Number 17 January 28, 1972

Number 17 January 28, 1972 Mrs. Mabel A. Campbell Director of Civil Service State House Boston, Massachusetts 02133 Dear Mrs. Campbell: You have requested my opinion with respect to an interpretation of the words "established by law" as they appear in G. L. c. 31, § 1 (in- serted by St. 1968, c. 652), defining a "Department." You have posed the following question: "Are specific references in a Capital Outlay Act and Ap- propriation Act making an appropriation to a given facility by name sufficient to satisfy the requirement that they have been established by law as separate facilities and are not a part of the Central Department [of Mental Health]?" For the reasons stated hereinafter, I answer your question in the nega- tive. In construing a statute, the proper object is to ascertain and effectuate the intent of the Legislature, as shown by the whole act, the law existing before its passage, and changes made, and the apparent motive for mak- P.D. 12 81 ing them. City of SomervMe v. Commonwealth, 225 Mass. 589, 593. St. 1968, c. 652, § 1 amended Section 1 of Chapter 31 of the General Laws by inserting a new definition for the word "Department," as follows: " 'Department', a department, board or any division, in- stitutional unit or other unit of a department in case such unit is established by law, ordinance or by-law." St. 1968, c. 652, § 4 deleted the following paragraph from Section 15 of said Chapter 31: "The word 'department', as used in this section, shall mean a department, or any division, institutional unit or other unit of a department in case such a unit is established by law, ordinance or by-law or under authority thereof." Section 5 of Chapter 652 deleted the following sentence from Section 15B of Chapter 31: "The word 'department', as used in this section, shall mean a department, board or commission, or any division, in- stitutional unit or other unit of a department in case such a unit is established by law, ordinance or by-law or under au- thority thereof." As you note in your letter, the above amendments were the result of House No. 4595, which included a special message from His Excel- lency, the Governor. The message stated that: "Our civil service law, in somewhat bewildering detail, specifies an order of procedure for making promotions. Es- sentially the procedure is this: First, an appointing authority may choose a person for promotion and give the job to him if he passes a qualifying examination, but only if he has served three years in his job in the next lower grade and if he is one of the three persons in that grade with the most seniority in terms of total service. Second, an appointing authority may ask for a competitive examination open to employees who have served at least a year in one or more lower grades, as the Director determines, in the department." House No. 4595, 1968, p. 5. The message then recommended that the word "Department" ' . . . be redefined and broadened to include only units established by law" (House No. 4595, 1968, p. 6) in order to modernize and strengthen the Massachusetts Civil Service. This legislative history is, in my view, conclusive. A reference to a departmental unit in an appropriation act is not suffi- cient in my opinion to establish such unit as a "department." If it were, the plain intent of Chapter 652 would be subverted. The dozens of units referred to in appropriation acts would each have to be considered sepa- rate "departments" for the purposes of the civil service law, a result Chapter 652 sought to eliminate. Cf. City of Newton v. Trustees of State Colleges, Mass. Adv. Sh. (1971) 1035, 1036-1037. 82 P.D. 12 A statute must be so interpreted as to remedy the mischief and elimi- nate the evils existing under pre-existing law, if such an interpretation is reasonably possible. Desmarais v. Standard Ace. Ins. Co., 331 Mass. 199, 202. Thus a proper construction of Chapter 652 which will effec- tuate the legislative intent dictates the conclusion that a specific refer- ence in a Capital Outlay Act or Appropriation Act making an appropria- tion to a given facility by name is not sufficient to confer upon that facil- ity the status of a departmental unit established by law. Very truly yours, ROBERT H. QUINN Attorney General