnfield, he believed that he would be granted a lifetime appointment by the ‘strong chief’ statute,” Grant wrote.

Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 48, Section 42, commonly referred to as the strong chief law, gives a board of selectmen the authority to remove a fire chief “for cause” after holding a hearing.

Grant recalled in the decision that Essex Superior Court Associate Justice C. William Barrett ruled that “The Board of Selectmen violated the strong chief statute, the Town Charter and the Personnel Bylaws of the town’s municipal code by removing Tetreault as chief without a hearing and the establishment of cause.”

“Because what happened was a nonrenewal of Tetreault’s contract as permitted by its terms and not a removal from office within the meaning of the strong chief statute, we reverse,” Grant stated in the decision.

After the selectmen appointed Tetreault as fire chief pending successful contract negotiations in December 2013, Grant stated in the decision that he told former Town Administrator Jim Boudreau, “It was his understanding that under the strong chief statute, a chief ‘only could be terminated for cause.’”

“Tetreault asked to include in the contract language that provided ‘nothing in this agreement shall diminish the authority, duty and protections granted under General Laws Chapter 48, Section 42,’ and that the contract was ‘in accordance with General Laws Chapter 41, Section 1080,’” Grant wrote. “The town administrator declined to do so, and no reference to either statute was included in the contract.”

Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 41, Section 1080 outlines how municipalities can establish employment contracts with fire chiefs and police chiefs. Grant noted that Tetreault argued the law provided him “with benefits greater than those provided to other town employees.”

“Section 1080 does not affect our interpretation of the language of Tetreault’s contract as meaning something different from ‘removal for cause’ in the strong chief statute,” Grant wrote.

After Tetreault finished his six-month probationary period and three-year contract, Grant stated in the decision that the former fire chief’s contract “self-renewed for two one-year periods.”

“For over four years, the board never disciplined Tetreault, nor informed him that his conduct gave it cause for his removal,” Grant wrote. “In June 2018, the board voted not to renew Tetreault’s contract beyond Dec. 31, 2018. By letter dated June 26, 2018, the board gave notice to Tetreault, consistent with paragraph 18.B of his contract, of its intent not to renew his contract. The board gave no reason for its decision and refused to provide Tetreault with a hearing on the matter. In August 2018, Tetreault filed a wrongful termination action in the Superior Court, seeking injunction relief preventing the town from removing him as fire chief and a judgment declaring that the strong chief statute, the Town Charter and his employment contract provided that he shall remain fire chief unless removed for cause.”

After a judge denied Tetreault’s request for injunction relief, Grant noted he did not appeal the ruling.

“The town subsequently paid Tetreault three months salary as severance pay as required by his contract,” Grant wrote. “In January 2019, he began working as fire chief of a town in New Hampshire.”

Grant noted that Tetreault filed a new lawsuit against the town that sought declaratory relief in Essex Superior Court. She recalled that Justice Barrett issued a decision that granted “summary judgment” to Tetreault, and concluded that the town violated the strong chief law, Town Charter and Personnel Bylaws.

“The judge concluded that it was ‘plain and unambiguous’ that Tetreault was entitled to a hearing ‘prior to termination,’” Grant wrote. “The town appealed.”

Grant recalled in the decision that, “Courts interpreting other sections of the General Laws have distinguished nonrenewals of contracts from removals and dismissals.”

“Tetreault’s employment came to a natural end under the terms of the mutually agreed upon contract after the board voted not to renew his contract,” Grant stated. “We conclude that the board did not remove Tetreault within the meaning of the statute, and therefore no statutory violation occurred.”

Grant also noted in the decision that Tetreault argued that, “The strong chief statute granted him a lifetime appointment.”

“We are not persuaded,” Grant stated. “Besides looking at the wording of the strong chief statute, we note what it does not say. The word ‘tenure,’ or similar words that would import lifetime appointment, do not appear in the strong chief statute, which focuses primarily on the authority and duties of a strong fire chief. We are not at liberty to add words to a statute that the Legislature did not put there.”

Grant recalled that the Tenure Act “permits incumbents of most municipal appointive offices, including fire chiefs, to apply for tenure after ‘at least five years of service.’”

“The tenure application is subject to approval by vote of the board of selectmen, and then by the town electorate,” Grant stated. “Although Tetreault cites to those statutes, they do not apply to him, as he neither served five years nor applied for tenure.”

Grant concluded that the Superior Court’s judgment was “reversed.”

“The case is remanded to the Superior Court, where a new judge shall enter declaring that the town did not violate the strong chief statute, the Town Charter or the town’s Personnel Bylaws by electing in 2018 not to renew Tetreault’s contract,” Grant stated.

Town Counsel Tom Mullen informed the Villager in an interview that atty. Devin R. McDonough from the town’s insurance company, the Massachusetts Interlocal Insurance Association, argued the case before the Massachusetts Appeals Court.

“I was delighted with the decision,” said Mullen. “I was surprised that the Superior Court ruled in favor of Tetreault. I thought the town had the better argument, and I am pleased that the Massachusetts Appeals Court recognized that.”

Mullen said Tetreault will have 21 days to file an application for further appellate review of the case with the Supreme Judicial Court.