Committee hears petition to amend state law so retired officers can work special details; chief asks for medical-clearance language

The New Bedford City Council Committee on Public Safety and Neighborhoods on Aug. 19 considered a home‑rule petition that would change wording in Chapter 32 of the General Laws to allow retired New Bedford police officers older than 65 to be appointed as special police officers for details such as traffic assignments.

The petition, introduced by Councilor Gomes, would alter the provision so no retired officer would be eligible for a special police appointment only if the applicant had “attained the age 70” and would allow appointments and terminations tied to that age. The committee removed the petition from the table for discussion and then later voted to table it for 45 days to allow further review and consultation with union leadership and city staff.

Why it matters: the change would affect how the city staffs paid special details, a frequent tool departments use to cover traffic control and other overtime work. Members of the committee and the newly appointed police chief said the amendment could expand the pool of available workers but raised questions about safety, medical fitness and collective‑bargaining impacts.

Police Chief Thode, introduced to the committee at the start of the meeting, said he supports using qualified retired officers for details but recommended a medical clearance for older appointees. “I think maybe, some kind of medical clearance would probably be appropriate, you know, after age 65,” Thode said, adding that retired officers sometimes remain eager to stay involved and that using them can help the department fill gaps.

Thode also said he had not yet discussed the proposal with the officers’ union and would consult the union president before the committee revisits the petition. “If it’s up to me, yeah. I would have no problem with that,” he said when asked whether he would allow retirees to continue working details if cleared medically.

Committee action and next steps: Councilor Ryan Perera moved to remove the item from the table; Councilor Carney seconded and the committee approved the removal. Later, after discussion, the committee voted to table the matter for 45 days to allow the chief to consult the union and for staff to return with recommended language and any legal or bargaining considerations. The committee recorded no dissent on the motions.

Background and history: the petition has been before the council and committees multiple times. The clerk recited prior actions: referred 08/18/2022; returned and signed by the mayor 09/06/2022; tabled 09/28/2022; heard and tabled 02/21/2023 and 07/27/2023; remained on the table 02/28/2024 and 08/26/2024; heard and tabled again 03/11/2025. Committee members asked staff to return with draft language that could include fitness or medical‑clearance requirements and with documentation of any union or charter implications.

The committee did not adopt a final ordinance or send a recommendation to the full council at the Aug. 19 meeting; members instructed staff and the chief to report back within 45 days.

Ending: The item remains on the committee’s calendar; the committee chair and chief agreed staff will consult the union and return with draft language and any legal analysis before the committee takes final action.