MassCops - Massachusetts Law Enforcement Network - Police Detail slashed in transportation refrom pitch (merged)

Massachusetts Law Enforcement Network

Massachusetts Police News, Information and Discussions on MassCops

Main Page

Posted by: Chief Wiggins

Police details slashed in transportation reform pitch

By Casey Ross
Thursday, March 27, 2008 - Updated 20m ago
Boston Herald Reporter

A sweeping transportation reform plan announced today proposes to curb the use of police details on road projects, slash employee benefits at the MBTA and Mass Pike and force all transportation agencies to publicly report cash flow on major construction projects.
Senate President Therese Murray announced the measures today in a press conference with Gov. Deval Patrick and House Speaker Sal DiMasi, all of whom proclaimed an urgent need to implement reforms to help dig the state out of a $19 billion transportation funding deficit.
“Our transportation system has got to be addressed,” Murray said. “Everything has to be on the table. We’re under no illusions this set of proposals is perfect, but we know it is of the utmost importance to our economy to start this conversation now.”

Despite the focus on transportation policy, the press conference was closely watched amid the ongoing war of words between DiMasi and Patrick. Patrick today accused DiMasi on the front page of the New York Times [NYT] of engaging in old-school politics to kill his casino proposal.
Patrick and DiMasi made a concerted effort to compliment one another during the press conference, and both men pledged to work together to implement the transportation reforms as quickly as possible.
“There are a whole host of initiatives we have worked on and continue to work on successfully,” Patrick said. “We had a sharp (difference) over the resort casino proposal ... but it was a difference. It doesn’t mean that good work doesn’t get done.”
DiMasi declined to respond to the language used by Patrick in the New York Times piece (the governor said the speaker should be “called out” for strong-arming House members); instead the speaker decried efforts by the news media to always insert a slant in their coverage.
“The papers are used to put forth a twist or a bent on something,” DiMasi said. “And sometimes that’s not reality. The reality is I’m working with the governor. We’re working very closely with the governor on (transportation), (the $1 billion) life sciences proposal and all of the other issues.”
All three leaders declared united support for curtailing the use of police details on road projects – long a “sacred cow” of Massachusetts politics that is often criticized as a wasteful give-away to police unions.
Murray said the transportation and public safety officials will craft a regulation for the use of civilian flag men on projects on secondary roads where traffic is moving more slowly. Police would still be used to direct traffic at work sites on major highways. Officials said the plan would save $100 million over 20 years.
Patrick said he is moving close to announcing another raft of reforms that would consolidate quasi-public agencies – the Mass Pike, MBTA and Massport – into a single structure to increase transparency and cut costs.
He said the reform plans will be introduced before officials consider a hike in the gas tax or expanding the use of highway tolls to help pay future transportation costs.

Posted by: PaulKersey

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chief Wiggins

flag men on projects on secondary roads where Officials said the plan would save $100 million over 20 years.

That is the funniest thing I have read in a long time.

OK, Sal. What ever you boys say. Which one of you will start the flag man business, or is it a partnership?

Posted by: Mitpo62

This whole episode reminds me of that little pig story. "I'll huff, and I'll puff, and I'll blow your house down." Yeah, ok. Jealous, deep pocketed pols.

Posted by: nirtallica

Here comes the merger! Stand by to stand by

Posted by: Delta784

Bill would curb use of police details at some construction sites

E.T.S.

Boston (AP) -- Gov. Deval Patrick and top legislative leaders are backing a bill to reduce the number of police details at some roadside construction sites. The bill would allow lower paid civilian flagmen to direct traffic.
The details have been closely guarded by police unions, which see them as a way to let officers supplement their salaries.
But critics have long argued the state and local municipalities should be allowed to save money by using flagmen, especially on less congested streets.
The new bill, pushed by Senate President Therese Murray with the support of House Speaker Salvatore DiMasi, would establish guidelines for the use of flagmen.
The guidelines could be in place in a matter of months.\

http://wbz.com:80/State-considers-cu...me-con/1899279

Posted by: Tuna

I see a flagman I'm the first one to drive into the hole

Posted by: j809

This is not good, its war time.

Posted by: dh18

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tuna

I see a flagman I'm the first one to drive into the hole

You do that now even with those coke bottle glasses.

Posted by: BrickCop

Do people honestly believe that the Pols will pass the alleged "savings" on to the "taxpayer"?

The Pols love to use self serving cliches about how cops aren't paid enough money when they're seeking union endorsements. Of course once elected are the first to deny them the opportunity to earn extra income for their family.

Posted by: LikeIt223

Next thing they should consider is freezing their pay raises and benefits package.

Posted by: cj3441

How about a cut in welfare or section 8 benefits. You know, the FREE GOVERNMENT HANDOUT that many lazy people are taking to sit on the couch, smoke cigarettes and watch Oprah, that would save big $$. Oh that's right, we need to help those poor unfortunate people....together we can.

Posted by: LikeIt223

Quote:

Originally Posted by cj3441

How about a cut in welfare or section 8 benefits. You know, the FREE GOVERNMENT HANDOUT that many lazy people are taking to sit on the couch, smoke cigarettes and watch Oprah, that would save big $$. Oh that's right, we need to help those poor unfortunate people....together we can.

haha that's right, i forgot that slogan.. TOGETHER we will take care of the races and classes and professions that Deval likes and TOGETHER we will bend ourselves over and f*ck ourselves.

+1 for Barrack!! last hope!!

Posted by: CJmajor27

Quote:

Originally Posted by cj3441

the FREE GOVERNMENT HANDOUT that many lazy people are taking to sit on the couch, smoke cigarettes and watch Oprah, that would save big $$.

you forgot to add driving expensive cars with expensive after market parts. If this bill actually passes, watchout. Next will be the supposed saving from eliminating the quinn bill

Posted by: PaulKersey

Quote:

Originally Posted by LikeIt223

+1 for Barrack!! last hope!!

You're kidding, right?

Posted by: LikeIt223

Quote:

Originally Posted by PaulKersey

You're kidding, right?

Actually Paul, this time I am. Although, I really would like Deval to go away at this point!!

Posted by: j809

Just saw it on Fox News at 10 again, doesn't look good at all.

Posted by: Mongo

Hopefully it won't fly but if it does.

They will change that shit after the massholes see they can blow by flagmen laughing cuz they don't have any authority.

As a point when it is safe to do so I aint stopping.

Posted by: j809

Well according to the news and the speech I saw, it is all a done deal that will take effect within 2-3 months.

Posted by: GD

Mass will be like Rhode Island. They go by the flaggers give them the finger, yell and scream. The flaggers in RI make about $40,000 for the construction season. There not saving money there just relocating it to their political friends.

Posted by: wgciv

Well, since this new plan is set to be in place within the next 2 to 3 months.. I suppose I'll immediately begin my zero tolerance, everyone gets a citation, everyone gets charged plan! There is, after all, a 2 to 3 month turn around on court time!

Posted by: USMCMP5811

Quote:

Originally Posted by wgciv

Well, since this new plan is set to be in place within the next 2 to 3 months.. I suppose I'll immediately begin my zero tolerance, everyone gets a citation, everyone gets charged plan! There is, after all, a 2 to 3 month turn around on court time!

HaHa, I like your thinking.

Posted by: BPD110

Quote:

Originally Posted by j809

Just saw it on Fox News at 10 again, doesn't look good at all.

Good thing you've got me for court overtime

Posted by: Edmizer1

Does anyone know where to find the details of the bill? The MPA link is down?

Posted by: kwflatbed

Boston Globe:

State takes aim at police details

The state's top leaders vowed yesterday to use their combined political might to take on powerful police unions by limiting construction details, a longstanding cash cow for police officers that critics for years have called a waste of taxpayer dollars. (By Matt Viser, Boston Globe)

Discuss What do you think about police details?

My Posting on the Globe Blog:

Message #26438.118 in response to #26438.107
Posted by kwflatbed on 9:58 AM

I just wish that everyone posting here would learn the real truth behind all of this,
if this bill should pass the only ones that would benefit from it are the overpaid,self-serving
politicians that have formed the company's to provide the flag men.
I can see it now all of their five foot tall,five foot wide kin folk who can not move out of their
own way feeding from the money trough that their self-serving politican cousins has set up.
Who is the winner here ?
Not the safety of the people of Massachusetts,only the overstuffed politician's wallets.
Do a web search and see how many times a detail officer has made an arrest, stopped
a drunk driver from killing someone.
Can your overweight flag waiver do that, details put more officers on the streets and save lives.
The politicians in this state do enough to increase taxes with the bills that they pass for welfare,
illegal immigrants,and the rest of the people to lazy to go out and get a job.
There will be no savings to the paying public if this is passed.

Posted by: Chief Wiggins

It states in today's Boston Globe that it will save municipalities money?? How so? Do you actually think Verizon/National Grid/N-Star will actually lower their rates to the townspeople? If anything municipalties will lose money they charge these companies for the administrative fee. I understand my department charges 10% on every detail and charges $50.00 per day when a cruiser is requested. I am not sure of the final figure but it ends up in the town's general fund.

It also states that they will have tier's as to when a detail is requested. Sounds to me that it will effect the local's the most. Hopefully ALL unions will get together and fight this and not have one take a back seat because they are not affected.

Went to Staples yesterday, bought a big box of black ball point pens

, kept the receipt of course for next years taxes.

Eventually I think you will see municipalties hating this when they realize how much $$ they will be dishing out in court overtime for hearings. Besides citations, I will make sure "everyone will get their day in court", and apply for a hearing whenever I can.

Posted by: Sniper

I TRIED reading some of the postings on boston dot com about this and couldnt make it past page 2..........

Posted by: Buford T

Off topic a bit:

Sniper, still howling at your pic of the chimp avitar, classic...

Posted by: Robert35

At the press conference announcing this proposal, it was stated that this proposal would not impact cities or towns that already have ordinances or bylaws governing the use of Police Details. The city of Boston has an ordinance as most cities do in place, governing the use of Police Details within the cities and as such would not be affected by this proposal. (but I would not hold our breath on this).

Posted by: Q5-TPR

I have been reading the Boston.com thread about this. Wow, people are really clueless about what goes on in the world around them. These idiots think that every single arrest is on the news, ect. Wow, it just amazes me that they have no idea what is going on in the world!

Posted by: MallPolice

Hey get all the court time you can get, but a better way to f#ck em is to write no one civil, do nothing (with the exception of criminal activity)! That way the Commonwealth doesn't get there percentage on every civil ticket written. There are hundreds of extra police officers on the road due to details. Well I guess response time will be slower, less tickets will be written, unsafe details will go on without inspection and "fly by the flagger" will be a new game like the truck drivers do to the troopers on motor vehicle stops. Be careful what you wish for Sal/Deval.

Posted by: HousingCop

All it takes is a simple cut & paste to link your ridiculous statements and the flame-fest is on.

We get enough bad apples who slip through the cracks and hide behind the shield to do nefarious activities. We don't need you both to promote a certain stereotype.

Posted by: Tuna

Quote:

Originally Posted by dh18

You do that now even with those coke bottle glasses.

Thats it vulva breath. The war is on

Posted by: mr.anttrax

Civilian traffic flaggers urged
Police vow to keep detail jobs
By John J. Monahan TELEGRAM & GAZETTE STAFF
jmonahan@telegram.com

BOSTON— The state’s top officials yesterday said they will change the use of police details at road construction sites to allow civilian flaggers on secondary and tertiary road projects, but a police union official doubts the changes will be widespread.

Gov. Deval L. Patrick appeared with House Speaker Salvatore F. DiMasi, D-Boston, and Senate President Therese Murray, D-Plymouth, to announce the planned changes that will be attached to a multibillion-dollar transportation funding bill currently being formulated for highway projects.
All three said they support a change that would allow use of civilian flaggers in place of uniformed police.

They said the changes would require police details on interstate road projects, but allow civilian flaggers, presumably at less cost, on other state projects as well as at private and municipal construction sites.

International Brotherhood of Police Officer’s legislative lobbyist Raymond F. McGrath, a former Worcester patrolman, said yesterday he doubts the proposed new regulation would change much in the running of police details at construction sites.

“I don’t think it makes any difference to the current practices. Under state highway rules and regulations, they can use flagmen. They choose not to,” Mr. McGrath said. “It’s the management’s choice on a state highway whether they use flagmen or they don’t. They choose to go the safer route and use police.”

Ms. Murray said the new rules would specifically provide for use of flaggers for work on secondary and smaller roads and that the changes would generate large savings. Combined with better cost controls over construction work, she said, the state would save an average of $5 million annually over the next 20 years with fewer police details at construction sites.

Mr. McGrath, however, said the state rule changes would have limited impact, even on local projects.

“The state only has the right to make a determination on state highways. They do not have the authority to control local communities’ roadways. The cities and towns are independent bodies that make their own determinations on their own property,” he said.

For state and local officials it will come down to which option provides a safer project. He said local permitting boards and agencies and contracting authorities will make their own determinations on whether to use flaggers or police details.

“It’s going to create a media frenzy, but at the end of the day nothing is going to change, because the bottom line is, do we want to have safe roadways or do we want unsafe conditions at road construction sites,” he said.

“It is safer when you have a police officer, and that is why I think it won’t change.”

The announcement came as the three top leaders are laying the groundwork for a multibillion transportation bond for new projects in an environment in which they said the public has lost confidence in the management of state highway construction.

The reforms also call for better oversight of construction and elimination of a local review of 25-percent design plans for state road projects, a process Ms. Murray said currently results in long delays before construction and added-on features that boost construction costs.

Ms. Murray said the reforms have to be undertaken, especially in light of the challenge of meeting a shortfall of $15 billion to $19 billion over the next 20 years in paying for road and bridge repairs, new projects and mass transit expansions.

“Everything has to be on the table” to make transportation spending more efficient while the state puts together funding plans to meet those needs, she said. She cited a recent PEW Research Center report that gave the state a grade of D-plus on its infrastructure planning and the Reason Foundation’s recent ranking of the state at 45th in the nation in its overall transportation system performance.

The Reason Foundation, however, did rate the state No. 1 in the nation for the condition of its rural roads and No. 1 for fewest highway deaths.

The supporters of the new rules said reforms must be adopted before enactment of any new broad-based tax increases to pay for higher transportation costs and new projects, such as a hike in the state gas tax.

“The reforms that leadership is proposing today will not by themselves bridge the funding gap,” Ms. Murray said. “We need to repair the public’s trust in the state as efficient stewards of their money.”

The governor and Mr. DiMasi repeatedly emphasized during the press conference in the Senate lounge that they were working together on the reforms and transportation challenges facing the state.

Those assurances, however, come in contrast to a New York Times story yesterday that quoted the governor as criticizing Mr. DiMasi for representing the old-style political methods that he pledged to change when he ran for governor. The story also recounted Mr. DiMasi’s characterization of the governor as a political rookie and his frequently repeated criticisms that Mr. Patrick does not understand how government works.

The governor said earlier this week that he believes Mr. DiMasi broke a pledge to him to allow a fair hearing and fair vote on his casino plans in the House.

Mr. DiMasi led an effort over many months to stir public opposition to the governor’s casino proposals and personally pressured House members to oppose the plan, which was killed on a House vote to refer the bill to study last week.

Posted by: tms1989

Quote:

Originally Posted by GD

Mass will be like Rhode Island. They go by the flaggers give them the finger, yell and scream. The flaggers in RI make about $40,000 for the construction season. There not saving money there just relocating it to their political friends.

I thought they used detail cops at construction sites in RI?

Also whats up with the tier system, what is considered a secondary road?

Posted by: CJIS

Lawmakers target police details for cutbacks
Bourne Courrier, MA - 5 hours ago
By Jim O’Sullivan Zeroing in on public employee priorities, the state’s leaders on Thursday announced sweeping transportation reforms they said would help close a funding gap to maintain current infrastructure pegged at $1 billion annually for 20 years ...

Posted by: KozmoKramer

Posts deleted for obvious reasons.
Bear in mind this is a public site boys and girls.

Posted by: Duff112

Quote:

Originally Posted by KozmoKramer

Posts deleted for obvious reasons.
Bear in mind this is a public site boys and girls.

Go get'em Koz!

Every year the curtailing of details comes up and every year it fades away
but I always end up reminding myself:

No staring in the hole/looking up at the cherry picker
Stay off the cell phone as much as possible
Stay attentive
and above all look sharp

Just my 2 cents....

Posted by: Delta784

Quote:

Originally Posted by wgciv

As I've often said, the public should be careful of what it wishes for.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robert35

At the press conference announcing this proposal, it was stated that this proposal would not impact cities or towns that already have ordinances or bylaws governing the use of Police Details. The city of Boston has an ordinance as most cities do in place, governing the use of Police Details within the cities and as such would not be affected by this proposal. (but I would not hold our breath on this).

Here is the city ordinance for Quincy as an example;

http://municipalcodes.lexisnexis.com...12/08/040.html

Posted by: kwflatbed

I found it very funny that someone with this screen name would
reply to my post on the Globe blog.

Message #26438.150 in response to #26438.146
Posted by kwflatbed on 12:03 PM

BostonHippo with a screen name the that it sounds like you fit my description of the future sign holder. Which of the lame politicians are you related to that are forming the company's?

Posted by: Mitpo62

Quote:

Originally Posted by Delta784

As I've often said, the public should be careful of what it wishes for.

Here is the city ordinance for Quincy as an example;

http://municipalcodes.lexisnexis.com...12/08/040.html

Let us not forget too that many cities/towns get a piece of that detail pie. I don't think the pols in Taunton, which has its own ordinance too, could afford that kind of hit. Green is a powerful color around here.

Posted by: Loyal

did i ever mention that democ-rats suck..? Terry Taxes Murray got her hack friend moved from about # 700 on the Boston Fire Dept hiring list to its pinacle with a bill she rammed thru, Sal and his liberal pals disregarded the fact that we will lose millions in tax revenue when they shot down the casino proposal and Gov Patrick is out of the state campaigning for B Hussein Obama more than he is in his office admiring the $12,000drapes he compelled the taxpayers to purchase for him. They also shot down a slight increase in state employee health insurance contributions when they realized it would come out of their wallet too. Unlike firefighters, police have difficulty getting a 2'nd job due to being summonsed to court - will a case take 2, 3 days...prospective employers dont like that... we provide for our families by doing details...by the way, did I mention that all democ-rats suck big time ? Democrat,Liberal, Fool, Hypocrite....no difference.

Posted by: POPCOP

New Hampshire allowed flaggers in a while ago and it really sucks when your siting at home with no OT watching a retard steal your money on a road job.. Fight this all of the way because once you lose it you will never get it back. Some

Posted by: sdb29

Quote:

Originally Posted by POPCOP

Yup- And once the "secondary and terciary" roads go, the main roads won't be far behind. Has anyone heard from the MPA or SPAM on this?

Posted by: Crvtte65

Quote:

Originally Posted by Loyal

Unlike firefighters, police have difficulty getting a 2'nd job due to being summonsed to court

Not to mention, that I would guess that in most contracts, the chief has an absolute right to regulate other jobs

Posted by: celticsfan

Unfortunately I think this threat to details is very real this time. In a down(ing) economy, and with the post-Big-Dig debts and transportation budgets being so bad, this a concerning. They have a lot of "armament" and as you read the postings on Boston.com, the public might not be hard to sway. They have chosen their timing very well.

Posted by: PaulKersey

Quote:

Originally Posted by celticsfan

They have a lot of "armament" and as you read in Boston.com, the public might not be hard to sway.

Lemmings never are.

Posted by: Killjoy

Quote:

That's the truth. It doesn't matter if the roads are covered in an ocean of blood....once they're gone, they are gone forever. Politicians would rather see the people in the commonwealth suffer than admit to making a mistake.

Prepare yourselves; you are not entering reality...you are entering the DiMasi spin zone. Facts are irrelevant. Watch your TV. The state is always right. Happiness is mandatory.

Posted by: Alex76589

The State is saying this will save money, but it does not make sense to me. I may be reading it wrong, but my understanding is that details on smaller less busy roads will be given to flagmen. These details tend to be by private companies such as NSTAR, Comcast, etc who pay for the officer, not the town. The majortity of these local construction projects are private jobs, not costing the city/town anything.

In the plan, the SP would keep their details on the highways (as they need to be out there). Work on the highways are done by state and town departments. Even if there is a contractor, the detail is paid for by the highway department. So if there are to be details on these busy roads and the state is still paying for them, then where is the savings?

Beyond that, how do they expect to recruit new officers? If you are looking at any job and see that the salar was just slashed, do you think many qualified candidates are going to apply? These candidates are going to go to other states, as most do now anyway, go into the private sector, or find something else that pays better.

Posted by: j809

As of 7/1/08 the laborer prevailing wage is going to be $47 hr which is what they would have to pay a flagman. Maybe we should all become flagmen part-time and have no responsibilities on a detail like we do now.

Posted by: Killjoy

Quote:

As of 7/1/08 the laborer prevailing wage is going to be $47 hr which is what they would have to pay a flagman. Maybe we should all become flagmen part-time and have no responsibilities on a detail like we do now.

I second that notion.

Posted by: Loyal

Yet the IUPA and a lot of other large unions that represent police officers usually endorse Demo-rats - IUPA and all those other AFLCIO affiliated unions can pound sand if they urge me to vote for one of those democ-maggots - I don't want one red cent of my dues going to a dem's coffers via a union I am part of. Cohen/DeMarco, that other bill and now this - it's always the democ-rats that disparage police and water down bills like Melanie's Law - anti police, pro criminal...dems suck

Posted by: MARINECOP

Quote:

Originally Posted by j809

Are you kidding me? It is bad enough that a garbage man makes more than me straight time, now flagmen.

Posted by: Delta784

Quote:

Originally Posted by j809

This proposal has absolutely, positively nothing to do with saving money. It's all about taking care of certain people who have already incorporated (or soon will) companies to supply flagmen to construction sites. In many cases, the very politicians who will be voting on the measure.

From what I've heard there's a good chance there will be a public hearing on this matter on April 17th at the state house.

Posted by: dave7336

From what I've heard there's a good chance there will be a public hearing on this matter on April 17th at the state house.[/quote]

I would hope that our unions and our membership will have a great turnout to show them what we think of this proposal

Posted by: Delta784

Quote:

Originally Posted by dave7336

I would hope that our unions and our membership will have a great turnout to show them what we think of this proposal

As soon as I hear a solid date/time, I'll post it here.

Posted by: dave7336

Quote:

Originally Posted by Delta784

As soon as I hear a solid date/time, I'll post it here.

Thanks, If I hear anything I will do the same

Quote:

Originally Posted by kwflatbed

Boston Globe:

State takes aim at police details

The state's top leaders vowed yesterday to use their combined political might to take on powerful police unions by limiting construction details, a longstanding cash cow for police officers that critics for years have called a waste of taxpayer dollars. (By Matt Viser, Boston Globe)

Discuss What do you think about police details?

I felt that I needed to post a reply on boston.com also. Here is my response...can't wait to see what I get for replies from the uniformed public that only listens to the biased media...

The prevailing wage rate for a flagger is around $30 per hour. That is just for the worker. Factor in the price that the company who employs the flagger is going to charge the construction company. Factor in the benefits, etc....and then give an amount of how much the taxpayers are going to save.

Do people really think that a company that has to pay the worker $30/hour and the benefits is not going to be charging the utilities and construction companies at least $50 hour? They are in business to make a profit.

I would suggest people look at what the starting salaries are for police officers. I can guarantee you that other states that have the same cost of living situations such as Massachusetts actually have a good wage scale. In Massachusetts the average salary is around $40K. Why anyone would want to take a job that requires one to work nights, weekends and holidays for low pay is anyone's guess.

As far as someone who said that we should put more police on the street, how do you expect to pay for it? Do you think you are going to get volunteers? If you do, you should go back to the fantasy world that you live in. When people retire and nobody wants to take a police job, expect overtime salaries to go up or expect less police on the streets. That said. be careful what you wish for, you might just get it!

What will happen to the revenue that the towns/cities receive for having details? That money has to be made up somewhere
Flagmen have no authority whatsoever. What will happen when people realize this and decide that they just don't want to follow the instructions....nothing as nothing can be done.

Rather than trying to take money out of a person's pocket, why don't the State Reps go after the companies that screwed up the Big Dig? oh that is right, it is easier to use smoke and mirrors and make the public think they are getting a bargain than actually save money...think of a magic show..while the magician has you focused on one thing, he is actually doing something else

I

Reply

meant to be uninformed public

Posted by: SinePari

I had to check out the new posting on the Herald's 2007 state salary chart before my friends and family start ribbing me about my income

, and noticed that the FIRST 6 PAGES of highest state incomes are UMass employees.

I mean an Ast Prof can make over $200K/year, bring no public benefit to the commonwealth and laughs all the way to the bank. He takes on more classes, just like OT and details, to make more money and nobody blinks and eye.

The money, for the most part, comes from student tuition, education grants, and some from state tax revenue. Just like details, the money comes from the contractor, some grants, and some tax revenue. Where's the outrage? I'm gonna be a professor and teach at UMass as a part-timer and make $200K.

Here's a math thingy I dreamt up this morning:

If I made $10K in OT and details, of which the money came from grants and contractors, I would pay roughly 5.3% in taxes to the state. On top of that I pay 12%, another $1200 into my pension, which the STATE takes to make more money in interest. So, how are they losing money? Anybody else with me on this?

To the citizens of the commonwealth reading this spot: it's called the SHELL GAME, but as long as you feel better about taking police off the street, sleep well my friends.

Posted by: kwflatbed

New traffic detail bill is facing a rough road

BY JIM HAND / SUN CHRONICLE STAFF
Sunday, March 30, 2008 1:17 AM EDT

MIKE GEORGE
Plainville Special Officer David Rando directs traffic around construction at the intersection of Routes 1 and 152 Friday.

A proposal to allow flagmen instead of police to direct traffic at roadside construction sites is in for a tough time at the Statehouse, local police and politicians said in interviews with The Sun Chronicle.

They said William Weld tried to pass the same legislation when he was governor, and it was soundly defeated by police unions and sympathetic lawmakers.

"Been there, done that," Plainville Police Chief Edward Merrick said.

He predicted police unions will come out in force, and supporters will have trouble finding allies among municipal officials.

Gov. Deval Patrick, House Speaker Sal DiMasi and Senate President Therese Murray are behind the measure to allow flagmen, rather than police, direct traffic when it is deemed safe to do so.

Murray said the change could save $100 million over 20 years.

State Rep. Betty Poirier, R-North Attleboro, said the prospect of the bill depends on how police unions react.

Last time, the unions came out in force and lobbied lawmakers to defeat it.

"I never saw so many cops at the Statehouse," Merrick said.

The detail fees paid to police for doing the extra traffic duty is a major source of income for many officers.

But, police argue it is also a public safety issue.

Mansfield Police Chief Arthur O'Neill said motorists are more likely to obey the commands of a police officer than a flagman.

"They have the power and majesty of the law behind them," he said. "The motorist has to obey the police."

Merrick said he would never allow flagmen at dangerous locations such as the construction of a Lowe's store on Route 1. Police and flashing cruiser lights are needed at sites like that.

O'Neill said having police on traffic details often leads to arrests and citations for violators who might otherwise go undetected.

He said cities and towns also get a processing fee out of the detail pay that helps them with their financial needs. Mansfield gets 10 percent of what the officers bring in.

Merrick said municipal officials are unlikely to support the change because they believe the detail pay police earn allows them to hold regular salaries down.

But Poirier said she supports the change.

"It's absolutely a cost savings for this state, and we are in a position where we have to reduce expenditures," she said of a shift away from police details.
Poirier also said she is surprised Patrick is supporting the move because he is generally allied with unions.

Merrick said Plainville has a town bylaw that already allows for flagmen at sites deemed appropriate, but no one has ever applied for permission. He said he also has the authority to waive the requirement for a police detail if the site is on a quiet road.

JIM HAND covers politics for The Sun Chronicle. He can be reached at 508-236-0399 or at jhand@thesunchronicle.com.

http://www.thesunchronicle.com/artic...ws/2973848.txt

Posted by: BIG IRISH

I can see the headlines now in the Boston Herald. "Route 1 in Foxboro closed due to 57 Flagman/women assaulted at Sunday's NE Patriots game by unruly NY Jets fans. The game started yesterday(Sunday) at its posted time of 1:15pm and ended at 3:45 pm. The last vehicle a NY Jets tour bus finally left parking lot P-10 at 6:45 pm today (Monday). Traffic delays for over 26 hrs caused unruly fans to exit the bus where they were confronted by a 400lb man waiving an orange flag. The man tried to get on the bus and finish off a plate of nachos he saw in the bakground when he was then assaulted by the fans. The flagman some how called for back-up which took up to four hours to get there to assist. Upon arriving at the scene the other 56 400lb Flagman/women(driving Ringling Brothers and Barnum and Bailey clown cars) were also assaulted due to the fact they tried to get at the same plate of nachos. Rte 1 was open several hours later and a law was passed that week banning nachos from all future NE Patriots games". To all of my brother/sisters in blue we must unite and stand together on this issue. We must fight for our livelyhoods and defeat this crap. Stay safe and lets do the right thing!

Posted by: nirtallica

Quote:

Originally Posted by BIG IRISH

I can see the headlines now in the Boston Herald. "Route 1 in Foxboro closed due to 57 Flagman/women assaulted at Sunday's NE Patriots game by unruly NY Jets fans. The game started yesterday(Sunday) at its posted time of 1:15pm and ended at 3:45 pm. The last vehicle a NY Jets tour bus finally left parking lot P-10 at 6:45 pm today (Monday). Traffic delays for over 26 hrs caused unruly fans to exit the bus where they were confronted by a 400lb man waiving an orange flag. The man tried to get on the bus and finish off a plate of nachos he saw in the bakground when he was then assaulted by the fans. The flagman some how called for back-up which took up to four hours to get there to assist. Upon arriving at the scene the other 56 400lb Flagman/women(driving Ringling Brothers and Barnum and Bailey clown cars) were also assaulted due to the fact they tried to get at the same plate of nachos. Rte 1 was open several hours later and a law was passed that week banning nachos from all future NE Patriots games". To all of my brother/sisters in blue we must unite and stand together on this issue. We must fight for our livelyhoods and defeat this crap. Stay safe and lets do the right thing!

If there is a public hearing, we must have as many attend as possible. This smells of a backroom deal between the powers that be and unless we stand together on this, details will become a thing of the past.

Posted by: celticsfan

This issue would be much more fair if they just paid cops a more liveable wage in Massachusetts... $49k in my town (top of scale)... it's a joke.

People *have* to do details to make ends meet. Do people not understand that it's not fun to sit bored out of your skull directing traffic, in the rain, snow, and wind for an *extra* 4-8 hours on your "day off" just to be able to meet the cost of living?

The press publish stories about officers making over $200k, but how many people make even near that much? They don't publish mean or median incomes. If they did, the sensationalism of the story would be lost of course.

Posted by: ryan57

No civil citations.....all written warnings....we'll see how much the state will rake in then!!!! Good luck with the cost savings.....

Posted by: CJIS

I have started my letter to a local state senator whom I happen to be on a first name basis with. I will let you know what response I get from him when I am done.

I also urge others to write their local reps too. Making posts or leaving comments on blogs or website like Harry has done is helpfull too.

Give them examples if you can of any extraordinary circumstance or services you have provided while on detail. (EX: citations, made an arrest, etc.)

Posted by: OutOfManyOne

Quote:

Originally Posted by ryan57

No civil citations.....all written warnings....we'll see how much the state will rake in then!!!! Good luck with the cost savings.....

Absolutely, warnings all the way, no one will ever bring in another penny.

Posted by: CJIS

Finished my letter. Before I send it how about some constructive review and criticism from the members here.

March 30, 2008

Dear Senator ,

Hello Sir/Madam, I would like to take a few moments of your time and express my deep concerns in regards to the newly proposed Transportation Reform bill that would affect Police Details. As citizen of the Commonwealth and as a Special Police Officer I am very worried about the negative consequences that will arise if this or any bills like it were to pass. Getting to the point I would like to direct your attention to some misconceptions, facts and some personal thoughts that I believe you should be made aware of concerning this issue.

First off I would like to take look at some common misconceptions that are often made when comparing the use of Civilian Flagman vs. uniformed Police Officers. As I am sure you are aware Massachusetts is the only state in the union that does not use Civilian Flagmen. Because of this many both in the public and private sector automatically assume that the use of flagman must be cheaper and will save taxpayers a substantial amount of money. However when reading currant articles in Boston based news media it is suggested the use of police details only cost the state a mere $5 million a year. However this is a misconception. What the articles as well as the studies failed to mention is that the overwhelming majority of details are paid by the contractor doing the work. Many of the Commonwealth's municipalities take a percentage of the detail rate and place it in local budgets. By doing this taxpayers actually save money. Another cost misconception one must realize is by hiring private firms there is no guarantee that their rates will not go up. In an economy that is uncertain the cost of service is going up, especially in the private sector. While it may now only cost $25-$30 dollars per hour for a flagman, in the next five to ten years it may cost as much, if not more than using a police officer.

Now that I have touched upon some common misconceptions of cost benefits to the use of flagman, I would like to direct your attention to some facts that are very beneficial in regards of use of Police Officers. It should be obvious but the use of Police Officers at work sites significantly enhances public safety. Police Officers, unlike Civilian Flagmen are trained First Responders, have powers of arrest, prevent and deter crime, are less of a liability, and are trained in both criminal and motor vehicle law. Civilian Flagmen provide none of these essential services. I personally know of cases where fellow officers have provided extraordinary services while on a road detail. They have made stolen vehicle arrests, DUI Arrests, rendered Medical aid, and have foiled crimes about to take place. I have read several newspaper articles just this year that support this. Not surprisingly I never saw one about flagmen

In addition to the facts above let me touch upon some personal thoughts about the necessity to keep Police details. You see I, and a lot of fellow officers feel “we” need details. Despite what some may say Police Officers in the Commonwealth find it sometimes hard to make ends meet financially on straight pay salary alone. I know many officers that also work another job in addition to being a full time officer. For Special Police Officers like me who work part time and usually voluntarily, details are extremely important. If it was not for details many of us could not continue to provide our service. A portion of my own detail pay goes straight toward uniform, equipment maintenance, and in-service training. Many of us are not in this profession to make money. We are in it because we love what we do. Serving our community is a very rewarding and gratifying experience and by working road jobs it helps make our service possible.

In closing I hope a few of the things I have touched upon will heighten your awareness as to why Road Detail jobs should, and need to remain worked by Uniformed Police Officers. I hope by reading this you will share some of my concerns with some of your fellow colleagues, to help make the right decision by allowing the continuance of Police Officers over the use of Civilian Flagmen

Thank you for your time

Posted by: pahapoika

New Hampshire allowed flaggers in a while ago and it really sucks when your siting at home with no OT watching a retard steal your money on a road job.. Fight this all of the way because once you lose it you will never get it back. Some

saw that last year while riding the Kangamangus Hwy on the motorsickle. she was cute with a blond ponytail under her hardhat. of course i stopped because i'm a law abiding dude , but try that on a busy Mass street during morning rush hour and flagmen won't be getting too much love.

P,S. kudos to Plainville Special Officer David Rando, looking sharp !

Posted by: Delta784

Quote:

Originally Posted by npd_323

Finished my letter. Before I send it how about some constructive review and criticism from the members here.

Good letter, but the rate for a unionized, prevailing wage flagman would be more like $40-50 per hour. You might also want to point out that police officers, whether full-time or special officers, don't cost anything in regards to health insurance, dental insurance, and other benefits that flagmen will no doubt command. Full time officers already have those benefits, and specials don't have them anyway.

Posted by: Edmizer1

When this issue was hot a couple of years ago I talked with some laborers on a job that said the owner of their company was salivating at the prospect of flagmen in MA. They said that instead of having to pay cops, he could take a piece of the action by providing the guys himself. This is the same company where we fight with the workers for doing dangerous stuff in the road and trying to tell us to shut down traffic for long periods of time becuase its easier for them. If they were in charge of the traffic, I can imagine what would be going on.

Posted by: LA Copper

Quote:

Originally Posted by pahapoika

New Hampshire allowed flaggers in a while ago and it really sucks when your siting at home with no OT watching a retard steal your money on a road job.. Fight this all of the way because once you lose it you will never get it back. Some

saw that last year while riding the Kangamangus Hwy on the motorsickle. she was cute with a blond ponytail under her hardhat. of course i stopped because i'm a law abiding dude , but try that on a busy Mass street during morning rush hour and flagmen won't be getting too much love.

P,S. kudos to Plainville Special Officer David Rando, looking sharp !

I don't get it, why do you guys think that drivers won't stop for flagmen there in Massachusetts? Most other states use flagmen, including here in California and flagmen work just fine. In fact, in some road construction zones they only use orange cones and they work ok too.

So how come Massachusetts drivers won't stop for flagmen? Even after growing up in Mass I still don't understand, please enlighten me.

Posted by: PaulKersey

Quote:

Originally Posted by LA Copper

I don't get it, why do you guys think that drivers won't stop for flagmen there in Massachusetts? .

In other states, drivers learned when they got their license at 16, that they had to stop, and follow the direction of flag men. It's part of their life, and it's all they know and are used to. In Mass, they barely stop for police officers. A flag man would be something new that they are not accustomed to. They would be looked at as someone less than a school crossing guard, which most people only stop for because kids are involved, and the chance that a police officer might be in the area. Most of them will try passing a school bus with flashing red lights. When people are running late, which most people are now a days, they aren't going to let some civilian flag man delay them. Who are the flag men going to call for enforcement when drivers don't stop? What police officer is going to set up enforcement activities at these construction sites to ensure drivers are stopping and obeying flag men? With no traffic law enforcement in these construction areas, the problem will only grow worse. I do believe the politicians will see the light before they open Pandora's box. Surely, they're not that foolish.

Posted by: BPD850

Why don't we get Blackwater to take over the rest of our duties too! Then I can sleep at night knowing everyone else will make a living wage except us. I bust my ass on details. I hate the friggin things but need the money. People drive by and think it's so easy. I'm usually on my way to a Section 12 by the end of the day.

Posted by: SinePari

Dispatcher: "(Whatever) Police Department, this line's being recorded."

Flagman: "Yeah, there's a guy who blew through my setup, knocked over my cones, and nearly killed our workers here on Route (whatever)! It's like he just robbed a bank or something!"

Dispatcher: "What would you like us to do?"

Flagman: "Well, I got the plate number and can describe the car to you, but he's long gone by now."

Dispatcher: *CLICK*

Flagman: "Man, I'm gonna call my uncle (State Rep Whoever that owns the company) and tell him we need radios and ticket books."

Posted by: wgciv

I also wish them luck in receiving permission to close down a roadway. Where I work, this can only be done after the detail officer develops an alternative traffic pattern (rerouting) that will not hinder public safety (police, fire, ems), proposes the plan to a supervisor (Sgt. or above), and the supervisor authorizes the request. It is only on rare occasions (almost never) that a supervisor will deny a detail officer's request to alter the traffic pattern. This is because the supervisor knows that the officer's primary concerns are public safety and flow of traffic. A flagger hired/employed by the construction company will have only one interest in mind, and that will be to do whatever said company wants in order to ensure that the company continues to hire/employ them. I can see this causing a heavy burden on us; we will have to visit these construction sites in order to correct the set up. Of course, if the plan ever passes, I'm sure most of us won't mind showing up at the site and requiring the company to spend an hour + moving equipment around and revamping their falty traffic pattern, all in the interest of public safety!

Posted by: Delta784

Quote:

Originally Posted by LA Copper

You've been away from home for too long.

Besides the fact that motorists barely stop for the police, there is case law that a police officer must see a traffic offense to issue a citation. The decision stemmed from the Boston PD having their cadets write down the license numbers of cars who disregarded their traffic directing efforts (and there are a lot of them), then giving them to the police officer assigned to supervise them. The officer's citations were thrown out because he or another police officer didn't see the infractions.

So, besides being notoriously impatient and arrogant, MA motorists are under no legal obligation whatsoever to obey flagmen. A fact they will exploit to the Nth-degree.

Posted by: LA Copper

Quote:

Originally Posted by Delta784

You've been away from home for too long.

Delta,
No question I've been away from home for too long, I'm really looking forward to moving back in a few years.

We have the same law here, we too have to see a traffic offense to be able to write a ticket. Plus, we can't just mail it to the violater if we see the infraction off-duty, we have to be on-duty and stop them then and there. I do agree that Mass drivers are pretty crazy. Whenever I talk to folks out here who have traveled back there to the Boston area, they all say the same thing: They love the area but can't get over how crazy the drivers are.

We have quite a few drivers out here in the LA area who either never had a license or whose license is suspended. Also, the streets out here are much wider than back there so cars tend to travel much faster. However, I've never seen a problem with folks stopping for flagmen.. It's amazing the difference from state to state.

Paul,
I agree that folks probably wouldn't stop for flagmen in the first few months but eventually people would get used to it, especially after the first few major crashes with the attached publicity.

Don't get me wrong, I totally understand why you guys want to keep details to supplement your base pay, I have a number of friends on the job back there who work them so I get it... I wish we had details out here but we don't. We just work overtime doing police work, which is better than standing at a construction site in the middle of winter!

If folks don't stop for flagmen and crossing guards, don't you think it would be easier to write someone a ticket for not stopping PRIOR to the crash instead of having to clean up the mess AFTER the crash? Besides, it would be great PC to stop all the dirtbags and look for stuff, not to mention all the motor cops whose primary focus is traffic enforcement. (if there aren't any laws against stopping for flagmen, then hopefully something will be written soon if they do get rid of traffic details.)

Whatever happens, I wish you guys luck. It sounds like it's gonna be an uphill battle.

Posted by: PaulKersey

Quote:

Originally Posted by LA Copper

don't you think it would be easier to write someone a ticket for not stopping PRIOR to the crash instead of having to clean up the mess AFTER the crash?.

So how's the weather out in Cali?

Posted by: LA Copper

Quote:

Originally Posted by PaulKersey

So how's the weather out in Cali?

Sunny and about 62, but it's only 9:30 in the morning!

Posted by: Killjoy

Quote:

We just work overtime doing police work, which is better than standing at a construction site in the middle of winter!

That's all well and good, assuming you can get overtime. Out here, in my department at least, you have to have a papal decree to get overtime! Many courts are even scheduling eve-shift officers for 3:00 pm ticket appeals to avoiding giving them overtime. Budgets are stretched thin!

Posted by: LA Copper

Quote:

Originally Posted by Killjoy

We have the same budget problems out here. I guess the difference is that there is so much crime happening that the city doesn't have any choice when officers get stuck on a crime scene or make a robbery arrest, etc, just minutes before their end of watch. They have to handle it then.

We also have the same thing with appealing tickets, if an officer works nights, he'll be scheduled for afternoon court, same if he works days.

You can also hope for court on your days off. Of course when you work nights and go to criminal court, all court is during the day. I'm glad as a sergeant I don't go to court too often anymore, that's one thing I don't miss!

Posted by: CJIS

Well I just emailed ALL the state Senators. I might email all the reps but after the flood of " Out of Office" replies I got I might hold off. Ill report back if I get any other responses.

Posted by: ryan57

I heard from numerous credible sources that this is being voted on tomorrow and every rep and senator that has been asked is in support of this non-sense (coming from the Boston area as well as the Cape.) From what I'm being told this is quite the backdoor operation by the State House. I love my job but if this goes through I'll be hanging up the belt for something that pays better for 40 hrs a week.....and I won't be working mids and weekends! It won't be worth working for the PD and then busting my a** during the day for mininum wage somewhere......maybe I can get a job with Citizens for Limited Taxation making 150K a year and just have to put a few quotes in the newspaper every couple of months.....

Posted by: Edmizer1

Details and OT are about 1/3 of my pay. If the details go, OT will be cut-throat. I know I can't survive with that sort of a pay cut. I am lucky that I am approaching 10 years so I will be vested in the pension system. I am also young enough to start a different career. I love my job but I can't do it without the extra details. I unfortunately will be doing something else in a couple of years if this becomes a reality.

Posted by: kwflatbed

For all of you politicians that may be reading this thread and I do know that there are a good number of you that do read the threads.

I am not a cop and you should be thankful that I am not, but my solution to this would be to organize a full state wide assault with maxium fines for the smallest infraction by any politician that votes in favor of this bill. The assault would not stop until the day you went out of office.

Not that I am trying to plant something in the minds of all of the officers that will be affected by this BUT this could happen.

There is no good reason under the sun for this bill to even come up other
than for someone to line their pockets.

Look around the room at the ones that will benefit if this passes and grow a set of balls and vote against it and let the vermin crawl back into their holes where they belong.

This is my personal opinion and has nothing to do with my moderating
the MassCops website.

Posted by: GD

Quote:

Originally Posted by Delta784

Good letter, but the rate for a unionized, prevailing wage flagman would be more like $40-50 per hour.

In Rhode Island, the flagmen/flagwomen are mostly unionized and that is the prevailing wage. Never mind some of the companies who just take any old guy, give him a sign and suddenly he is a flagger.

These politicians are all the same, screwing the cops!!!

Posted by: Delta784

Quote:

Originally Posted by LA Copper

We just work overtime doing police work, which is better than standing at a construction site in the middle of winter!

That's not an option for most of us; look no further than what's happening in Randolph;

http://www.patriotledger.com/news/x1351022453

That's a perfect example of what everyone is facing. Randolph has plenty of detail work (they call us every once in awhile) but zero money for overtime.

Posted by: j809

Overtime is almost non-existent in MANY communities around the commonwealth. We have no choice but to rely on details, not like LA where you guys have very high base salaries and lots of OT.

Posted by: LA Copper

Quote:

Originally Posted by Delta784

I guess that explains why Randolph seems to be going in the crapper.. Maybe the community and the selectmen will realize that and come up with some money for officers to be able to do their jobs..

Quote:

Originally Posted by j809

Overtime is almost non-existent in MANY communities around the commonwealth. We have no choice but to rely on details, not like LA where you guys have very high base salaries and lots of OT.

True about our salaries being higher than yours back there, however, real estate is a lot higher also so it's all relative.

The only reason there is overtime out here is because there is plenty of crime, not because there is plenty of money. Los Angeles is cutting way back in a lot of other things like libraries, road work, parks and recs, etc, just so they can pay the police and leave us on the street to uphold public safety. Maybe your cities and towns may realize the same and give you guys the money to do your jobs.

Just to reiterate, I understand why you guys want to keep the details and hope the politicians get it too. I wish you guys luck.

Posted by: BPD850

It's not going to stop with details. My area utilizes a regional Drug Task Force, SRT team and CPAC for crime scenes. These cuts are going to carry over. The state will not have to worry about cutbacks in our field. There will be an exodus to other occupations to survive as officers will not be able to maintain their financial situations.

Posted by: Sniper

Once again, we can all thank our unions for supporting Cadillac Deval. Survival of the fittest my friends !!!!!!!!!

Posted by: Kem25

Ok so now I am working in a job with no contract.... a 0% 0% 1% proposal for the next pay raise... no money left for OT in the budget.... and now some hack wants to take away my ability to make any money. I love this job but if details disappear I may need to relocate.

Posted by: OfficerObie59

Dear Your Excellency Gov. Deval Douche Bag

Apparently trying to live above the poverty line makes us greedy. Sure, some guys on BPD and MSP are raking in $200K, and I'd agree that's a bit much, but I dare the Globe or Herald venture out into the 'burbs and take stock of the low salaries that float around. Unions have been negotiating with details for years, and taking them away sets collective bargaining positions back decades. But who complains about details? The yuppie townies who think we should be kissing their fourth point of contact for our jobs. Eat my ass.
But don't let it fool you; the timing of this ting was deliberate as was the approach. Notice they're only mentioning secondary roads. What a great way to remove the largest police bargaining unit in the state, MSP, from the equation.

Of course Sen Prez Murray doesn't like details of any kind, and why would she? One of my good friends is on the job in a town adjacent to where she lives and scans the neighboring PD's freq. Apparently, she had her local PD calling out local checks on her house every 30 mins for a few days during the gay marriage debate. As the Senate Prez, don't you thing a MSP Protective Services Detail would be the best way to go? God, what if the press found out. Maybe when I take away the rights of the people to vote I should ask my PD to give semi-hourly checks on my place, too.

Sure, Murray, DiMasi, and Deval stand up and preach how wasteful details are without posing a solution to an issue the governor himself stated was an important issue...the low pay of municpal officers. (Nov 1st, 2007 - 96.9 WTKK "Ask the Governor, pt. 4" @ 4:09 min - see below for link) Funny, where's the governor on the "independent issue". Sure, I'd love a raise instead of standing in the road flapping my arms like a bird. But it'll never happen. "No doubt about it", huh. Kudos to that wife from Waltham with her articulate argument. F#$% Margery Egan and her patronizing to the governor and the caller; she's written more negative detail columns in the Herald than anyone else.

In the end, I'm gonna feel bad for my brothers who have already said they plan on losing their homes if thing thing passes. But I'll also feel bad for my court's magistrate, who's a good guy. He'll simply be spending now until his retirement only hearing CMVI appeals.

It's 3AM. Thank you all for reading my rantings, as incoherent and jumbled as they may be. I am going to bed now.

http://wtkk.everyzing.com/viewMedia....il=en&filter=0

This post reflects my opinion only and contains no information that is confidential or priviledged.

Posted by: SinePari

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sniper

Once again, we can all thank our unions for supporting Cadillac Deval. Survival of the fittest my friends !!!!!!!!!

You get screwed if you didn't support him, you get screwed if you did. Can't win.

Posted by: Sniper

Quote:

Originally Posted by SinePari

You get screwed if you didn't support him, you get screwed if you did. Can't win.

Very true Sine.........

Posted by: HiredGoon

Knowing the HIGH QUALITY

individuals that often work for various tree/construction/paving companies...when the flagman calls to complain about a vehicle blowing by, OF COURSE I'll go down and talk to him...and get his ID for the log...and discover he's listed in WMS.

Then he gets to come with me.

Hell, maybe if I'm lucky, and it's toward the end of the shift, I'll get some OT for the booking/court transport.

Well, I'll just leave it at that.

Posted by: dh18

I think the "detail reform" was only thown in there to distract everyone from the real priority the have of merging the MassPike, Massport, and MBTA into one animal. The big question there is does the Transit Police become MSP or do Troops E & F become Transit domain?

Posted by: Killjoy

Quote:

I think the "detail reform" was only thown in there to distract everyone from the real priority the have of merging the MassPike, Massport, and MBTA into one animal. The big question there is does the Transit Police become MSP or do Troops E & F become Transit domain?

What does that have to do with the price of tea in China?

Keep focused people, this is about politicians using some flim-flam spin to "save" money, which we all know will really not save any money, and it will take cops off the streets. It about appealing to many voters jealousy and hatred of police officers, while actually accomplishing nothing but making workzones less safe. An ancillary benefit to the pols is that they are now free to start flagmen businesses to fill the void left by stripping police officers of gainful extra employment. Flagmen businesses that will soon cost as much or more than police officers, yet have none of the benefits of additional police officers on the streets.

Do the politician realize that the reason that law-enforcement jobs are so competitive in Mass, is because we can earn a decent living doing it. Take that away and soon you have just another state scrambling to fill underpaid police jobs, as good police officers move to more friendly climates, environments or leave to get better-paid jobs. In the end, you get what you pay for, and if you want to see quality law enforcement take a nose dive, support this measure.

Posted by: Robert35

Quote:

Originally Posted by Killjoy

Very Good point Killjoy. In Boston Alone they have over 100+ Officers per day out on the Streets on Details. This gives the City 100 more per day at no cost to the City.

Posted by: ryan57

Quote:

Originally Posted by dh18

This has to be some T Cop hiding in some back room of some rat infested T Station trying to stir it up........I had to delete the rest......

Posted by: Sniper

Who wants to discuss the double-edged sword? If we lose details and seek court time and late arrests for a supplemet, how do you win? If you write more citations in hope of appeals, you feed the Commonwealth and they will claim that money is from savings from road jobs. If you don't write citations to halt the revenue for the state, you will NEVER see court time. I'm moving to Montana. Giddy Up !!!!

Posted by: PaulKersey

They did try and pull a fast one, trying to sneak it in without anyone knowing. I've never seen this state move so fast before. Mass politics

at it's finest.

From what I've been hearing from the upper end of the greap vine, it seems as though it will end up in the hands of the individual cities and towns.
I don't know how this will affect the SP at this time though.

Sure, you're going to get the city councilors that dislike the police etc.
When it comes down to it, the mayors and city managers realize that there are hundreds of extra cops on the street throughout the day that are not costing the taxpayers a dime.

Don't leave for Montana just yet.

Posted by: celticsfan

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robert35

Very Good point Killjoy. In Boston Alone they have over 100+ Officers per day out on the Streets on Details. This gives the City 100 more per day at no cost to the City.

+1 I'm an auxiliary, and 85% of why I do what I do is just provide presence. Details are a very effective way to provide presence (even at a fixed location), and this is an often overlooked value.

Posted by: j809

Quote:

Originally Posted by dh18

That is exactly it, alot of stuff going on that i won't talk about here but call your MASSCOP regional VP and talk to them. Last time this happened was in 1990-91 when the resolution was the MSP merger.

Posted by: dan7728

find and email reps http://www.votesmart.org/index.htm
cut and copy and make any changes
(revision of another posters. for the better or the worse)

1 April 2008

Dear Senator ,

Hello Sir/Madam, I would like to take a few moments of your time and express my deep concerns in regards to the proposed bill that would affect Police Details. As citizen of the Commonwealth, I am very worried about the negative consequences that will arise if this or any bills like it were to pass. Getting to the point, I would like to direct your attention to some misconceptions and facts I believe you should be made aware of concerning this issue.

First off, I would like to take look at some common misconceptions that are often made when comparing the use of Civilian Flagman vs. uniformed Police Officers. As I am sure, you are aware Massachusetts is the only state in the union that does not use Civilian Flagmen. Because of this, many both in the public and private sector automatically assume that the use of flagman must be cheaper and will save taxpayers a substantial amount of money. However when reading currant articles in Boston based news media it is suggested the use of police details only cost the state a mere $5 million a year. However, this is a misconception. What the articles as well as the studies failed to mention is that the contractor doing the work pays the overwhelming majority of details. Many of the Commonwealth's municipalities take a percentage of the detail rate and place it in local budgets. By doing this taxpayers actually save money. Another cost misconception one must realize is by hiring private firms there is no guarantee that their rates will not go up. In an economy that is uncertain the cost of service is going up, especially in the private sector. While it may now only cost $25-$30 dollars per hour for a flagman, in the next five to ten years it may cost as much, if not more than using a police officer (factoring health care and retirement}.

Now that I have touched upon some common misconceptions of cost benefits to the use of flagman, I would like to direct your attention to some facts that are very beneficial in regards of use of Police Officers. It should be obvious but the use of Police Officers at work sites significantly enhances public safety. Police Officers, unlike Civilian Flagmen are First responders trained using the deliberator, CPR, and a good amount are EMT’s. Detail officers are able to respond to emergencies from the details and act immediately.

These first responders, have powers of arrest, prevent and deter crime, are less of a liability, and extensively trained in both criminal and motor vehicle law. Civilian Flagmen provide none of these essential services. I personally know of cases where officers have provided extraordinary services while on a road detail. They have made stolen vehicle arrests, OUI Arrests, rendered Medical aid, and have foiled crimes about to take place.

In closing, I hope a few of the things I have touched upon will heighten your awareness as to why road jobs should, and need to remain worked by Uniformed Police Officers. I hope by reading this you will share some of my concerns with some of your fellow colleagues, to help make the right decision by allowing the continuance of Police Officers over the use of Civilian Flagmen. This is not a pay issues this is a matter of public safety.

Thank you for your time,

Posted by: Kem25

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sniper

I'm moving to Montana. Giddy Up !!!!

Arizona for me.... I am thinking warm weather all year round!!!

Posted by: Delta784

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sniper

Who wants to discuss the double-edged sword? If we lose details and seek court time and late arrests for a supplemet, how do you win? If you write more citations in hope of appeals, you feed the Commonwealth and they will claim that money is from savings from road jobs. If you don't write citations to halt the revenue for the state, you will NEVER see court time. I'm moving to Montana. Giddy Up !!!!

100% of civil infractions written by city & town PD's go to the municipality, the state sees none of it. Officers in the jurisdictions whose politicians can't see the obvious benefit of detail officers might have to convince them otherwise by denying them the revenue stream of civil infractions to grab their attention.

If this measure passes, I hope the police unions who endorsed and have donated to Deval and the rest of the "pro union" Democrats finally sit up and take notice.

Posted by: RCS

Not sure if anyone mentioned this but I was just thinking, How many Masspike toll takers, lawn mower operators, electricians, etc., become flagmen if there are cutbacks with a possible merger?

Posted by: nirtallica

Quote:

Originally Posted by Killjoy

It is a valid point. Think about it. Massport has their own PD, MBTA has theirs. We run the airtport and the pike. What happens to Massport PD and MBTA as far a jurisdiction? Will they keep their respective areas or are there other plans in the works that have not yet been revealed. This detail move came as a big suprise and a merger, in the politician's eyes would save money. I wouldn't rule it out and keep an open mind.

Posted by: mikemac64

Quote:

Originally Posted by LA Copper

The only reason there is overtime out here is because there is plenty of crime, not because there is plenty of money. Los Angeles is cutting way back in a lot of other things like libraries, road work, parks and recs, etc, just so they can pay the police and leave us on the street to uphold public safety. Maybe your cities and towns may realize the same and give you guys the money to do your jobs.

Maybe the leaders in our state should take a lesson. Stop funding non-performing social programs and prioritize certain basics! Police and fire should be funded first (1 and 2) Highway 3, and schools 4.

If you want an elite private school edcuation for you children, send them to an elite private school. Stop trying to create that in the public schools.

Posted by: CJIS

Quote:

Originally Posted by dan7728

find and email reps http://www.votesmart.org/index.htm
cut and copy and make any changes
(revision of another posters. for the better or the worse)

1 April 2008

Dear Senator ,

Hello Sir/Madam, I would like to take a few moments of your time and express my deep concerns in regards to the proposed bill that would affect Police Details. As citizen of the Commonwealth, I am very worried about the negative consequences that will arise if this or any bills like it were to pass. Getting to the point, I would like to direct your attention to some misconceptions and facts I believe you should be made aware of concerning this issue.

First off, I would like to take look at some common misconceptions that are often made when comparing the use of Civilian Flagman vs. uniformed Police Officers. As I am sure, you are aware Massachusetts is the only state in the union that does not use Civilian Flagmen. Because of this, many both in the public and private sector automatically assume that the use of flagman must be cheaper and will save taxpayers a substantial amount of money. However when reading currant articles in Boston based news media it is suggested the use of police details only cost the state a mere $5 million a year. However, this is a misconception. What the articles as well as the studies failed to mention is that the contractor doing the work pays the overwhelming majority of details. Many of the Commonwealth's municipalities take a percentage of the detail rate and place it in local budgets. By doing this taxpayers actually save money. Another cost misconception one must realize is by hiring private firms there is no guarantee that their rates will not go up. In an economy that is uncertain the cost of service is going up, especially in the private sector. While it may now only cost $25-$30 dollars per hour for a flagman, in the next five to ten years it may cost as much, if not more than using a police officer (factoring health care and retirement}.

Now that I have touched upon some common misconceptions of cost benefits to the use of flagman, I would like to direct your attention to some facts that are very beneficial in regards of use of Police Officers. It should be obvious but the use of Police Officers at work sites significantly enhances public safety. Police Officers, unlike Civilian Flagmen are First responders trained using the deliberator, CPR, and a good amount are EMT’s. Detail officers are able to respond to emergencies from the details and act immediately.

These first responders, have powers of arrest, prevent and deter crime, are less of a liability, and extensively trained in both criminal and motor vehicle law. Civilian Flagmen provide none of these essential services. I personally know of cases where officers have provided extraordinary services while on a road detail. They have made stolen vehicle arrests, OUI Arrests, rendered Medical aid, and have foiled crimes about to take place.

In closing, I hope a few of the things I have touched upon will heighten your awareness as to why road jobs should, and need to remain worked by Uniformed Police Officers. I hope by reading this you will share some of my concerns with some of your fellow colleagues, to help make the right decision by allowing the continuance of Police Officers over the use of Civilian Flagmen. This is not a pay issues this is a matter of public safety.

Thank you for your time,

I have no problems with you guys using my letter as a template when submitting it to State Reps,fourms blogs etc. I encourage it. However I would advice making a lot more changes to it than dan7728 did. Try to make it look like your own original work Not Mine. I say this because I did send mine out to ALL Senate members. We don't want them to keep receiving what appears to be a uniform letter only moddified slightly. The final letter I did send out varies a little but is generaly the same as the original. However I added information and some research and some suggestions made by other members of MassCops.

Posted by: spdawg0734

Most of this legislation realy applies to the state agencies, it is my undrestanding that in the municipalities, City and town ordinances over rule state rules, if your municipality requires it, they cant claim state rules, your chiefs should bring this fact to the city managers and or local mayors or selectmen. It is to their benefit to have you at the work sites, remember all politics are local. The only ones that will be affected by this is the State Police and other State agencies that have to avide by state rules. Keep that in mind, and focus on your local jurisdiction as well as notifying your state reps. Remeber the town or city pays nothing for you being on detail, and reaps the benefit of the protection you offer at no cost to their budget.

Posted by: ryan57

[quote=spdawg0734;276205]Most of this legislation realy applies to the state agencies, it is my undrestanding that in the municipalities, City and town ordinances over rule state rules, if your municipality requires it, they cant claim state rules, your chiefs should bring this fact to the city managers and or local mayors or selectmen. It is to their benefit to have you at the work sites, remember all politics are local. The only ones that will be affected by this is the State Police and other State agencies that have to avide by state rules. Keep that in mind, and focus on your local jurisdiction as well as notifying your state reps. Remeber the town or city pays nothing for you being on detail, and reaps the benefit of the protection you offer at no cost to their budget.[/quote

I hold no value on this City and Town ordinance supposed saving grace.....they can be changed in a Tuesday night City or Town meeting over several cups of coffee.....and if they're not changed they will be held over your head everytime you go in for contract negotiations....."We have 0%, 0%, 0% and 2% on the table boys, or we'll just get rid of the details, u choose!!" As for these ordinances over