CLT UPDATE
Wednesday, September 17, 2008
Boston Herald reports the whole truth, at last
The Deval's in the details
The move to repeal the state income
tax is already paying off for a pair of activists who have pocketed tens
of thousands of dollars heading up the ballot campaign, a Herald review
has found.
In fact, Libertarian activists Carla Howell and Michael Cloud took in
nearly $200,000 in consulting fees for two anti-tax ballot initiatives
and work on their political campaigns over the past six years.
The Boston Herald
Friday, August 15, 2008
Carla Howell’s tax fight pays off
Activist, pal net $200G in consulting fees
By Hillary Chabot
The push to scrap the state income tax - billed as a
grassroots movement - is heavily bankrolled by an odd-ball collection of
libertarians who don’t even pay taxes in Massachusetts, including a crackpot
who’s likened Homeland Security to the “Gestapo” and a “Biblical capitalist” who
thinks paper money should be eliminated.
The Committee for Small Government - the self-described “grass roots
organization” backing the Question 1 ballot initiative to abolish the state’s
income tax - collected almost 60 percent, or $211,000, of its $364,000 total
from out-of-state donors, a Herald review shows....
Michael Widmer, head of the Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation, which
opposes the measure, slammed the Committee for Small Government for
raising most of its dough from out-of-staters with no stake in the
outcome.
“It’s very troubling so much of their money is coming from out-of-state,
given the enormous consequences if it passes,” Widmer said.
The Boston Herald
Tuesday, September 16, 2008
Kooks cast fuels anti-tax crusade
And they don’t live here!
By Edward Mason
First a scurrilous personal attack against the two organizers
of Question 1 in a Herald hatchet-job by Hillary Chabot on Aug. 15, complete
with a splashing tabloid front page headline. Now another "objective" and
"balanced" report from the Herald's new addition, Edward Mason; a reporter I've
also respected in the past when he worked elsewhere. Shame on you, Ed, for now
joining the choir with Chabot. Or is it your and Hillary's editors who're
pulling the trigger on this sort of crap?
And yet another misleading splashing tabloid front page headline. The Herald has
reached a new low, perhaps now enough to cease enabling it with our purchase.
Chip Ford --
Director of Operations
Citizens for Limited Taxation
(Boston Herald comments blog this morning)
The group opposed to abolishing the state income tax blasted
its opponents for taking out-of-state money - yet it has received two-thirds of
its donations from two big Washington, D.C., teacher unions, a Herald review
shows.
The National Education Association and the American Federation of Teachers
contributed a combined $1 million to the Coalition for Our Communities, the
group hastily created this spring to preserve the income tax.
Overall, the pro-tax group raised $1.5 million from unions and $100 from an
individual donor, according to state campaign finance records....
Carla Howell, leader of the Committee for Small Government, which is behind
eliminating the 5.3 percent income tax, called the unions’ influence outrageous.
“(The coalition has) no grass-roots organization with only one individual
donor,” she said. “Their money comes from large institutional donors, primarily
teachers’ unions and primarily from out of state.” ...
Barbara Anderson of Citizens for Limited Taxation called the group
a fraternity of anti-tax advocates that is rallying to the cause.
“Of course we all help each other out,” Anderson said. “We have a common enemy -
the public employee unions.”
The Boston Herald
Wednesday, September 17, 2008
Pro-tax group gets union $upport
By Edward Mason
The attempt by Gov. Deval L. Patrick to replace some police
details with civilians flaggers at roadside construction sites drew the scorn of
hundreds of police officers and union officials last night who blasted the
proposal as a threat to public safety.
In a rowdy public hearing that lasted more than two hours, nearly 200 police
officers and union leaders crowded into a warm, stuffy room using words like
"arrogant" and "insensitive" to characterize the Patrick administration's plan.
The small number of proponents who testified in favor were taunted by police,
booed and told to sit down....
David Tuerck, executive director of the Beacon Hill Institute at Suffolk
University, was shouted down when he tried to explain that rates for flaggers
would decrease once the market had been set....
A parade of officers and union representatives cited instances of police detail
officers being the first to respond to a crime or medical situation because they
were closest at the time of the emergency....
Jim Stergios, executive director of the Pioneer Institute, said the push for
flaggers was an important first step toward restoring public confidence in state
government at a times when millions are needed to properly repair and maintain
state roads and bridges.
The Lowell Sun
Tuesday, September 16, 2008
Police toss flag over 'flaggers'
Union calls Patrick's move to put civilians
on road details 'arrogant'
Transportation Secretary Bernard Cohen said the state will go
ahead with the governor's plan to use civilian road workers known as "flaggers"
instead of police details this fall despite a chorus of opposition last night
from police and union representatives.
"You will see civilian flaggers on Mass. highways this fall," Cohen said to a
crowd of more than 300 gathered at public hearing in the state transportation
building to discuss Governor Deval Patrick's plan. Cohen called the draft
regulations "a careful balance" of public safety and cost efficiency at a time
when Massachusetts is facing fiscal responsibilities to cut costs....
In the midst of outraged cries of disapproval, David Tuerck, director of the
Beacon Hill Institute, defended his position. "I guess I know what it feels like
to be a mother-in-law on the honeymoon," Tuerck said, to a flurry of "boo's."
Tuerck called the numbers in the Beacon Hill Institute study an underestimate.
Although the study cites a 13 percent savings in labor costs, Tuerck said the
savings would be closer to 20 percent because of inflated labor wages.
Thomas Nee, president of the National Association of Police Organizations,
called Tuerck's remarks insulting.
The Boston Globe
Tuesday, September 16, 2008
Gripes aired at hearing on details
Police unions object to plan
You could feel the testosterone pumping. And you had to feel
sorry for the repeatedly booed Mr. Get-Rid-of-the Details. That would be
diminutive professor David Tuerck of the Beacon Hill Institute. He was told to
do something not acceptable to repeat in a family newspaper. Then he was told,
“Time’s up,” and “Sit down.”
Actually, Tuerck spoke briefly, a few moments more than his three-minute
allotment. Bob Haynes, president of Massachusetts AFL-CIO, went on for nearly
half an hour. But nobody told him to do anything crude....
Here’s what we didn’t hear yesterday: any empathy for struggling Massachusetts
homeowners, particularly elderly ones, who can’t afford to stay in their homes
because of ever-skyrocketing property taxes and utility bills.
The Boston Herald
Tuesday, September 16, 2008
Deval Patrick’s gutsy move
gets police union blowback
By Margery Eagan
The Patrick administration allowed an angry mob to take over
Monday’s hearing on the plan to use civilian flaggers on certain road
construction projects, but taxpayers had better hope the administration was just
letting these guys vent.
Because despite the threats and the intimidation and the misinformation campaign
being expertly waged by the state’s police unions, the administration’s
exceedingly modest plan to allow civilian flaggers on some projects instead of
cops will save money - money that can be used to rebuild our state’s crumbling
infrastructure.
And while he now finds himself squarely in the crosshairs of the politically
powerful unions, on this issue Gov. Deval Patrick simply must not bend an
inch....
Failing to get traction on those issues, the cops have now turned to the
politics of fear. Their message: Expect carnage on the roads if cops aren’t
there to direct traffic around every repaving project. How the other 49 states
avoid that doomsday scenario, well, don’t expect a straight answer on that one.
A Boston Herald editorial
Wednesday, September 17, 2008
Gov, stand firm on detail plan
"To protect and serve" is a widely-used police motto, but the
only thing hundreds of uniformed officers were protecting at the State House
this week were their wallets. While taxpayers across the Commonwealth scream for
reform of costly public employee perks, the police unions are pulling out all
the stops to pocket the status quo....
But Massachusetts cannot afford to spend millions of dollars on unneeded police
details - and billions on outsized perks other public employee unions have
squeezed out of Beacon Hill over the years.
Patrick must hang tough. Real reform never comes easy.
A Daily News Tribune editorial
Wednesday, September 17, 2008
Hang tough on police details reform
Chip Ford's CLT
Commentary
First came Hillary Chabot's
embarrassing-for-her "news report" on the organizers of this year's
income tax repeal ballot question and the one in 2002.
I've written Ms. Chabot numerous times telling her I expect more from
The Boston Herald, and expect her to do a fair-and-balanced follow-up on
who the opposition is, how much their professional operatives are being
paid. It has not been forthcoming, nor have I received even a
common-courtesy response.
Yesterday came the
next Boston Herald hatchet-job PR piece against Question One, this
one written by Ed Mason, whom I know from when he
worked until recently at the Eagle-Tribune; he was a
highly-reputable reporter covering the State House for that paper.
I was shocked at the unbalanced report published under his byline
yesterday by the Herald. Making it worse was the splash headline on the
front page "Crackpots! Out-of-state kooks back anti-income tax
drive."
So we went into overdrive
early yesterday. I wanted to do an immediate update attacking the
Herald, but Barbara asked for time to contact the paper and try to get a
balanced story. She talked with Ed Mason, who said he was already
pitching his editors a follow-up about the union donations. Barbara
called them expressing strong support for that idea! The result
was today's front page headline, "Crackpots Part 2: Unions back
pro-income tax drive" with a story positioned on the same page as
the previous day's, and including some online responses to the previous hit
piece.
She thinks that the Herald will make an effort to be more balanced on
this issue in the coming weeks.
Note that in yesterday's report, shameless Michael Widmer of the so-called
Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation was the attack
spokesman, while David Tuerck of the Beacon Hill Institute balanced the discussion in today's
piece. Was Widmer nowhere to be found when his naked hypocrisy was
exposed in today's report, hiding under his
tax-borrow-and-spend rock someplace?
“It’s very troubling so much of their money is coming from out-of-state,
given the enormous consequences if it passes,” he droned yesterday -- while the
anti-taxpayer committee he's shilling for received a million dollars
from just two out-of-state teachers unions! There goes yet
another chunk of MTF's lost credibility. Over
the years and almost single-handedly, Widmer and his personal agenda has
destroyed what remained of MTF's at one time respected reputation.
You'll see Dr. Tuerck, along with another brave think-tank leader, Jim
Stergios of the Pioneer Institute, in the coverage of the public hearing
on Governor Patrick's proposed regulations to limit police details.
[See
CLT's hearing memo] The hearing Monday evening was apparently
just as boisterous and rambunctious as those of the past, with a sea of police
and union thugs intimidating and shouting down any opposition speakers
looking out for taxpayers' interests.
 |
|
Chip Ford |
|
|
Print Your Own Bumper
Sticker!
CLICK HERE
to download a full-color printable copy
You need the free Adobe
Acrobat Reader® program installed on your computer
to open and print this file
|
The Boston Herald
Friday, August 15, 2008
Carla Howell’s tax fight pays off
Activist, pal net $200G in consulting fees
By Hillary Chabot
The move to repeal the state income tax is already paying off for a pair
of activists who have pocketed tens of thousands of dollars heading up
the ballot campaign, a Herald review has found.
In fact, Libertarian activists Carla Howell and Michael Cloud took in
nearly $200,000 in consulting fees for two anti-tax ballot initiatives
and work on their political campaigns over the past six years.
In the 18-month period after the first income tax question failed, the
Committee for Small Government - which listed Cloud as its treasurer and
Howell’s Wayland home as its headquarters - continued to accept
political contributions, and the pair took nearly 89 cents of every
dollar donated for past consulting fees.
Howell said the committee remained open to pay off their debts, which
included $29,000 for her and about $25,000 for Cloud.
The committee finally disbanded in May 2004, and launched anew in 2007,
without Cloud in any official capacity.
Howell insists it’s all been a labor of love. She says the cash is
payment for 80-hour weeks she works making calls, drawing up literature
and attending events in order to get rid of what she regards as a
repressive 5.3 percent income tax.
“I make a fraction of what I did in the private sector,” said Howell,
who used to be a high-tech consultant and ran unsuccessfully for
governor in 2002. “No one who knows the people in this campaign would
infer that money is the motivator.”
Yet Kareem Crayton, a fellow at the Initiative and Referendum Institute
in California, said that while there is nothing illegal about getting
paid for work on the committee, it’s unusual and politically risky for
those working on a ballot initiative to make money from it.
From a distance, Crayton said, “it looks like the proponent of this
(income tax referendum) is doing nothing more than trying to fill up
their pockets as opposed to backing a question they really believe in.”
For her part, Howell said those behind the committee opposing the
initiative have far more money.
The Coalition for our Communities includes high-profile players such as
former Blue Cross Blue Shield executive Peter Meade who are fighting the
question, which would cut about $12.7 billion from the state budget and
save taxpayers $3,600 a year.
The contentious initiative, which nabbed a surprise 45 percent of the
vote when it appeared on the ballot in 2002, also has sparked vocal
opposition from political heavy hitters such as Gov. Deval Patrick.
The committee formed to abolish the income tax in 2002 didn’t dissolve
until May of 2004.
Cloud, who was Howell’s romantic companion in the past, also raked in
about $90,000 in consulting fees by working on her political campaigns.
Howell ran for governor in 2002 and U.S. Senate in 2000, and Cloud ran
for U.S. Senate in 2002.
Now living in Arizona, Cloud did not return a call for comment.
The Boston Herald
Tuesday, September 16, 2008
Kooks cast fuels anti-tax crusade
And they don’t live here!
By Edward Mason
The push to scrap the state
income tax - billed as a grassroots movement - is heavily bankrolled by
an odd-ball collection of libertarians who don’t even pay taxes in
Massachusetts, including a crackpot who’s likened Homeland Security to
the “Gestapo” and a “Biblical capitalist” who thinks paper money should
be eliminated.
The Committee for Small Government - the self-described “grass roots
organization” backing the Question 1 ballot initiative to abolish the
state’s income tax - collected almost 60 percent, or $211,000, of its
$364,000 total from out-of-state donors, a Herald review shows.
Among those donors:
● Jason Hommel, a Penn Valley, Calif.,
financial manager who advises clients to invest using the principles of
“Biblical capitalism” - which basically means avoiding stocks and bonds
in favor of gold and silver. Hommel, who has called paper money “a
fraud,” predicts that gold will return as currency just “prior to the
Rapture . . . and the return of Jesus.” Hommel gave $10,000 to the
anti-tax crusade.
● John Gilmore, a cofounder of Sun
Microsystems, has called for the dissolution of the Department of
Homeland Security and its “Gestapo” tactics. Gilmore has also
unsuccessfully sued the federal government for requiring people
traveling on domestic flights to show identification, and has urged
citizens to protect their e-mails from government snooping. Gilmore gave
$20,000.
● Craig Franklin, a Woodland, Calif.,
software firm executive and a part-time songwriter, has penned several
anti-tax anthems, including “Hey, Mr. Tax Man,” sung to the tune of Bog
Dylan’s “Mr. Tambourine Man.” Franklin gave $25,500.
● Chris J. Rufer, a California
tomato-packing mogul who has funneled more than $50,000 to Libertarian
candidates this decade. Rufer gave $13,000 to the anti-tax cause.
Michael Widmer, head of the Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation, which
opposes the measure, slammed the Committee for Small Government for
raising most of its dough from out-of-staters with no stake in the
outcome.
“It’s very troubling so much of their money is coming from out-of-state,
given the enormous consequences if it passes,” Widmer said.
The Herald disclosed last month that Carla Howell, leader of the
Committee for Small Government, and Michael Cloud, a longtime
Libertarian Party activist and candidate, pocketed tens of thousands of
dollars heading up the ballot campaign.
Howell, in an interview Friday, bristled at the suggestion out-of-staters
were driving the repeal of the state income tax.
She described her group, which includes wealthy donors from across the
country, as made up of people “from all walks of life.”
“Ours is a grassroots effort,” Howell said. “Our donors give as
generously as they can.”
Rufer did not return phone calls. Gilmore did not respond to an e-mail.
Hommel could not be reached.
Franklin, a Bay State native, said in an interview that he’s passionate
about the Freedom Movement, which advocates limited government. He also
compared taxation to slavery, saying taxpayers are “sharecropping for
the government.”
Howell - who contends abolishing the state’s 5.3 percent income tax
would save 3 million taxpayers on average $3,600 a year - charged that
her opponents, the Coalition For Our Communities, are basically in the
pocket of powerful labor unions.
My initial response
The Boston Herald Online
Comments Blog - today
First a scurrilous personal
attack against the two organizers of Question 1 in a Herald hatchet-job
by Hillary Chabot on Aug. 15, complete with a splashing tabloid front
page headline. Now another "objective" and "balanced" report from the
Herald's new addition, Edward Mason; a reporter I've also respected in
the past when he worked elsewhere. Shame on you, Ed, for now joining the
choir with Chabot. Or is it your and Hillary's editors who're pulling
the trigger on this sort of crap?
And yet another misleading splashing tabloid front page headline. The
Herald has reached a new low, perhaps now enough to cease enabling it
with our purchase.
Mason's "report" didn't mention a single word about where the funding
for No on Question 1 is derived, so let me fill in the blanks for those
still reading the Herald, so they know ALL the news -- even that
intentionally withheld in this report.
One million dollars, of the $1,503,705 in cash contributions and
$245,317.96 in in-kind contributions came from just two sources. --
gasp! -- both out of state: $750,000 from the National Education
Association and $250,000 from the American Federation of Teachers
Solidarity Fund, both with headquarters in Washington, DC. The remaining
cash and in-kind contributions came from Big Unions -- except for one
single individual's contribution of $100 from an in-state "homemaker."
But not a word in Mason's report.
Even more curious is that Michael Widmer, president of the
"non-partisan" so-called Mass. Taxpayers Foundation, also failed to note
this glaring omission in Mason's report -- though Widmer is allegedly
such a details man with facts and figures. The media used to describe
the MTF as "highly-respected." I guess we now know why Widmer and it
have gradually lost that mantle.
With obviously biased and slanted reporting such as these disgusting
efforts, is there really a purpose for keeping Boston a "two-newspaper"
city? I think not. We will reconsider our subsciption to the Boston
Herald after reading another hatchet-job thinly veiled as news
reportage. At least with the the other Boston daily, we know what to
expect.
Chip Ford --
Director of Operations
Citizens for Limited Taxation
(not a party to Question 1, though we support a Yes vote)
Since the Boston Herald
won't tell you -- or worse, doesn't want you to know -- find out for
yourself who's funding the No on Question 1 ballot committee, directly
from the state Office of Campaign & Political Finance:
http://www.efs.cpf.state.ma.us/DisplayReport.aspx?reportId=84042
Chip Ford
CLT
The Boston Herald
Wednesday, September 17, 2008
Pro-tax group gets union $upport
By Edward Mason
The group opposed to
abolishing the state income tax blasted its opponents for taking
out-of-state money - yet it has received two-thirds of its donations
from two big Washington, D.C., teacher unions, a Herald review shows.
The National Education Association and the American Federation of
Teachers contributed a combined $1 million to the Coalition for Our
Communities, the group hastily created this spring to preserve the
income tax.
Overall, the pro-tax group raised $1.5 million from unions and $100 from
an individual donor, according to state campaign finance records.
Carla Howell, leader of the Committee for Small Government, which is
behind eliminating the 5.3 percent income tax, called the unions’
influence outrageous.
“(The coalition has) no grass-roots organization with only one
individual donor,” she said. “Their money comes from large institutional
donors, primarily teachers’ unions and primarily from out of state.”
The Herald reported yesterday that 60 percent of the $314,000 raised by
Howell’s group came from outside Massachusetts. Its donor list of
out-of-state libertarian activists includes a man who likened the
Department of Homeland Security to the “Gestapo” and another who
believes the Bible calls for paper money to be replaced by gold and
silver.
Barbara Anderson of Citizens for Limited Taxation called
the group a fraternity of anti-tax advocates that is rallying to the
cause.
“Of course we all help each other out,” Anderson said. “We have a common
enemy - the public employee unions.”
But Steve Crawford, a spokesman for the Coalition for Our Communities,
said unions “represent the Massachusetts workers on the front lines of
the cuts Question 1 would require.”
Eliminating the state income tax would save taxpayers an average of
$3,600 a year, proponents say. But opponent Crawford’s group contends it
would carve out $12.5 billion - 40 percent of the state budget - and gut
education and services to the poor and elderly.
David Tureck [sic: Tuerck], executive director of the conservative
Beacon Hill Institute, called the flow of union money to the pro-tax
group disturbing.
“The fact unions are pouring so much money in shows how desperately they
are avoiding improving the performing of state government and cutting
costs,” he said.
The Lowell Sun
Tuesday, September 16, 2008
Police toss flag over 'flaggers'
Union calls Patrick's move to put civilians
on road details 'arrogant'
By Matt Murphy
The attempt by Gov. Deval
L. Patrick to replace some police details with civilians flaggers at
roadside construction sites drew the scorn of hundreds of police
officers and union officials last night who blasted the proposal as a
threat to public safety.
In a rowdy public hearing that lasted more than two hours, nearly 200
police officers and union leaders crowded into a warm, stuffy room using
words like "arrogant" and "insensitive" to characterize the Patrick
administration's plan.
The small number of proponents who testified in favor were taunted by
police, booed and told to sit down.
"The administration did not live up to its responsibility to stop making
this a political issue and start looking at public policy from a
responsible perspective," said Robert Haynes, president of the
Massachusetts AFL-CIO. "These draft regulations are a political
document, not a document about what's in the public interest."
The Patrick administration has proposed a tiered system for public
construction projects that would replace much-maligned police details
with civilian flaggers, primarily on roads with speed limits under 45
miles per hour. Projects on high traffic, high speed roads would likely
continue to have police officers working paid details.
Only a third of state highway miles have posted speed limits under 45,
and the decision on when to use flaggers will be made by MassHighway on
a case-by-case basis.
"You will see flaggers on Massachusetts roads this fall," said
Transportation Secretary Bernard Cohen, who defended the plan as
striking the right balance because cost savings and public safety.
Questions were also raised about the administration's estimates that the
state could save $5 million to $7 million a year, citing the cost of
insurance, training and prevailing wages at about $34 per hour for
flaggers that are often only a few dollars less than police officers.
The state spends about $25 million a year on police details.
Cohen defended the savings, arguing the state will better be able to
manage the number of flaggers used and avoid mandatory minimums that can
sometimes reward police officers with four hours of compensation for as
little as 30 minutes of work.
David Tuerck, executive director of the Beacon Hill Institute at Suffolk
University, was shouted down when he tried to explain that rates for
flaggers would decrease once the market had been set.
The police unions have cried foul over the proposal that they say would
risk public safety by taking police officers off the street, limiting
their ability to respond to crime, accidents or health emergencies on or
near the construction site. The state has the best safety record in the
country for road construction.
A parade of officers and union representatives cited instances of police
detail officers being the first to respond to a crime or medical
situation because they were closest at the time of the emergency.
"If you take these people off the streets you're going to lose the
people you need out there that you can't afford right now because of the
economy," said Rick Brown, president of the State Police Association of
Massachusetts.
Haynes also called the Patrick administration proposal a blow to the
collective bargaining rights of police officers that would take public
safety decisions out of the hands of local officials and police chiefs
who know there communities best.
Under the new regulations slated to go into effect Oct. 3, unions would
retain the right to negotiate for detail compensation on all
construction projects performed by the local municipality on city and
town roads. The draft also requires the state to adhere to any language
already in local police contracts before the regulations go into effect.
These rules have sent many local unions scrambling to insert language
into their contracts to protect details before Oct. 3, sometimes trading
issues like mandatory drug testing to preserve the lucrative detail
work.
Jim Stergios, executive director of the Pioneer Institute, said the push
for flaggers was an important first step toward restoring public
confidence in state government at a times when millions are needed to
properly repair and maintain state roads and bridges.
The Boston Globe
Tuesday, September 16, 2008
Gripes aired at hearing on details
Police unions object to plan
By Jeannie M. Nuss
Transportation Secretary
Bernard Cohen said the state will go ahead with the governor's plan to
use civilian road workers known as "flaggers" instead of police details
this fall despite a chorus of opposition last night from police and
union representatives.
"You will see civilian flaggers on Mass. highways this fall," Cohen said
to a crowd of more than 300 gathered at public hearing in the state
transportation building to discuss Governor Deval Patrick's plan. Cohen
called the draft regulations "a careful balance" of public safety and
cost efficiency at a time when Massachusetts is facing fiscal
responsibilities to cut costs.
He said the regulations will be applied based on a "case-by-case
analysis of when and where flaggers" are needed.
Police and union workers have criticized the plan for what they term a
lack of consideration for public safety and for exaggerated figures of
cost efficiency. The proposed regulations would place civilian flaggers
on nearly all state roads with construction projects where the speed
limit is below 45 miles per hour and also in areas with higher speed
limits and low-traffic flow.
The regulations would save the Highway Department between $5.7 million
and $7.2 million annually, according to new estimates from the Executive
Office of Transportation. The office estimates its spends between $20
million and $25 million on police details, and using a one-week
snapshot, calculated 28.7 percent savings.
Robert Haynes, president of the Massachusetts AFL-CIO, lashed out at the
plan, saying the regulation was "pretty fishy" and that it "reeks of
political motivation."
"This is nothing but political gamesmanship," he said. Like many police
and union representatives, Haynes also criticized the Patrick
administration for ignoring collective bargaining for unions.
"No bureaucrat in this building . . . has a better idea how to protect
public safety than our officers who live it every day," he said.
In addition to neglecting police opinion, he cited that officers were
crucial to prevent crime and respond quickly to accidents. Haynes also
knocked the cost effectiveness of the switch from details to civilian
flaggers, calling it "a few dollars' difference."
Patrick's plan to reduce the number of police officers at road
construction projects and replace them with cheaper civilian flaggers
has drawn criticism from police officers who could lose extra pay. The
plan would would take effect as early as Oct. 3.
Haynes called several independent studies - including one from the
Beacon Hill Institute at Suffolk University - "just a sham," to an
outburst of applause.
In the midst of outraged cries of disapproval, David Tuerck, director of
the Beacon Hill Institute, defended his position. "I guess I know what
it feels like to be a mother-in-law on the honeymoon," Tuerck said, to a
flurry of "boo's."
Tuerck called the numbers in the Beacon Hill Institute study an
underestimate.
Although the study cites a 13 percent savings in labor costs, Tuerck
said the savings would be closer to 20 percent because of inflated labor
wages.
Thomas Nee, president of the National Association of Police
Organizations, called Tuerck's remarks insulting.
"Massachusetts has by far the safest roadway construction sites in the
country," Nee said. "Police officers are our number one line of defense
. . . to keep our motoring public safe."
Nee also criticized the cost-efficiency statistics found in several
independent studies, calling them "best case scenario . . . guestimating."
But Massachusetts Highway Department Commissioner Luisa Paiewonsky
emphasized that public safety is "our most important obligation. We
strongly support this regulation."
The Boston Herald
Tuesday, September 16, 2008
Deval Patrick’s gutsy move
gets police union blowback
By Margery Eagan
Some of us were hoping for
a sea of blue, a great big wave of uniformed police officers in shiny
black shoes, shiny black belts with great big guns in even bigger
holsters. You know, a show of force like the one that had legislators
hiding in desk drawers when Bill Weld tried to mess with police details
a long, long time ago.
Well, there were almost no uniforms yesterday at the state
transportation office’s public hearing on road flaggers and police
details. Still, it was an intimidating crowd, several hundred strong,
nearly all men, very fit and very big, including the beefy guy in the
Hells Angel-like outfit: leather vest, fu manchu mustache and a black
kerchief on his formidable head.
You could feel the testosterone pumping. And you had to feel sorry for
the repeatedly booed Mr. Get-Rid-of-the Details. That would be
diminutive professor David Tuerck of the Beacon Hill Institute. He was
told to do something not acceptable to repeat in a family newspaper.
Then he was told, “Time’s up,” and “Sit down.”
Actually, Tuerck spoke briefly, a few moments more than his three-minute
allotment. Bob Haynes, president of Massachusetts AFL-CIO, went on for
nearly half an hour. But nobody told him to do anything crude.
“So, is this the biggest crowd you’ve seen in here?” I asked Secretary
of Transportation Bernard Cohen just before the session began. He stood
at the front of the huge conference room, looking out over all that
burliness, and answered, simply, “Yes.”
This is how it went: A few lonely commissioners gamely got up and said
that the Patrick administration, which hopes to have flaggers on many
state roads next month, was trying to preserve the “careful balance”
between public safety and taxpayers’ wallets.
Then Tuerck got hissed.
Then a host of police officials basically argued that Massachusetts
residents will wind up as road kill should flaggers, not cops, stand
around above ditches chatting on their cell phones.
“Public safety is the No. 1 issue!” said one guy after another.
Compromising it would be “shameful!” and “wrong!”
Oh my goodness: Does anybody really fall for this stuff anymore?
Haynes, occasionally pounding the podium with his fingers, called
Patick’s regulations “truncated and suspect (and) pretty fishy . . .
dusted off playbooks of Republican administrations.”
He then said studies by the likes of poor, battered Tuerck were “just a
sham” (huge applause) put together by “free-market zealots” (bigger
applause). And if we don’t think “public safety” is everybody’s No. 1
issue, said Haynes, just ask Boston Mayor Tom Menino, a staunch
supporter of police details.
Unfortunately, much as we all love Mayor Menino, his history of taking
on city unions is hardly a profile in political courage. Plus, his own
son, a Boston cop, last year earned $137,500 thanks in part to detail
money.
Here’s what we didn’t hear yesterday: any empathy for struggling
Massachusetts homeowners, particularly elderly ones, who can’t afford to
stay in their homes because of ever-skyrocketing property taxes and
utility bills.
Police details certainly aren’t the only reason, or even the biggest
reason. But they’re part of the reason, and a very visible symbol of
overly generous public union perks, pensions, early retirements and
double dipping that’s rampant around here. And nobody ever does anything
about it.
Credit where credit’s due: Deval Patrick has stuck his political neck
out here, enraging cops and labor leaders. He’s begun to deal with the
pension mess. He’s trying to do to details what his Republican
predecessors wouldn’t: Not Romney, Swift, Cellucci nor Weld. That is,
rein in what everybody knows has very little to do with safety, but very
much to do with hugely powerful police unions rolling over scared
selectmen, scared mayors, scared legislators and - until now - scared
governors.
The Boston Herald
Wednesday, September 17, 2008
A Boston Herald editorial
Gov, stand firm on detail plan
The Patrick administration
allowed an angry mob to take over Monday’s hearing on the plan to use
civilian flaggers on certain road construction projects, but taxpayers
had better hope the administration was just letting these guys vent.
Because despite the threats and the intimidation and the misinformation
campaign being expertly waged by the state’s police unions, the
administration’s exceedingly modest plan to allow civilian flaggers on
some projects instead of cops will save money - money that can be used
to rebuild our state’s crumbling infrastructure.
And while he now finds himself squarely in the crosshairs of the
politically powerful unions, on this issue Gov. Deval Patrick simply
must not bend an inch.
Recall that the proposal applies only to state highway work sites, only
on roads with speed limits under 45 miles per hour and only after a
public safety review (that includes law enforcement) OK’s the use of a
flagger.
The crowd at Monday’s hearing, which was allowed to heckle anyone with
an opposing view, would have us believe otherwise.
And while the unions are fond of claiming that the state’s prevailing
wage law would apply to flaggers and wipe out any potential savings,
that is a red herring. The administration estimates that the plan will
save $7 million a year.
Failing to get traction on those issues, the cops have now turned to the
politics of fear. Their message: Expect carnage on the roads if cops
aren’t there to direct traffic around every repaving project. How the
other 49 states avoid that doomsday scenario, well, don’t expect a
straight answer on that one.
While the plan is indeed modest, Patrick and his team have gone further
than any previous administration to rein in this bit of bad government
policy. Turn back now, and they will have squandered all credibility.
The Waltham Daily News Tribune
Wednesday, September 17, 2008
A Daily News Tribune editorial
Hang tough on police details reform
"To protect and serve" is a
widely-used police motto, but the only thing hundreds of uniformed
officers were protecting at the State House this week were their
wallets. While taxpayers across the Commonwealth scream for reform of
costly public employee perks, the police unions are pulling out all the
stops to pocket the status quo.
Gov. Deval Patrick's proposed new rules for the use of police details on
state roads go further than his predecessors dared, but there's nothing
rash about them. The rules would allow civilian flaggers on state roads
with speed limits less than 45 mph - about a third of state highways -
if a state safety review finds no danger.
The officers argue that police details increase public safety by putting
more cops on the street, and that motorists won't pay heed to civilian
flaggers with no authority to arrest them. The first claim is
exaggerated, the second unsupported by evidence. Civilian flaggers are
the rule in 49 other states, and they are perfectly capable of handling
the undemanding job of directing motorists around construction sites.
The guardians of law and order were anything but orderly at a hearing
Monday on the proposal, heckling and jeering those who dared disagree
with them. Earlier this year, they pressured legislators to narrow
Patrick's options for reforming details. Police unions are also seeking
to undermine the reforms by pushing municipal officials to amend
contracts and enact policies requiring police details on construction
sites. Under Patrick's proposal, the new regulations won't apply in
cities or towns where such requirements are in place on Oct. 1.
Patrick should remove that loophole from the proposed regulations to
thwart this maneuver, and local officials should refuse to be pressured
by police. Beyond that, municipal officials should reform their own
policies, removing requirements for police details on local roads, which
far outnumber state roads.
Selectmen and mayors are reluctant to buck their own police unions. For
years, they've seen police details as a way to fatten police paychecks
without having to take it out of taxes. But waste is waste, whether it's
coming out of public budget or a private business. Forcing a utility,
construction company or homeowner to pay hundreds of dollars for a cop
to stand around doing nothing at the end of a cul-de-sac is a special
interest giveaway, any way you slice it.
Even with Patrick's reforms, there will still be plenty of police being
paid for details at clubs, concerts, football games and private parties,
not to mention the hundreds of construction jobs where safety requires
them. But Massachusetts cannot afford to spend millions of dollars on
unneeded police details - and billions on outsized perks other public
employee unions have squeezed out of Beacon Hill over the years.
Patrick must hang tough. Real reform never comes easy.
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
|
