CLT UPDATE
Monday, April 7, 2008
A Senate cop-out on police details?
The particulars of Senate President Therese Murray's
transportation proposals are still fuzzy, but the intent is clear and
laudable: to improve the way the state administers programs essential to
the mobility of Massachusetts residents. Over the years, unnecessary
costs and erratic management of transportation work - not to mention
rampant problems with the Big Dig - have undermined public confidence.
Only when state leaders regain that trust can a fruitful discussion be
opened on raising revenues for much-needed projects....
A prime example are police details at construction sites. Nothing in
state law mandates them.
A Boston Globe editorial
Monday, March 31, 2008
Trust first on transportation
If Gov. Deval Patrick can succeed where every governor before
him has failed — in breaking the police union hold on expensive work details —
he will deserve a laurel and hearty handshake from the people of Massachusetts
who have been victimized by this pricey police perk....
The minute the three state leaders made their joint announcement last week, the
police unions began their well-rehearsed howling about how more police on the
streets — even staring in the hole at a construction site — improves public
safety. You get silly comments like this from Rick Brown, president of the State
Police Association of Massachusetts: “I don't know how you put a flagman out
there without endangering the public.”
But if taxpayers wanted — and could afford — more cops on the streets, they
would be hiring more police instead of laying them off. Replacing $40 per hour
traffic directors with $15 per hour men and women won’t compromise public safety
one bit — and will go a long way toward restoring public confidence in state
officials’ commitment not to waste their money.
An Enterprise editorial
Tuesday, April 1, 2008
Patrick takes on police perk at his own peril
Over the last few weeks, an odd notion has struck me: Have I
somehow wandered into the wrong State House?
Certainly we're starting to see the most unusual of things on Beacon Hill: the
distinct flickering of a reform impulse, and on two issues where large sums
stand to be saved - healthcare coverage for municipal employees and police
details.
Why, with tough times upon us, some Democrats actually seem to have decided that
saving taxpayer dollars should be a higher priority than currying favor with
organized labor....
The potential gains certainly justify taking the issue on. Using flagmen rather
than police officers on local projects could save between $30 million and $50
million a year for taxpayers and utility customers, says Mike Widmer, president
of the Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation.
"This issue raises so much controversy that you have to do it one step at a
time," says Steven Baddour, Senate chairman of the joint transportation
committee.
But Baddour insists Senate leaders are determined to see meaningful reforms take
place.
"You can't talk about anything else in transportation when you have this issue
sitting out there," says Baddour. "My view . . . is that the 49 other states
strike an appropriate balance. Why can't we?"
An excellent question. Senate President Murray, meanwhile, has made it clear she
understands that government needs to demonstrate to citizens that their tax
dollars are being spent efficiently. And there, police details constitute a
major roadblock.
The Boston Globe
Wednesday, April 2, 2008
At the State House:
the flickering of a reform impulse
By Scot Lehigh
Police unions are intensifying opposition to the use of
civilian flagmen at construction details with anxious cops even pulling over one
state rep three times to lobby him on his way to work.
“And it’s only a three-mile drive for me into the State House,” said state Rep.
Stephen ’Stat’ Smith (D-Everett). “The (officers) just wanted to make their
case. They weren’t trying to give me a ticket.”
The hotly debated proposal to curtail police road details - part of a series of
transportation reform measures - veered toward another public showdown
yesterday, with labor leaders passing out literature in the State House and
urging lawmakers to oppose the legislation.
Lawmakers reported receiving dozens of e-mails and phone calls from police
officers who argue that a public hearing should be held before the legislation
comes up for a vote.
The Boston Herald
Wednesday, April 2, 2008
Cops flag rep over details
A controversial Senate proposal to curb costly police details
got “watered down” amid fierce lobbying by labor leaders who secured new
language ensuring that civilian flaggers will be used only if local officials
wage a costly fight against public safety unions.
After behind-the-scenes meetings with police unions, senators inserted a new
paragraph into transportation reform legislation yesterday that explicitly
states that local cops get to keep pulling details if it’s included in their
contracts.
“It was clearly watered down,” said one state senator who requested anonymity.
“If the officers are doing it now, it will be difficult to step in and take it
away from them.”
The Boston Herald
Friday, April 4, 2008
Cops spared as details on bill altered
The Senate would authorize state transportation and public
safety officials to draw up rules for when it is appropriate to use civilian
flagmen instead of police....
There is no state law mandating that police officers protect workers at road
construction sites, but the practice has become commonplace and been fiercely
protected by police unions.
Massachusetts is the only state where civilian flagmen are not used, and some
communities have labor contracts requiring that police staff construction
sites....
[Sen. Steven Baddour, D-Methuen] said police have overblown what the Senate is
doing. He stressed the Senate plan does not eliminate paid police details, and
that cities and towns would maintain control over local details....
But Sen. Bruce Tarr, R-Gloucester, said he'd like to see the Senate go further.
"You have to start somewhere," Tarr said. "A lot of observers say we couldn't do
these reforms. This will be a test of the Legislature's ability to do that." ...
Although the Senate plan doesn't force municipalities to use flagmen, Barbara
Anderson, executive director of Citizens for Limited Taxation, said
it was an important step.
"The idea of taking on the (police) unions is huge," Anderson said. "It's a huge
difference in the way business is done on Beacon Hill."
The Eagle-Tribune
Friday, April 4, 2008
State makes it easier for civilian flagmen
to work road jobs, instead of police
Last week’s announcement that the state may cut police
details at road construction sites and replace them with less expensive flagmen
triggered plenty of talk in local coffee shops and watering holes....
There’s actually no law in Massachusetts that requires communities, businesses
and utility companies to hire police details while work is being done on the
roadways — police have a mandate to keep the streets and roads in their cities
and towns safe, but police details aren’t a rule, they’re more of a
tradition....
Although state studies aren’t known for their clarity or their colorful
language, last fall, when the Massachusetts Transportation Finance Commission
released its recommendations about how to handle the state’s ailing
infrastructure during tough economic times, commissioners had a few choice words
about police details.
“Massachusetts is bleeding scarce financial resources as a result of an
unnecessary and long-standing system that dictates that policemen should be
hired to work as flagmen at road construction sites,” they wrote. “This practice
should come to an end.” ...
But now, with the state going broke and the hope of casino revenue just about
dead, the time might actually be right. Marblehead’s Barbara Anderson,
executive director for Citizens for Limited Taxation, thinks it is.
“Police details have long been the poster child for absurd waste in government,”
says Anderson. “It’s a scam being perpetrated by people who were hired to
protect us from scams.” ...
“For the first time, politicians are taking on the power police unions,” she
says. “They are standing up and that’s a huge change.” ...
Anderson understands the argument that police want more money to support their
families, but she feels they should do that like the rest of the private sector
— through a legitimate second job....
Public servants, even necessary and often heroic ones like cops, should not have
a sense of entitlement when it comes to taxpayers’ money, she says.
North Shore Sunday
Friday, April 4, 2008
The devil’s in the details
But Gov. Patrick seemed to soften his comments
on replacing the details, following a backlash from law enforcement unions and
some municipal leaders, The Associated Press reported....
Michael Widmer, president of the business-backed Massachusetts Taxpayers
Foundation, served on the commission. He said the Senate's proposal to require
the Patrick administration to write new regulations was soft.
"Time will tell, but it feels as if the commitment to do this is not very
strong," Mr. Widmer said. "Basically, the political leaders are getting cold
feet, and trying to remove any teeth whatsoever from it. I think the odds of
getting any significant reform has dropped markedly in the last 48 hours, given
the push-back from the police unions." ...
Senators rewrote the proposal yesterday to clarify that any new state
regulations would not supersede municipal laws or police contracts that call for
police details in construction zones.
The New Bedford Standard-Times
Friday, April 4, 2008
Senate OKs reform of rules on police details,
flagmen
The Statehouse has been besieged in recent days by police
officers demanding that lawmakers keep their hands off their lucrative road
details. Fortunately, that did not stop the Senate last week from approving a
transportation bond bill that includes a provision that represents the first
step toward allowing the use of civilian flagmen on Bay State roads....
The bottom line is that the assignment of state and local
police officers to supervise road projects should be governed by real safety
concerns, not the desire by public safety personnel to maximize their earning
potential. And the public safety unions would do themselves and their members
well by seeking a reasonable compromise on this issue lest they end up with a
bill allowing civilian flagmen on all road projects, period.
An Eagle-Tribune editorial
Saturday, April 5, 2008
Beacon Hill finally getting the message
Is there no such thing as political courage in this
commonwealth anymore?
Barely a week has passed since our top three elected leaders stood before TV
cameras and announced plans to take on the most sacred of sacred cows on Beacon
Hill - the paid police detail....
Ah, but today, after a week of fierce lobbying by police unions and organized
labor generally, we are left with - well, not much.
The legislation approved by the Senate last Thursday still calls for new
guidelines for the deployment of traffic details, dividing roads and bridges
into “tiers,” and recommending when civilian flagmen can be used.
But at the eleventh hour, senators inserted a provision that would force cities
and towns to go to war with police unions if they even think about replacing
cops with civilians in Day-Glo vests....
Senators insist they haven’t watered down the reform, that it will proceed
apace. Our prediction: A year from now, not a single blessed thing will have
changed.
A Boston Herald editorial
Monday, April 7, 2008
The more things change
Chip Ford's CLT Commentary
Are you as confused as we are? Was the uniquely
Massachusetts practice of using police details instead of flagman
reformed, or wasn't it? Or was it a step in the right direction,
albeit a small step, or just business as usual, Beacon Hill
smoke-and-mirrors?
The Eagle-Tribune has declared it a leap into reform,
"the first step toward allowing the use of civilian flagmen." But
not many other news sources seem to agree. The Boston Herald
defines whatever happened in the Senate as "not much . . . local cops
get to keep pulling details if it’s included in their contracts."
We at CLT are still attempting to read the entrails.
Was any reform achieved? We're still not in agreement. It
seems that few are.
Barbara thinks the legislative leaders are doing the
same thing they did with municipal public employee pension and health
insurance benefits: Giving local unions enough rope to hang
themselves by holding onto to all they can at taxpayer expense. Once the public
employee unions demonstrate their intransigence -- have shown taxpayers
that they'll never stop demanding more -- the Legislature will step in
and eliminate them from the collective bargaining equation. That's
what House Speaker DiMasi has
suggested doing, since local public
employees unions have rejected joining the state's less expensive plans -- repealing the unions'
power to veto cost savings. Maybe she's right, but I expected more
from the Senate after the leaders' PR bluster and photo op.
Following that highly publicized news conference in
Senate President Therese Murray's office announcing the end of paid police
details, I perhaps naïvely believed she, the governor, and the House
speaker were perhaps serious about ending police details -- not simply
providing a small "good start." Silly me, I should have known
better. Nonetheless, for me it was still "show me the money." That
police unions apparently prevailed in the 11th hour doesn't surprise me.
They always have. They've got the guns, handcuffs, and the
flashing blue lights. ("Pull over, Rep, we wanna talk to you!")
Was any reform actually achieved? Has anything
really changed? We'll know for sure when and if we see our first flagman
directing traffic -- or don't. I'm betting on the latter, how
about you?
 |
|
Chip Ford |
MetroWest Daily News
l April 3,
2008
The Boston Globe
Monday, March 31, 2008
A Boston Globe editorial
Trust first on transportation
The particulars of Senate President Therese Murray's transportation
proposals are still fuzzy, but the intent is clear and laudable: to
improve the way the state administers programs essential to the mobility
of Massachusetts residents. Over the years, unnecessary costs and
erratic management of transportation work - not to mention rampant
problems with the Big Dig - have undermined public confidence. Only when
state leaders regain that trust can a fruitful discussion be opened on
raising revenues for much-needed projects.
Murray's proposal to reduce the use of expensive police details on state
projects received the most attention initially. Another key proposal
would improve the measurement of progress on transportation projects.
Legislators and citizens would quickly be able to find out, for
instance, why a bridge has remained half-repaired for years. That
scrutiny should encourage contractors and state employees to work more
quickly.
Murray also wants to reduce the growth in the MBTA's health insurance
costs by requiring new MBTA employees and new retirees to contribute
more to their plans. The T can no longer afford the generous benefits it
is now providing.
The proposals are in line with recommendations of the Massachusetts
Transportation Finance Commission, established by the Legislature in
2004. The panel found that transportation spending in the state required
rethinking from the bottom up.
A prime example are police details at construction sites. Nothing in
state law mandates them.
Yet when Governor Weld tried to end the practice in 1992, he was
pilloried by police unions. Murray's proposal would order officials to
consider civilian flag carriers as an alternative to police details. Her
plan would mandate cities and towns apply similar priorities. The unions
are less likely to make a fuss if the Legislature is firmly behind this
sensible change.
These improvements and others in her plan would benefit from a public
hearing. Murray, however, wants to include them in the transportation
bond bill. Governor Patrick and Speaker Salvatore DiMasi were on hand to
show their support as Murray unveiled her proposals last week. Their
presence suggests quick action is probable.
Murray's changes will go a little way toward closing the gap in
infrastructure spending, which the special commission estimated at up to
$19.5 billion. The bond bill can wait a week or two for a hearing.
Such a hearing would surely bring out all the proponents of the status
quo. But it would also offer the public an education on why Murray's
plan is sorely needed.
The Brockton Enterprise
Tuesday, April 1, 2008
An Enterprise editorial
Patrick takes on police perk at his own peril
If Gov. Deval Patrick can succeed where every governor before him has
failed — in breaking the police union hold on expensive work details —
he will deserve a laurel and hearty handshake from the people of
Massachusetts who have been victimized by this pricey police perk.
There’s a reason 49 other states don’t require police to be used at
every construction or repair site on public streets — they’re too
expensive and they’re not necessary. In most states, civilian flagmen
direct traffic and make sure the workers are protected from motor
vehicles. The cost is generally in the $12 to $15 per hour range. But in
Massachusetts, it takes a police officer in uniform to direct traffic —
at up to $40 per hour (with a four-hour minimum). The companies, usually
utilities, forced to hire these cops do what every other business does —
they pass the costs onto consumers.
Now Gov. Patrick has taken aim at the work details, which some consider
the third rail of politics. Two decades ago, Gov. William Weld made a
similar proposal and the police unions sneered at him and told him to
forget about it. Weld forgot about it — and no governor since has had
the guts to take on the powerful unions.
But Patrick has strong allies this time, including House Speaker
Salvatore DiMasi and Senate President Therese Murray. The three are
motivated by a gaping hole in the state budget of $1.3 billion and a
report outlining the need for $19 billion in transportation upgrades and
repairs over the next two decades.
Replacing the cops with flagmen — only on “quiet” streets at first —
would save $5 million per year. That’s not much, but it’s a start.
The minute the three state leaders made their joint announcement last
week, the police unions began their well-rehearsed howling about how
more police on the streets — even staring in the hole at a construction
site — improves public safety. You get silly comments like this from
Rick Brown, president of the State Police Association of Massachusetts:
“I don't know how you put a flagman out there without endangering the
public.”
But if taxpayers wanted — and could afford — more cops on the streets,
they would be hiring more police instead of laying them off. Replacing
$40 per hour traffic directors with $15 per hour men and women won’t
compromise public safety one bit — and will go a long way toward
restoring public confidence in state officials’ commitment not to waste
their money.
The Boston Globe
Wednesday, April 2, 2008
At the State House:
the flickering of a reform impulse
By Scot Lehigh
Over the last few weeks, an odd notion has struck me: Have I somehow
wandered into the wrong State House?
Certainly we're starting to see the most unusual of things on Beacon
Hill: the distinct flickering of a reform impulse, and on two issues
where large sums stand to be saved - healthcare coverage for municipal
employees and police details.
Why, with tough times upon us, some Democrats actually seem to have
decided that saving taxpayer dollars should be a higher priority than
currying favor with organized labor.
Given that this space has pushed both reforms repeatedly, it's only
right to commend those who are taking up the cause. So let's start with
House Speaker Sal DiMasi. When he spoke to the Greater Boston Chamber of
Commerce recently, DiMasi suggested the time has come to give municipal
leaders sole authority to have their cities or towns join the state's
Group Insurance Commission, the agency that provides health insurance
for state workers.
Because of its buying power and plan design, the GIC has done much
better than localities at restraining healthcare costs. An August report
by the Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation and the Boston Municipal
Research Bureau estimates that if all municipalities were to join the
GIC, after 10 years, total annual savings could reach as high as $2.5
billion. (Geoffrey Beckwith, executive director of the Massachusetts
Municipal Association, insists that a still better solution would be to
grant cities and towns the same power the state has to design health
plans without going through collective bargaining.)
Under current law, a town's desire to join the GIC is effectively
subject to a union veto - and the unions oppose any change in that
process. Still, DiMasi says he is determined to press ahead.
"It is a great way for cities and towns to save hundreds of millions of
dollars," he said in an interview.
Kudos to the speaker. And to Senate President Therese Murray, who, when
I asked on Monday, said she supports DiMasi's approach. Disappointingly,
however, Governor Patrick opted for a wait-and-see stance.
On to police details. Massachusetts regularly uses police details at
work sites where other states would use flagmen. And, in some cases,
where a couple of orange cones would suffice. Although details are a
huge waste of money, past reform efforts have failed in the face of
tenacious lobbying by the police.
But last week, as part of a broader transportation initiative that
Patrick and DiMasi both endorsed, the Senate announced a plan to have
the state's transportation and public-safety experts develop regulations
specifying when the state and localities should use police details and
when flagmen are more appropriate.
Now, the use of details is deeply entrenched; it is actually required by
ordinance in Boston, and specified in union contracts in some other
municipalities. That means further action is likely to be required.
"It would be very helpful for the state to make it clear that the
decision about whether to use civilian flaggers or police details should
be entirely a management decision and should override any other
provision of law or contract," says Beckwith.
The potential gains certainly justify taking the issue on. Using flagmen
rather than police officers on local projects could save between $30
million and $50 million a year for taxpayers and utility customers, says
Mike Widmer, president of the Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation.
"This issue raises so much controversy that you have to do it one step
at a time," says Steven Baddour, Senate chairman of the joint
transportation committee.
But Baddour insists Senate leaders are determined to see meaningful
reforms take place.
"You can't talk about anything else in transportation when you have this
issue sitting out there," says Baddour. "My view . . . is that the 49
other states strike an appropriate balance. Why can't we?"
An excellent question. Senate President Murray, meanwhile, has made it
clear she understands that government needs to demonstrate to citizens
that their tax dollars are being spent efficiently. And there, police
details constitute a major roadblock.
Bad economic periods sometimes make it easier to do tough but necessary
things. That's why the time is now for both of these important reforms.
The Boston Herald
Wednesday, April 2, 2008
Cops flag rep over details
Unions lobby pols on use of flagmen
at construction sites
By Casey Ross
Police unions are intensifying opposition to the use of civilian flagmen
at construction details with anxious cops even pulling over one state
rep three times to lobby him on his way to work.
“And it’s only a three-mile drive for me into the State House,” said
state Rep. Stephen ’Stat’ Smith (D-Everett). “The (officers) just wanted
to make their case. They weren’t trying to give me a ticket.”
The hotly debated proposal to curtail police road details - part of a
series of transportation reform measures - veered toward another public
showdown yesterday, with labor leaders passing out literature in the
State House and urging lawmakers to oppose the legislation.
Lawmakers reported receiving dozens of e-mails and phone calls from
police officers who argue that a public hearing should be held before
the legislation comes up for a vote.
However, top senators said yesterday they intend to insert the reforms
into a $4.8 billion transportation bond bill that has already been
vetted in multiple hearings. The Senate would take up the bond bill
tomorrow, add the reforms and send it back to the House for final
approval next week.
“The support from the leaders of the House, Senate and governor’s office
is evidence that this bill will move forward in spite of the
opposition,” said state Sen. Steven A. Baddour (D-Methuen).
Baddour, co-chairman of the Legislature’s Joint Committee on
Transportation, said efforts to curb the use of costly police details
have already been discussed in several hearings this year.
The reform proposal would empower Gov. Deval Patrick’s administration to
set regulations that would authorize the use of civilian flaggers at
some construction sites. The regulations would still require police in
high-traffic areas, but would limit their use on secondary roads.
Lawmakers estimate the changes would save $5 million a year, but unions
question whether there would be any savings, arguing that the state
would still have to pay prevailing wages to flagmen. They also argue
that restricting details hurts public safety by reducing the presence of
police on the street.
The debate over details has obscured additional measures in the reform
package that would cut health and pension benefits at the MBTA and Mass
Pike, and require more detailed disclosure of costs on major
construction projects.
The Boston Herald
Friday, April 4, 2008
Cops spared as details on bill altered
By Casey Ross
A controversial Senate proposal to curb costly police details got
“watered down” amid fierce lobbying by labor leaders who secured new
language ensuring that civilian flaggers will be used only if local
officials wage a costly fight against public safety unions.
After behind-the-scenes meetings with police unions, senators inserted a
new paragraph into transportation reform legislation yesterday that
explicitly states that local cops get to keep pulling details if it’s
included in their contracts.
“It was clearly watered down,” said one state senator who requested
anonymity. “If the officers are doing it now, it will be difficult to
step in and take it away from them.”
Lawmakers said the new language was pushed by state Sen. Steven Tolman
(D-Brighton), who was surrounded by labor leaders outside the Senate
chambers just minutes before a formal session was convened to consider
the proposal.
Tolman denied that the changes did anything to weaken the legislation,
which several senators said was never intended to supersede collective
bargaining agreements in cities and towns.
“I don’t know who is saying anything is being watered down,” he said.
“If someone has a contract, it’s not our job as legislators to not
respect negotiations between the bargaining agents and the
municipalities.”
But some lawmakers were advocating for stronger language that would
prevent cities and towns from taking an easy escape route to avoid the
difficult fight to save money for taxpayers.
The legislation passed yesterday requires the Patrick administration to
create regulations that would authorize the use of civilian flagmen on
secondary roads.
The measure would help reduce costs on state-controlled highways and
bridges, but would have a limited impact on costs in local communities.
Mayor Thomas Menino, who supports police details, issued a statement
yesterday saying, “Detail officers on work sites allow the city to have
about 200 additional police officers on the street every day that the
taxpayers don’t have to pay for. Also, beyond just the increase of
officers on the street, Boston receives additional revenue by charging a
10 percent administrative fee for providing the details.”
But taxpayers are forced to foot the bill for detail officers on state
and municipal projects, a cost the legislation aims to reduce by $5
million a year. Union officials argue that the savings would be minimal
and that police officers are needed to force traffic to slow down amid
the region’s hectic traffic patterns.
Several lawmakers expressed frustration yesterday that the battle over
police details has obscured other reform measures included in the
legislation.
The bill, which passed 39-0, also contains provisions to cut red tape
that adds millions to the costs of transportation projects and ensures
greater disclosure of cash flow on major projects.
The Eagle-Tribune
Friday, April 4, 2008
State makes it easier for civilian flagmen
to work road jobs, instead of police
By Ed Mason
State lawmakers approved making it easier for communities to replace
paid police details with less costly civilian flagmen, part of a $3.5
billion transportation bond bill that cleared the Senate yesterday.
The Senate would authorize state transportation and public safety
officials to draw up rules for when it is appropriate to use civilian
flagmen instead of police.
Haverhill wants to use flagmen in some cases to keep down costs of
directing traffic around construction sites.
There is no state law mandating that police officers protect workers at
road construction sites, but the practice has become commonplace and
been fiercely protected by police unions.
Massachusetts is the only state where civilian flagmen are not used, and
some communities have labor contracts requiring that police staff
construction sites.
It is estimated civilian flagmen would save the state $100 million over
20 years.
Speaking on the Senate floor, Sen. Steven Baddour, D-Methuen, who also
represents Haverhill and is the Senate point person on the plan, said
this is the beginning of a series of cost-saving reforms.
"I'm confident this is the first step in reforming the transportation
system," Baddour said.
Also, a 2004 study by the Beacon Hill Institute, a nonprofit fiscal
watchdog at Suffolk University, concluded that municipalities would also
save between $37 million and $67 million annually by replacing most
police details with flagmen.
With the state facing a $15 billion to $20 billion tab just to maintain
its roads, bridges and public transit over the next two decades,
lawmakers have stressed the need to approve reforms before looking to
raise money to bridge that gap.
"I don't think we can ask taxpayers to fund any transportation projects
until we look at common sense ways to save money," Sen. Susan Tucker,
D-Andover, said.
However, they faced stiff resistance from the Massachusetts Police
Association, which represents local police. They're concerned about
losing a valuable perk that supplements their pay. They also contend
police are better equipped to handle accidents at road sites and they
get more respect than flagmen when pulling dangerous drivers aside.
Earlier this week, members of the police association lobbied lawmakers
to reject any limit on details. The AFL-CIO and other union officials
also met with legislative leaders to express their concerns.
Baddour said police have overblown what the Senate is doing. He stressed
the Senate plan does not eliminate paid police details, and that cities
and towns would maintain control over local details.
"There's a balance that needs to be struck between public safety and
protecting the taxpayer dollars," Baddour said.
The reform measure was tacked onto a borrowing bill because the funds
are desperately needed for transportation projects, and it increases the
likelihood of passage.
But Sen. Bruce Tarr, R-Gloucester, said he'd like to see the Senate go
further.
"You have to start somewhere," Tarr said. "A lot of observers say we
couldn't do these reforms. This will be a test of the Legislature's
ability to do that."
Although the Senate plan doesn't force municipalities to use flagmen,
Barbara Anderson, executive director of Citizens for Limited Taxation,
said it was an important step.
"The idea of taking on the (police) unions is huge," Anderson said.
"It's a huge difference in the way business is done on Beacon Hill.
The Senate also took a stab at curbing Massachusetts Bay Transportation
Authority retirees' benefits, which over the next 20 years will total
$1.1 billion. MBTA retirees currently do not pay for health care. The
Senate would have them pay 15 percent of premiums, the same as state
employees do.
The MBTA would also study delaying benefit eligibility until 55, the
same as most state workers. Right now, there is no minimum age for when
MBTA retirees can receive benefits.
The Senate bill now goes to the House, which passed a version of the
bond bill earlier this week that did not have the limits on police
details. House Speaker Salvatore DiMasi backs the Senate changes,
meaning it is likely the bill will sail through the House.
Gov. Deval Patrick also supports the reform measures.
North Shore Sunday
Friday, April 4, 2008
The devil’s in the details
By Kirk Williamson
Beverly - Last week’s announcement that the state may cut police details
at road construction sites and replace them with less expensive flagmen
triggered plenty of talk in local coffee shops and watering holes.
Pat, who was relaxing after work at a Chinese restaurant in Middleton,
was reluctant at first be part of that conversation. Pat, who lives in
Beverly, put 35 years into a career at the telephone company before he
retired and took a job with a small company that paints lines on streets
and roads.
“I’m not sure I’m someone who should be talking about this,” he says as
he looks over a small plate of chicken wings on the bar in front of him.
He is, of course, the perfect person to talk about it.
“In the right location, it’s a safety issue,” says Pat, who adds that if
he’s on a job on a busy road like Route 62 he appreciates having the
police there to direct traffic and keep things safe. “The problem is
they carry it too far. On the small roads, flagmen will be fine for the
job.”
Pat says he understands that cops use the details to earn overtime pay
and he doesn’t begrudge them the chance to make a few extra bucks. But
he doesn’t think they should make that money by tacking on unnecessary
and often wasteful spending to a job.
“And I have a bad taste for the way they get at it,” says Pat. “They try
to strong-arm you about having a detail on a site. On major roads, yes,
I want details for my own protection, but on the smaller roads you don’t
need them. And the police want details for everything.”
There’s actually no law in Massachusetts that requires communities,
businesses and utility companies to hire police details while work is
being done on the roadways — police have a mandate to keep the streets
and roads in their cities and towns safe, but police details aren’t a
rule, they’re more of a tradition.
And last week, Gov. Deval Patrick, House Speaker Sal DiMasi and Senate
President Therese Murray held a joint press conference to announce that
it’s time to change the local custom.
The state’s top three lawmakers were reacting in part to study that says
Massachusetts will need to spend $19 billion on transportation needs
over the next 20 years. With that type of bill looming, the state needs
to save every possible penny.
Although state studies aren’t known for their clarity or their colorful
language, last fall, when the Massachusetts Transportation Finance
Commission released its recommendations about how to handle the state’s
ailing infrastructure during tough economic times, commissioners had a
few choice words about police details.
“Massachusetts is bleeding scarce financial resources as a result of an
unnecessary and long-standing system that dictates that policemen should
be hired to work as flagmen at road construction sites,” they wrote.
“This practice should come to an end.”
And while there’s nothing ambiguous about that recommendation, it ticked
off a quiet battle that’s been brewing for the past week. On one side
are police who insist the details are necessary to keep the public safe
— and to keep good people on the payroll at local police departments.
They say they need extra pay that details bring in to support their
families.
On the other side is — well, just about everyone else who is fed up with
seeing the all-too-common scene of two police stationed on either side
of a bucket truck working to trim some tree limbs on a rural back road
where a car will pass by every 20 minutes or so. A lot of people believe
police details are a perk that’s had its day, and it’s time to cut back
on the wasteful spending.
A public safety issue?
A couple of years ago, two cops who were working a detail on the
Lynn-Saugus line heard a call over the radio that a bank had been robbed
and the suspects were headed their way. The two officers spotted the
car, stopped it and made an arrest.
“Flagmen can’t do that,” says Saugus Police Lt. Mike Annese. Like a lot
of police this week, Annese was making the point that roadway details do
more than just keep work sites safe — they put more cops on the street,
and that’s a good thing overall from a public safety perspective.
Annese says the Saugus Police Department is down 10 bodies because of
the town’s budget troubles, and police details are a way to put some of
the cops back out there courtesy of National Grid, Comcast and any of
the other many businesses that hire details when they’re out on the road
working.
Of course, lots of jobs by local highway crews and water departments
also use details, and that comes courtesy of the taxpayer. MassHighway
alone spent $15.5 million on police details in 2003. By 2006, that
figure had jumped to $22.6 million, or 4.5 percent of the agency’s
construction budget.
Still, Annese and others believe it’s worth it. “It’s tough,” he says.
“We don’t have the people and we have a lot more crime.”
Annese says cops on police details aren’t just catching the stray bank
robber or purse snatcher in between directing traffic around the
backhoes. He says drivers, and Massachusetts is known for having some of
the worst in the world, tend to keep their bad driving habits in check
when police are out on the roads doing detail work.
“An officer on a detail is someone with authority, and people know the
difference between that and a flagman,” he says.
Over in Topsfield, they really don’t have a lot of details on the road,
but Police Chief Evan Haglund also believes the extra cops ensure public
safety.
“You have to look at the plusses of having them out there,” says Haglund,
who points to the increase in hazards, and problems like road rage. Like
Annese, he stresses that flagmen on the job won’t be able to help people
or intervene when there’s a problem between drivers. And like Annese, he
says just the physical presence of police reminds people to follow the
rules.
So are details comparable to the speed traps that often have the effect
of slowing people down before they go too fast and become actual
candidates for a speeding ticket?
“You know, we don’t actually call them speed traps,” says Haglund.
Police up in Gloucester make pretty much the same case, and Lt. Joe
Aiello, who’s in charge of traffic details, says the contractors and
companies he’s talked to would rather have police on site instead of
flagmen. But Aiello is also taking the issue personally.
Like other cops, Aiello thinks the proposal to cut back on details is a
slam against police who are not up for any popularity awards due to the
nature of their jobs. And it doesn’t help when local newspapers publish
their lists of the top 10 wages earners in any given city or town and
there are eight police officers on the list, with the school
superintendent and maybe, if he or she is lucky enough, the town
manager.
“I stopped being ashamed of my salary a long time ago,” says Aiello, who
has earned as much as $130,000 in a year with the hours he’s put in on
details. “I don’t live the high life — I have a wife and three kids and
a home.”
Aiello thinks cops are being tossed under the bus in an effort to save
some cash and balance some budgets.
“I grow weary of politicians who want to take away our road work, our
educational incentives, our overtime and our pensions,” says Aiello. “No
doubt money is an issue but you don’t attack the people who strap on a
weapon and go out there and protect you.”
And that was pretty much the sentiment on the Masscops message board
this week, as police officers from all around the state started posting
their thoughts on the proposal to cut back on details.
In addition to the complaints, several people posted messages suggesting
it will be only a matter of time before Beacon Hill pols get together to
form flagmen companies that their cousins and brothers-in-law can use to
cash in on the latest reform. That’s funny.
But what wasn’t so funny was a suggestion that several other posters
made about stocking up on pens. They said their plan was to write up
everyone for every possible infraction, no matter how small, and then
urge the driver to take the citation in front of a judge. They promise
that if they’re not going to be making any money on road details,
they’ll make it up in court overtime.
Tax dollars wasted?
Last spring, Gloucester attorney Mike Faherty hired a police detail so a
camera crew could check out a private sewer line that the neighborhood
paid for on its own. Gloucester engineers wanted the line inspected
before the neighborhood turned the pipe over to the city.
The officer hired for the detail showed up late, worked for two hours
and billed Faherty for an eight-hour shift. Generally you can’t get a
detail for just a couple hours, even if that’s all you need — they
usually come in four- and eight-hour blocks of time.
Faherty balked at the $320 bill and refused to pay. Instead he sent a
check for $160 — to pay for four hours of detail work. And, oh yeah, it
didn’t help that after the officer was done with Faherty’s detail, he
went off to work another road job while he was still on Faherty’s time
clock.
The police filed a complaint against Faherty that has since been
dropped, and Faherty threatened a lawsuit which hasn’t been filed.
Instead, Gloucester has agreed to look at the issue and try to fix the
problem.
But the problem is that while most people might see that case as a cause
célèbre against details, there wasn’t really anything illegal about it —
police details, their hours and the rates are all spelled out in the
Gloucester Police Department’s contract. And it’s those contracts and
the unions that fight tooth and nail for them that many blame for the
state’s failure to do anything meaningful to reform the system of police
details.
But now, with the state going broke and the hope of casino revenue just
about dead, the time might actually be right. Marblehead’s Barbara
Anderson, executive director for Citizens for Limited Taxation,
thinks it is.
“Police details have long been the poster child for absurd waste in
government,” says Anderson. “It’s a scam being perpetrated by people who
were hired to protect us from scams.”
The Transportation Finance Commission has said that the state will save
$100 million over the next 20 years if the system of assigning police
details is trimmed back. That breaks down to a paltry $5 million a year,
which isn’t going to do much for the overall economic outlook of
Massachusetts. But Anderson says that’s not the big deal in this
particular debate.
“For the first time, politicians are taking on the power police unions,”
she says. “They are standing up and that’s a huge change.”
Anderson understands the argument that police want more money to support
their families, but she feels they should do that like the rest of the
private sector — through a legitimate second job. She agrees that basic
police pay isn’t outstanding, but emphasizes it’s determined by the
supply and demand that rule the marketplace. A lot of people want that
job, so positions are filled accordingly. Public servants, even
necessary and often heroic ones like cops, should not have a sense of
entitlement when it comes to taxpayers’ money, she says.
And there’s another economic argument that’s been making the rounds
among people who have been talking details this week. A lot of cops are
saying that if you hire flagmen, they’ll be earning the rate set by the
state’s prevailing wage law, which is something along the lines of
$30-plus an hour. The cops say by the time you add benefits to that, you
won’t be saving any money with flagmen; you’ll actually be losing.
Anderson thinks that’s not a problem. If the rate for flagmen set by the
prevailing wage law is too high, then change the law, she says. It’s
really that simple.
Anderson, who happens to be a fan of cops, says that public safety is
the primary reason we should pay taxes and she worries that a huge fight
on police details is going to cost police departments a lot of public
support.
‘They shouldn’t squander their public relations,” she says. “When they
act this way on police details they lose respect and they won’t get the
support they need with legitimate complaints like when they need more
backup or cruisers.”
That might be true, but cops from all around the state seem to be
digging in for a fight to save an opportunity they feel comes with their
jobs. No one wants to give up details and cops are lobbying hard to
preserve the perk.
Still, many concede it probably a done deal and some change is coming no
matter how hard and how loud they argue. As the Massachusetts
Transportation Finance Commissioners said in their report, 49 other
states use lower paid flagmen instead of police on road construction
jobs.
“It’s time for Massachusetts to join them,” they say.
The New Bedford Standard-Times
Friday, April 4, 2008
Senate OKs reform of rules on police details, flagmen
By David Kibbe
The state Senate approved a transportation reform plan Thursday that
throws the controversial issue of police details squarely in the lap of
Gov. Deval Patrick.
If approved by the House, the legislation would direct the Executive
Office of Transportation and the Executive Office of Public Safety to
draw up new regulations replacing police details with civilian flaggers
in construction zones where it is appropriate.
Senate leaders said it would target secondary roads and quiet streets,
while keeping police details in place on roadways with heavy traffic.
But Gov. Patrick seemed to soften his comments on replacing the details,
following a backlash from law enforcement unions and some municipal
leaders, The Associated Press reported.
"The more I think about this, the less certain I am that we can fix this
top down, you know, by just saying, 'Here's the governor's policy or the
state government's policy,' because the conditions are so different at
local levels," the governor said in his monthly radio appearance with
Jim Braude and Margery Eagan on WTKK-FM.
Gov. Patrick's press office insisted he was not backing off the
proposal, which he supported at a public appearance last week with
Senate President Therese Murray and House Speaker Salvatore DiMasi.
"In terms of flagmen, we are waiting to see what comes out of the Senate
and House, but we stand ready to work with them and develop regulations
that determine when it is safe and cost-effective to use flagmen on
roadside projects," said Kyle Sullivan, a spokesman for the governor.
The independent Massachusetts Transportation Finance Commission last
year recommended replacing police details with civilian flagmen on
virtually all projects. The commission said it would save the state $5
million a year, and municipal governments and utility ratepayers $30
million to $50 million a year.
Michael Widmer, president of the business-backed Massachusetts Taxpayers
Foundation, served on the commission. He said the Senate's proposal to
require the Patrick administration to write new regulations was soft.
"Time will tell, but it feels as if the commitment to do this is not
very strong," Mr. Widmer said. "Basically, the political leaders are
getting cold feet, and trying to remove any teeth whatsoever from it. I
think the odds of getting any significant reform has dropped markedly in
the last 48 hours, given the push-back from the police unions."
Massachusetts is the only state in the nation that has widespread use of
police details at road construction sites, either by state and local
policy or local law.
The reform package was tacked onto a $3.5 billion bond bill that was
rushed through the Senate yesterday to meet deadlines for federal
funding. The bond bill was approved unanimously. The House has not voted
on the reform provisions.
Sen. Steven Baddour, D-Methuen, the Senate chairman of the Joint
Transportation Committee, said it was not the Legislature's intent to
eliminate all police details.
"Where we need to come in line with the 49 other states is there is a
balance that can be struck between public safety and protecting taxpayer
dollars," he said.
Senators rewrote the proposal yesterday to clarify that any new state
regulations would not supersede municipal laws or police contracts that
call for police details in construction zones.
The transportation reform also includes new ways to speed up permitting
of state transportation projects and provide greater accountability of
spending. Altogether, Senate leaders said it would save $100 million
over the next 20 years.
There is no state law requiring police details. However, it has been a
long-standing state transportation policy to require them on state
projects. Cities and towns have required details through policy, local
law or labor agreements.
Supporters of the change hope new state regulations would make it easier
politically for municipalities to follow suit.
Police officers say the details provide a greater measure of public
safety. They say cutting the details — which are separate from an
officer's normal shift — would amount to a pay cut. They question the
savings, saying civilian flagmen would have to be paid the prevailing
wage on public projects.
"This is only half the game," Ray McGrath, the legislative director for
the International Brotherhood of Police Officers, said after the Senate
vote. "This still has to go over to the House. We will work with the
House leadership and the House members to develop a system that works
for both sides."
The Eagle-Tribune
Saturday, April 5, 2008
An Eagle-Tribune editorial
Beacon Hill finally getting the message
The Statehouse has been besieged in recent days by police officers
demanding that lawmakers keep their hands off their lucrative road
details. Fortunately, that did not stop the Senate last week from
approving a transportation bond bill that includes a provision that
represents the first step toward allowing the use of civilian flagmen on
Bay State roads.
State Sen. Steven Baddour, D-Methuen, who chairs the legislative
Transportation Committee, is right when he points out that steps must be
taken to reduce costs before the public can be asked to support the
revenue measures that will ultimately be required to fix the
commonwealth's crumbling roads and bridges. And use of civilian flagmen
under certain circumstances would reduce the cost of public construction
projects by $100 million over 20 years according to one estimate.
The bottom line is that the assignment of state and local police
officers to supervise road projects should be governed by real safety
concerns, not the desire by public safety personnel to maximize their
earning potential. And the public safety unions would do themselves and
their members well by seeking a reasonable compromise on this issue lest
they end up with a bill allowing civilian flagmen on all road projects,
period.
But the cost-savings advocated by Baddour and others will not be
achieved simply by allowing the use of less-costly personnel to direct
traffic around job sites. For that reason we support other elements of
the reform package put forward recently by Gov. Deval Patrick, Senate
President Therese Murray and House Speaker Salvatore DiMasi. These
include:
Bringing health-care and pension benefits at the Massachusetts Bay
Transportation Authority into line with those of other state employees.
The current contract allows T employees to retire with full benefits,
including 100-percent, employer-paid health insurance, after 23 years of
service, regardless of age. In many cases these workers can actually
earn more by retiring early than by staying on the job.
The Senate last week moved to require that retirees pay 15 percent of
their health insurance premiums — the same as other state workers — and
delay eligibility for full retirement until one reaches 55 years of age.
(According to a study released last year, a third of the T's retirees
were under 55 years of age, and 10 percent were under 50.)
Urging the Massachusetts Turnpike Authority to reduce the number of
toll-takers — whose average salary, as a former governor famously
pointed out, exceeds that of teachers; and increase the use of
electronic toll-collection systems.
Establishing uniform prequalification standards for contractors and
taking other steps to expedite the start of work on approved public
construction projects.
Finally, the governor and other members of the Democratic leadership on
Beacon Hill, seem to be getting the message. It's as state Sen. Susan
Tucker, D-Andover, told Statehouse reporter Edward Mason last week: "I
don't think we can ask taxpayers to fund any transportation projects
until we look at common-sense ways to save money."
The Boston Herald
Monday, April 7, 2008
A Boston Herald editorial
The more things change
Is there no such thing as political courage in this commonwealth
anymore?
Barely a week has passed since our top three elected leaders stood
before TV cameras and announced plans to take on the most sacred of
sacred cows on Beacon Hill - the paid police detail.
They weren’t going to slam the brakes on the gravy train outright. They
were going to draft regulations so the state and cities and towns could
curb the use of costly details, in limited circumstances, mostly on
secondary roads.
It was a rare and surprising moment of political chutzpah, one that
would have saved taxpayers at least $100 million over the next two
decades and sent a clear message that Massachusetts is no longer
interested in the old way of doing things - not when we’re $20 billion
in the hole on transportation spending and talking about tax hikes to
balance the books.
Ah, but today, after a week of fierce lobbying by police unions and
organized labor generally, we are left with - well, not much.
The legislation approved by the Senate last Thursday still calls for new
guidelines for the deployment of traffic details, dividing roads and
bridges into “tiers,” and recommending when civilian flagmen can be
used.
But at the eleventh hour, senators inserted a provision that would force
cities and towns to go to war with police unions if they even think
about replacing cops with civilians in Day-Glo vests.
While there is no state law requiring police details, the practice is
embedded in municipal contracts. And the legislation would bar any
change there whatsoever.
Frankly, we should have seen it coming.
Last week Rep. Stephen “Stat” Smith told the Herald that police officers
had pulled him over three times, lobbying against any change. And phones
at the State House were ringing off the hook from officers who feared
the cash cow was on her last legs.
Meanwhile Patrick wobbled publicly, saying he was uncertain the system
could be fixed “from the top down.” Well it’s certainly not going to be
fixed from the bottom up, by the local officials who have to rub elbows
in the coffee shop every day with the cop whose pay they’re being asked
to cut.
Senators insist they haven’t watered down the reform, that it will
proceed apace. Our prediction: A year from now, not a single blessed
thing will have changed.
NOTE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, this
material is distributed without profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior
interest in receiving this information for non-profit research and educational purposes
only. For more information go to:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml
|
