MassCops - Massachusetts Law Enforcement Network, A Mass Police Web Portal

Massachusetts Law Enforcement Network

Massachusetts Police News, Information and Discussions on MassCops

Pages: 1 2 3

Main Page Police Detail slashed in transportation refrom pitch (merged)
(Click here to view the original thread on the MassCops Message Board)

Posted by: LA Copper

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rock

I joined in on a pursuit last night that passed my detail. I jumped in and we caught the a-hole. Guy might have gotten away if some old lady was waving a flag at him.

Just out of curiosity, when you join in a pursuit like this or get involved in some other type of police work and are now away from the detail, does the company doing the construction job still have to pay you since you're no longer there directing traffic?

And speaking of directing traffic, if you're away from the detail doing other police work, who is there directing traffic? Isn't this kind of hypocritical? Saying that only officers can do a detail right and then just abandoning the detail all together and leaving no one there. Would that make you liable if something were to happen?

Seems to me that the folks who are trying to get rid of the details are gonna think the same thing if you guys flood them with all of your police reports that come out of detail work. Just a thought.

Posted by: SinePari

Quote:

Originally Posted by LA Copper

Unless it's a one-person detail, there is a general understanding between the contractor/Mass Highway/DPW crews that "police" work always takes priority over the detail, and they'll curtail or pause for the time being. I've left a set up with more officers on the detail and laid out sticks to help a stolen/pursuit. Best thing about it...no paperwork, just the stick deployment sheet!

Posted by: mikemac64

Quote:

Originally Posted by dave7336

I have to respectfully disagree....on just about every issue Margery sucks!!!

I don't necessarily agree with her on too many issues, but I enjoy listening to the show. Even though Broudie is a flaming liberal, I enjoy listening to him too.

She is just rabid on this issue. And that fat-ass VB from the Fox25 Moring News can take a walk too.

Posted by: kwflatbed

Cops spared as details on bill altered

A controversial Senate proposal to curb costly police details got “watered down” amid fierce lobbying by labor leaders who secured new language ensuring that civilian flaggers will be used only if local officials wage a costly fight against public safety unions.
After behind-the-scenes meetings with police unions, senators inserted a new paragraph into transportation reform legislation yesterday that explicitly states that local cops get to keep pulling details if it’s included in their contracts.
“It was clearly watered down,” said one state senator who requested anonymity. “If the officers are doing it now, it will be difficult to step in and take it away from them.”
Lawmakers said the new language was pushed by state Sen. Steven Tolman (D-Brighton), who was surrounded by labor leaders outside the Senate chambers just minutes before a formal session was convened to consider the proposal.
Tolman denied that the changes did anything to weaken the legislation, which several senators said was never intended to supersede collective bargaining agreements in cities and towns.
“I don’t know who is saying anything is being watered down,” he said. “If someone has a contract, it’s not our job as legislators to not respect negotiations between the bargaining agents and the municipalities.”
But some lawmakers were advocating for stronger language that would prevent cities and towns from taking an easy escape route to avoid the difficult fight to save money for taxpayers.
The legislation passed yesterday requires the Patrick administration to create regulations that would authorize the use of civilian flagmen on secondary roads.
The measure would help reduce costs on state-controlled highways and bridges, but would have a limited impact on costs in local communities.
Mayor Thomas Menino, who supports police details, issued a statement yesterday saying, “Detail officers on work sites allow the city to have about 200 additional police officers on the street every day that the taxpayers don’t have to pay for. Also, beyond just the increase of officers on the street, Boston receives additional revenue by charging a 10 percent administrative fee for providing the details.”
But taxpayers are forced to foot the bill for detail officers on state and municipal projects, a cost the legislation aims to reduce by $5 million a year. Union officials argue that the savings would be minimal and that police officers are needed to force traffic to slow down amid the region’s hectic traffic patterns.
Several lawmakers expressed frustration yesterday that the battle over police details has obscured other reform measures included in the legislation.
The bill, which passed 39-0, also contains provisions to cut red tape that adds millions to the costs of transportation projects and ensures greater disclosure of cash flow on major projects.

http://bostonherald.com/news/regiona...icleid=1084910

Senate OKs reform of rules on police details, flagmen

By David Kibbe
Standard-Times staff writer
April 04, 2008 6:00 AM

BOSTON — The state Senate approved a transportation reform plan Thursday that throws the controversial issue of police details squarely in the lap of Gov. Deval Patrick.
If approved by the House, the legislation would direct the Executive Office of Transportation and the Executive Office of Public Safety to draw up new regulations replacing police details with civilian flaggers in construction zones where it is appropriate.
Senate leaders said it would target secondary roads and quiet streets, while keeping police details in place on roadways with heavy traffic.
But Gov. Patrick seemed to soften his comments on replacing the details, following a backlash from law enforcement unions and some municipal leaders, The Associated Press reported.
"The more I think about this, the less certain I am that we can fix this top down, you know, by just saying, 'Here's the governor's policy or the state government's policy,' because the conditions are so different at local levels," the governor said in his monthly radio appearance with Jim Braude and Margery Eagan on WTKK-FM.
Gov. Patrick's press office insisted he was not backing off the proposal, which he supported at a public appearance last week with Senate President Therese Murray and House Speaker Salvatore DiMasi.
"In terms of flagmen, we are waiting to see what comes out of the Senate and House, but we stand ready to work with them and develop regulations that determine when it is safe and cost-effective to use flagmen on roadside projects," said Kyle Sullivan, a spokesman for the governor.
The independent Massachusetts Transportation Finance Commission last year recommended replacing police details with civilian flagmen on virtually all projects. The commission said it would save the state $5 million a year, and municipal governments and utility ratepayers $30 million to $50 million a year.
Michael Widmer, president of the business-backed Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation, served on the commission. He said the Senate's proposal to require the Patrick administration to write new regulations was soft.
"Time will tell, but it feels as if the commitment to do this is not very strong," Mr. Widmer said. "Basically, the political leaders are getting cold feet, and trying to remove any teeth whatsoever from it. I think the odds of getting any significant reform has dropped markedly in the last 48 hours, given the push-back from the police unions."
Massachusetts is the only state in the nation that has widespread use of police details at road construction sites, either by state and local policy or local law.
The reform package was tacked onto a $3.5 billion bond bill that was rushed through the Senate yesterday to meet deadlines for federal funding. The bond bill was approved unanimously. The House has not voted on the reform provisions.
Sen. Steven Baddour, D-Methuen, the Senate chairman of the Joint Transportation Committee, said it was not the Legislature's intent to eliminate all police details.
"Where we need to come in line with the 49 other states is there is a balance that can be struck between public safety and protecting taxpayer dollars," he said.
Senators rewrote the proposal yesterday to clarify that any new state regulations would not supersede municipal laws or police contracts that call for police details in construction zones.
The transportation reform also includes new ways to speed up permitting of state transportation projects and provide greater accountability of spending. Altogether, Senate leaders said it would save $100 million over the next 20 years.
There is no state law requiring police details. However, it has been a long-standing state transportation policy to require them on state projects. Cities and towns have required details through policy, local law or labor agreements.
Supporters of the change hope new state regulations would make it easier politically for municipalities to follow suit.
Police officers say the details provide a greater measure of public safety. They say cutting the details — which are separate from an officer's normal shift — would amount to a pay cut. They question the savings, saying civilian flagmen would have to be paid the prevailing wage on public projects.
"This is only half the game," Ray McGrath, the legislative director for the International Brotherhood of Police Officers, said after the Senate vote. "This still has to go over to the House. We will work with the House leadership and the House members to develop a system that works for both sides."

http://www.southcoasttoday.com/apps/...NEWS/804040309

Gov. Backs Off Talk On Cutting Details

Patrick Responds To Union Backlash

BOSTON -- Gov. Deval Patrick on Thursday offered tepid talk about reducing police details at road construction sites after a backlash from law enforcement unions and local officials over his plan to start using flagmen in some instances.

"The more I think about this, the less certain I am that we can fix this top down, you know, by just saying, `Here's the governor's policy or the state government's policy,' because the conditions are so different at local levels," Patrick told hosts Jim Braude and Margery Eagan during his monthly appearance on WTKK-FM.

"There's a lot we can do about how we deploy the State Police at the state level, but I think we're going to have to show some respect for the judgments at local levels and create some space when public safety permits and makes prudent the use of flagmen," the governor added.
Gubernatorial aides insisted the comments were not a shift in policy.

"His statement on the radio is consistent with his message all along with cities and towns - give them the tools to better manage their budgets," said Patrick spokesman Kyle Sullivan. "In terms of flagmen, we are waiting to see what comes out of the Senate and House, but we stand ready to work with them and develop regulations that determine when it is safe and cost-effective to use flagmen on road-side projects."

Patrick himself said on the radio he expected flagmen to eventually replace troopers at projects on dead-end streets or other locales deemed safe.

Last week, Patrick, Senate President Therese Murray and House Speaker Salvatore DiMasi drew headlines when they announced they were united behind changing the state's detail policy. They vowed to attach language requiring some changes to a must-pass bond bill being considered by the Legislature this week.

When they made that announcement, the leaders were deliberately vague, except to say they would require state transportation officials to develop language spelling out where it would be safe to substitute civilian flaggers for police officers.

The final language, which overwhelmingly passed the Senate later Thursday, said: "The secretary of the executive office of transportation and public works, in consultation with the secretary of the executive office of public safety, is hereby authorized to promulgate regulations and recommend guidelines for the use of police details at public work sites."

The bond bill, which now moves to the House for a final vote, also states that nothing in the section should supersede local labor contracts or the decisions of the local public works officials.

There is no state law mandating that police officers protect workers at road construction sites, but the practice has become commonplace and been fiercely protected by police unions. Some communities have labor contracts requiring that police staff construction sites.

In recent years, a backlash has built as some State Police troopers and Boston police officers have posted earnings over $200,000 annually -- more than the governor or Mayor Thomas M. Menino -- and utilities have said that using police officers has created an expense they are forced to pass on to ratepayers.

A 2004 study by the Beacon Hill Institute, a nonprofit fiscal watchdog at Suffolk University, concluded that municipalities would also save between $37 million and $67 million annually by replacing most police details with flaggers.

Last week officials suggested changing the policy would save municipalities $5 million annually, a relatively small amount.

Nonetheless, the specter of changes in the detail system prompted a furious response by police labor unions. They bombarded lawmakers with phone calls, and, on Thursday, huddled outside Murray's office as senators considered the detail language change.

At the same time, Patrick was being asked about the subject on the radio.

"It turns out it's not that simple. It feels simple, but there are public safety issues, and that has to come first, so we have begun to engage public safety officials, police, local officials, to help us craft the right way to do this," the governor said.

On other subjects, Patrick said:

-He has been working on his autobiography for 10 years, despite inking a deal last week on a $1.35 million publishing contract. He said that he will complete the book on nights and weekends, preserving his ability to handle his state tasks, "but there's a place for one's own hobbies, even as governor."

-He rejected criticism he abandoned supporters of his casino gambling proposal by heading to New York to shop his book proposal while the bill was being debated - and defeated - on the House floor. He said he had known for weeks that the bill would fail.

"Now had it have been an open and fair fight, I would have made a different judgment," he said, a veiled criticism of DiMasi, who engineered votes against the bill.

-It's a "crummy, crummy time" to be considering a hike in the state gasoline tax. Instead, Patrick has said he will continue to focus on generating savings from consolidating state transportation services and refinancing the debt on the state's transportation infrastructure.

http://www.thebostonchannel.com/news...82/detail.html

Posted by: dave7336

Quote:

Originally Posted by mikemac64

I agree 100% on telling VB to take a long walk off a short pier.

Posted by: BlueBlood1077

Over the last week or so I have talked to a number of my fellow officers and have heard some say that if this detail "reconstruction" passes that they will start writing more tickets than ever and making more arrests than ever so they can supplement their salaries with more court time. I find this approach to be the opposite of what we should do. Think about who the vast majority of that money is going to go to... the state. The same state that is hoping to take away anywhere between 30% - 50% of our salaries.

Why should we be a proactive force anymore? Why should we be generating revenue for a system that is slashing our wages and making our lives tougher? Why should we be increasing our risk while they decrease our pay?

If they want to "save" money by reducing our details then I for one will reduce my level of risk and output equally. I will answer my calls and make arrests in a reactive manner, but I no longer will feel the need to produce for a state/town that wishes to make my life/finances/relationships/etc more difficult.

Is anyone else in support of this? If so, pass the word. If not, let's hear why.

Posted by: Rocco39

Quote:

Originally Posted by dave7336

I agree 100% on telling VB to take a long walk off a short pier.

Agreed, he's a friggin blowhard. ?? Isn't VB "Virgin Boy", formerly of the Howie Carr show??

Posted by: Robert35

Just keep an eye out on who tried to put this out in the first Place. We are now getting a List together of who was the sponsor (WHO WE KNOW) and who jumped on the bandwagon.

Posted by: j809

Vote the f*ckers out.

Posted by: Delta784

Quote:

Originally Posted by LA Copper

Every contractor who hires one of our details, be they Joe's Construction repaving Washington Street or Stop & Shop who want a uniformed deterrent, understands that we are police officers first & foremost.

We've had many officers on detail make arrests (some very serious ones), but unless the crime was specifically "part of" of the detail (shoplifter at Stop & Shop), the arrest is usually turned over to the area cruiser. For example, one of my friends working a Mass Electric job spotted an attempted rape suspect, followed him into a local restaurant, and grabbed him in the men's room changing his clothes. He turned the arrest over to the area cruiser and was back on his detail site within 20 minutes.

Quote:

Originally Posted by LA Copper

And speaking of directing traffic, if you're away from the detail doing other police work, who is there directing traffic? Isn't this kind of hypocritical? Saying that only officers can do a detail right and then just abandoning the detail all together and leaving no one there. Would that make you liable if something were to happen?

It's the same thing as if I were directing traffic at the scene of a traffic crash while working my regular shift; if I happen to see a crime in progress or a wanted suspect, the traffic can go to hell. Muffy & Chip headed south on 3A back to Hingham or Cohasset are going to be late for their escargot that evening while I deal with the crime in front of me.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BlueBlood1077

Every single dollar of civil infractions written by city & town police goes to the municipality, NOT the state.

Posted by: BlueBlood1077

Quote:

Originally Posted by Delta784

Every single dollar of civil infractions written by city & town police goes to the municipality, NOT the state.

I have been told that money from citations written on state roads, whether written by city or town officers, go to the state since it's a road that's maintained by the state. (Plowed, sanded, salted, patched, etc by the state) There are many communities that share these roads with Troopers, (Rt 9, Rt 135, Rt 128, Rt 1, Rt 93, etc.) Tell me there's truth to that.

Posted by: resqjyw0

Quote:

Originally Posted by BlueBlood1077

Over the last week or so I have talked to a number of my fellow officers and have heard some say that if this detail "reconstruction" passes that they will start writing more tickets than ever and making more arrests than ever so they can supplement their salaries with more court time. I find this approach to be the opposite of what we should do. Think about who the vast majority of that money is going to go to... the state. The same state that is hoping to take away anywhere between 30% - 50% of our salaries.

Why should we be a proactive force anymore? Why should we be generating revenue for a system that is slashing our wages and making our lives tougher? Why should we be increasing our risk while they decrease our pay?

If they want to "save" money by reducing our details then I for one will reduce my level of risk and output equally. I will answer my calls and make arrests in a reactive manner, but I no longer will feel the need to produce for a state/town that wishes to make my life/finances/relationships/etc more difficult.

Is anyone else in support of this? If so, pass the word. If not, let's hear why.

The same people that are screwing you by supporting the politicians' opposition to details are going to be the same people that you'll be screwing when you cite or arrest them.

Some people stand to lose a lot of they don't supplement their details with OT. There is a reason why they worked details in the first place.

As Delta said, civil infraction revenue goes to the municipality.

If you're more proactive and end up seizing more property, a lot of that could eventually auctioned off and all of the money goes right back into the department to pay for new equipment.

Posted by: j809

The latest update pertaining to police details is that our problem is not with the House of Representatives, but the Senate. The Senate President along with Senator Baddour attached an amendment to the Bond Bill, NOT A DETAIL BILL, but language that regulates details. MCOP has teamed with other police unions and is attempting to get this language changed.

President Cameron said this morning that the Bond Bill, with the detail language, is being voted on today at 1 p.m. in the Senate. This language or movement was cleverly crafted by the Senate President Murray and Sen. Baddour, so that it is almost impossible to vote against, because it is directly tied to Federal funding for highway projects. President Cameron and 1st Vice President Scanzio have been feverishly working to block this language and will be attending the vote today. Senate President Murray has gone at this, the same way they went at the Casino issue, making it difficult for any Senator to stand against the bill. She has made this her personal agenda, to be the lead on reforming this State. As soon as I hear anything new, I will update you all.
MASSCOP

Posted by: Delta784

Quote:

Originally Posted by BlueBlood1077

If it's written by a city or town PD, the civil infraction goes to the city or town. Do you really think the civil infractions written by the state police on city or town roads go to the city or town?

Posted by: j809

Quote:

Originally Posted by Delta784

I was told by many troopers that the money does all go to the town if it's written in the town but if if its written on the hwy then the town gets a small portion.

Posted by: Delta784

Quote:

Originally Posted by j809

I was told by many troopers that the money does all go to the town if it's written in the town but if if its written on the hwy then the town gets a small portion.

Actual highways, you may be right; I have no idea. I was referring to state highways/secondary roads.

Posted by: HOLLYROCK50

I have noticed a lot of people talking about where citation money goes.... So here is how it breaks down.

If you write a cite for a motor vehicle infraction. 50% of the money goes to the registry/state and 50% goes to the town, into the general fund. If you write a cite for weights and messures 100% goes to the towns, into the general fund. Any thing that goes to court ie: summons or arrest, the courts get the money. In the end you will get none of the money for overtime... The only way you are going to get money directed to your department is drug forfitures, and that takes a long time to happen. If you want to make OT lock someone up 5 minutes before the end of your shift each night.

Posted by: Delta784

Quote:

Originally Posted by HOLLYROCK50

If you write a cite for a motor vehicle infraction. 50% of the money goes to the registry/state and 50% goes to the town, into the general fund.

That was changed years ago; 100% goes to the city or town. We used to write city ordinance violations for traffic offenses but stopped several years ago when the law changed and it wasn't necessary anymore.

Posted by: Robert35

Update on Detail Reform Proposal

April 4, 2008

In keeping with the “facts” of what is transpiring on Beacon Hill with regard to police details, on Thursday afternoon 04/03/08, the Massachusetts Senate took up the reforms proposed in the Transportation Bond Bill.

Included in the bill there was language that directs the Secretary of Transportation and the Secretary of Public Safety to promulgate regulations and guidelines with regard to police details. An amendment with clarifying language was offered and incorporated into the bill that specifically states that local ordinances, by-laws and/or collective bargaining agreements will not be subservient, over ridden or interrupted by these regulations and guidelines.

Acknowledge and commend Hugh Cameron from MassCop and Ray McGrath from IBPO, Ton Nee from BPPA, along with many other police union organizations, for their strong advocacy on behalf of their members. Also thanks Gary Sullivan of UWUA Local 369 (NStar) and Myles Calvey of IBEW Local 2222 (Verizon) for their continued support regarding this issue.

Posted by: celticsfan

^^^
So does that make any such "regulations" and "guidelines" moot?

Posted by: Robert35

Quote:

Originally Posted by celticsfan

^^^
So does that make any such "regulations" and "guidelines" moot?

Specifically states that local ordinances, by-laws and/or collective bargaining agreements will not be subservient, over ridden or interrupted by these regulations and guidelines.

By-laws or bargaining agreements will not be touched.

Posted by: sdb29

So then it is as it was and shall be, forever and ever, Amen.

Unless you don't have a city ordinance, town by-law or language in your CBA that requires it. Am I understanding this correctly?

Posted by: Robert35

Your City By-law or CBA language would over rule the Refrom Bill. So if your By-law states need a Police Officer if you open up a Hole or do Construction then this would not affect you.

Posted by: ryan57

"You are absolutely right USMC Trooper, guys on MSP and local PDs, some are really screwing the pooch for all of us. The supervisors need to be more active in monitoring their troops in the field."

Hey, U forgot the MBTA Transit Police...the most Prestigious Law Enforcement Agency in the Land.....so Prestigious the State Police are trying to file a bill at the State House to merge with them......ah, ah, ah.....I believe they like to refer to themselves as "the Cream of the Crop!!"

LA Copper;276974]Just out of curiosity, when you join in a pursuit like this or get involved in some other type of police work and are now away from the detail, does the company doing the construction job still have to pay you since you're no longer there directing traffic?

And speaking of directing traffic, if you're away from the detail doing other police work, who is there directing traffic? Isn't this kind of hypocritical? Saying that only officers can do a detail right and then just abandoning the detail all together and leaving no one there. Would that make you liable if something were to happen?

Seems to me that the folks who are trying to get rid of the details are gonna think the same thing if you guys flood them with all of your police reports that come out of detail work. Just a thought.[/quote]

After reading several of your posts, I think it would be beneficial for all of us, if you would just keep your THOUGHTS TO YOURSELF!!!

Does this mean I can finish the east wing to my McMansion?

Posted by: h174

Joe is that you? We want you come back, HA HA Ha Ha!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Posted by: ryan57

Ahh.....no....

Posted by: Killjoy

Quote:

After reading several of your posts, I think it would be beneficial for all of us, if you would just keep your THOUGHTS TO YOURSELF!!!

My thoughts exactly. Not for nothing, but I don't crap on the way you make extra money, please extend us the same courtesy. If there was a lick of overtime available, I would be on it.

Posted by: 94c

Quote:

Originally Posted by LA Copper

Hypocritical? Let's say you're working a paid detail and a vehicle that was just involved in a bank robbery drives past you.

What would you do?

Someone pulls up to you and says there's a really bad accident up the road.

What would you do?

It's not being hypocritical, it's the emergency nature of the job. You would have to agree, no?

Posted by: j809

YEah but many Pds have nothing in their CBAs except wage rules and many many Pds have no bylaws or ordinances either. So what happens to them?

Still needs to be approved by the Governor which I heard is now in favor of details.

Transportation Bond Bill Police Detail Reform Update
April 3, 2008
As pledged, the Massachusetts Coalition of Police has worked tirelessly in protecting our membership’s interests in detail reform. Despite the rumor mongering, the slinging of half-truths, in addition to complete and outright fabrication, being published by some uninformed and uninvolved groups, the Massachusetts Coalition of Police alongside the Boston Police Patrolman’s Association and the International Brotherhood of Police Officers were able to sift through the rubble and determine fact from fiction. Working in unison with these groups we were able to get amended language placed
into the Senate version of the Transportation Bond Bill. This language protects our
rights under city and town ordinances, by-laws, and collective bargaining agreements.
This coupled with the Governor’s assurance that we will have input into the drafting and
implementation of the proposed regulations and recommended guidelines gives us
material to work with.
The matter is by no means resolved. Armed with the facts and the positive progress developed over the past week and most importantly the past two days, the Massachusetts Coalition of Police will continue to work diligently for our membership and strives to preserve the public safety of the communities we serve and the interests of our membership.

Posted by: LA Copper

For those of you that didn't recognize it, I was merely pointing out things that the folks at the State House might say in an effort to help you in case it gets that far. If some of you can't see that then I'm sorry about that.

Like I mentioned several times before, I understand and support what you're trying to do, I'm not "crapping" on it. It's just that sometimes we (collectively) tend to see things from our own point of view and not how the other guy sees it. The other guy in this case would be the folks at the State House who are opposed to details. If you look at it like they do, then it's easier to come up with a good defense. After reading all these posts, it didn't appear that this was being done.
Good luck.

Posted by: Rock

LA, I took your other post as a "devils advocate" statement and had no problem with it which is why I let others respond. I have an idea.....why don't you respond to your own question?

Posted by: Chief Wiggins

"The Massachusetts Coalition of Police alongside the Boston Police Patrolman’s Association and the International Brotherhood of Police Officers were able to sift through the rubble and determine fact from fiction. Working in unison with these groups we were able to get amended language placed into the Senate version of the Transportation Bond Bill. This language protects our rights under city and town ordinances, by-laws, and collective bargaining agreements."

Does that mean MSP will be "piggy backing" off each separate town by-laws to have a detail on state highway or do they have writing in their CBA?

Posted by: bbelichick

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chief Wiggins

"The Massachusetts Coalition of Police alongside the Boston Police Patrolman’s Association and the International Brotherhood of Police Officers were able to sift through the rubble and determine fact from fiction. Working in unison with these groups we were able to get amended language placed into the Senate version of the Transportation Bond Bill. This language protects our rights under city and town ordinances, by-laws, and collective bargaining agreements."

Does that mean MSP will be "piggy backing" off each separate town by-laws to have a detail on state highway or do they have writing in their CBA?

What are you talking about? The "reform" will not touch state roads or highways. Why would the MSP need it in their CBA to do Details on a state road or highway? That section you are quoting is just protecting local police who have details in their contract.

Posted by: ryan57

"What are you talking about? The "reform" will not touch state roads or highways. Why would the MSP need it in their CBA to do Details on a state road or highway? That section you are quoting is just protecting local police who have details in their contract."

Exactly....this bill doesn't effect the "Cream of the Crop", which are the ones who have details in places "where" they could actually be replaced by flashing yelow lights and sign boards....

One of the biggest reason this issue is so hated among tax paypayers is the fact that 98% of the time you drive by a State Trooper on a detail he's sitting in his car....what type of protection is he providing when he is facing forward towards the construction workers.....I'll tell you, "Oh sh*t!" and thats all...

And if this detail involves any tunnel repair work in the City of Boston...99% of the time the Trooper is facing forward again, in his cruiser, drooling all over the window! The other 1% of the time the Trooper is watching a movie on his labtop!

City and Town police, who actually need the money from details to make a descent living, are usually (probably 90% of the time) outside their own personal vehicle directing traffic and actually serving a purpose and providing a service that a sign board or flashing yellow lights can't provide at a construction zone.

Call it what you want.....every Police Union, even the "Cream of the Crop" should be fighting this "tooth and nail" not just the "townies" and "Locals"....

Or pay us descent wages and I'll work my 40 and go home.....

Posted by: bbelichick

What a tool you are.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ryan57

Hey, U forgot the MBTA Transit Police...the most Prestigious Law Enforcement Agency in the Land.....so Prestigious the State Police are trying to file a bill at the State House to merge with them......ah, ah, ah.....I believe they like to refer to themselves as "the Cream of the Crop!!"

How's the view with your head stuck so far up your own a**?

Posted by: Delta784

Quote:

Originally Posted by bbelichick

Why would the MSP need it in their CBA to do Details on a state road or highway?

Perhaps because a good number of the people who call talk radio and bitch about details are complaining about the state troopers who never get out of their cruisers? Especially with the alley lights on at night, like they're fooling anyone?

There are over 13,000 city & town cops in Massachusetts. If the pols are willing to take us on, they'll take you on in a heartbeat if they see the opportunity.

Posted by: bbelichick

That doesn't answer the question. The Regs don't affect state roads and highways. If the MSP didn't need their CBA to allow them to do details before, they don't need it now.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Delta784

And another good number of them are b*tching about local guys who, despite being out in the street are laughing and joking on their cellphones and don't have a clue what is going on. One of the biggest complaints and the focus of this bill is local details where police are on the roads in very low traffic and dead end areas.

Glass houses. No need to take shots when none were taken at you.

Posted by: Delta784

Quote:

Originally Posted by bbelichick

That doesn't answer the question. The Regs don't affect state roads and highways. If the MSP didn't need their CBA to allow them to do details before, they don't need it now.

The slippery slope; the next regulations very well could affect state roads and highways. Haven't you ever seen that piece "First they came for the Jews, and I didn't care because I'm not Jewish"?

It ends with "And then they came for me, and no one else was left to raise a voice of protest".

Posted by: bbelichick

Quote:

Originally Posted by Delta784

You're missing the point. I am referring to the previous comment about the MSP "piggybacking".

As for the implications of your comments, I most certainly did not watch this happen and let it go. There was an organized effort to have our voice heard, in my area of the state. As for the rest...who knows.

Posted by: Delta784

Quote:

Originally Posted by bbelichick

You're missing the point. I am referring to the previous comment about the MSP "piggybacking".

I think the OP for that is confused as to how local ordinances work. The ordinance we have for details applies only to roads owned/controlled by the city, so it doesn't apply to state roads.

Quote:

Originally Posted by bbelichick

As for the implications of your comments, I most certainly did not watch this happen and let it go. There was an organized effort to have our voice heard, in my area of the state. As for the rest...who knows.

We certainly appreciate it, but if the SPAM leadership weighed in on this it didn't get any media coverage at all, at least in metro Boston. I just hope they realize how dangerous this legislation is to them.

Posted by: MM1799

ryan57 your comments are a joke. One minute you talk about fighting to save police officers' details and the next minute you talk about only Troopers being replaced by signs and whatnot. I guess all the troopers who respond to crashes, stop erractic operators before someone dies or joins in on pursuits are just up for their morning stretch, right? Real brotherhood there.

I'm not responding to anything you may type because it isn't worth it with your attitude. It's really pathetic.

Posted by: bbelichick

Quote:

Originally Posted by Delta784

I can only speak for my area of the state. It was addressed.

Posted by: CJIS

To the posters above stop bickering. This thing is still not over and it will still affect ALL OF US at some point because it will domino.

I have been typing letters left and right during the past week and a half informing Newspapers, Politicians, and the average Joe what a bad Idea this is. Obviously I am not the only one because as we have been reading many changes though not 100% in our favor are happening.

It seems now we are actually getting some major corporations to back us such a Verizon, this is good!

Thus said I am still urging you guys and gal's to continue fighting this. The time you are taking bickering here could be used to call or write people. Contact a large company like PA Landers, tell them they have an interest in this bill as they will be stuck paying flagmen the same if not more than they would for us.

This thing is not over until the Governor signs it. So keep fighting TOGETHER.

Also on a side note: Because of the language in the bill as of right now; contact your Union rep. and make sure your town, or contract has something that states a Uniformed Police officer will be used as a detail. Cover your A$$es both ways.

Posted by: Robert35

Quote:

Originally Posted by npd_323

To the posters above stop bickering. This thing is still not over and it will still affect ALL OF US at some point because it will domino.

I have been typing letters left and right during the past week and a half informing Newspapers, Politicians, and the average Joe what a bad Idea this is. Obviously I am not the only one because as we have been reading many changes though not 100% in our favor are happening.

It seems now we are actually getting some major corporations to back us such a Verizon, this is good!

Thus said I am still urging you guys and gal's to continue fighting this. The time you are taking bickering here could be used to call or write people. Contact a large company like PA Landers, tell them they have an interest in this bill as they will be stuck paying flagmen the same if not more than they would for us.

This thing is not over until the Governor signs it. So keep fighting TOGETHER.

Also on a side note: Because of the language in the bill as of right now; contact your Union rep. and make sure your town, or contract has something that states a Uniformed Police officer will be used as a detail. Cover your A$$es both ways.

AMEN TO THAT

Posted by: PaulKersey

Not surprisingly, the Quin bill was brought up. They said they're going after this next because the state simply can't afford it anymore. They're going to set up a cut off date. Those hired after a certain point will not get the benefit. Everyone else will be grandfathered in, providing they're at least enrolled.

You may still have it in your contract with your cities and towns paying for it, but how long do you think that would last considering the current state of affairs? It might be in the current contract, but will it be in the next, or the one after? If I were new on the job, I would be enrolling in a class or two just in case.

There is no set date in place for this yet, but the current regime did say that this is the next battle they were going to fight. I'm sure the public will have plenty to say as well. Stand by to stand by.

Posted by: Delta784

Quote:

Originally Posted by PaulKersey

Not surprisingly, the Quin bill was brought up. They said they're going after this next because the state simply can't afford it anymore. They're going to set up a cut off date. Those hired after a certain point will not get the benefit. Everyone else will be grandfathered in, providing they're at least enrolled.

Delta784's Economic Recovery Plan

1) Casinos? We'd make Las Vegas look like an old folk's weekly Bingo game. You'd be able to see the neon in western Massachusetts from the space shuttle.

2) Quintuple the cigarette tax.

3) Tax all lottery sales.

4) Beer/wine/cheap vodka sales, the lottery, slot machines, video poker, and off-track betting in every check-cashing establishment. Any neighborhood with a check cashing place has gone to hell anyway; might as well make some money on it.

5) Extra tax on checks cashed and booze sold in check cashing places.

6) Mandatory $5 tax on all cover charges for trendy nightclubs. Those fools will pay anything to be seen in the right place.

I'm sure there's more, but that's a good start.

Posted by: ryan57

"What a tool you are. How's the view with your head stuck so far up your own a**?"

The view is not to bad.....and my attitude would probably be a little better if my department could find several police departments to merge with, raising my salary through the roof (about 92K-95K with a masters) and then go on for the next 17+ years bitching about how it was the worst thing that ever happened to them...sound familiar? Get the F**k out of your cars and stop looking like Jacka**ses so I don't have to go through this sh*t everytime a new Governor comes to town.....Go back to food stamps ..........

I apologize for the posting above......our tempers get the best of us!

Every department has their select individuals who don't do the right thing.....and everytime I seen it when I'm driving by I say "look at this A**Hole, he's f**king it up for the rest us." We all need to start policing ourselves because this idea of "this thing will never pass" is a thing of the past. This Bill needs to be defeated, not just watered down....there are many departments out there that don't have the protection of CBA, City or town ordinances or By-Laws that will be affected by this legislation. So it's important that "All" the Police Unions get together and start bringing the fight to the House, it's going to affect all of us in one way or another....and stop re-electing these Politicians that are constantly bringing this issue up....

Posted by: sdb29

Well- not too bad. 24 pages before things started looking ugly. I know gambling is illegal here in MA, but my money is on this thread getting locked by page 28. Anyone wanna cover that?

Posted by: ryan57

The time limit had expired for the editing of the post and that's why it part of the post....if I could have I would have deleted it.

Posted by: resqjyw0

Quote:

Originally Posted by ryan57

I apologize for the posting above......our tempers get the best of us!

Quote:

Originally Posted by ryan57

The time limit had expired for the editing of the post and that's why it part of the post....if I could have I would have deleted it.

Don't apologize. Now we know how you really feel.

Posted by: Bruschi54

Someone mentioned it many many pages ago.....but has anyone actually printed the 2004 "study" done by the Beacon Hill Institute for Policy Studies (Suffolk University)? This thing is so distorted and packed full of lies it's downright sickening. The "safety" stats and "typical pay rates and savings" stats will make you laugh. The whole thing is a hack sham.

This is the kind of crap that gets spewed to the public and legislature making this a continual uphill battle for us every year. Maybe we should all invest a little money in the truth and present a factual study with real numbers.

We have to think for people on a daily basis. Let's do it once more and save what is for most of us a lifeblood and necessary evil.

P.S. Thanks to all the non police unions out there that have supported us (NSTAR, Verizon, Comcast, etc.) always a pleasure to work with you. Hope to keep doing so....or move to the Carolinas.

Posted by: lawdog671

I don't know about you guys but anyone else who's done details in that tunnel...after several high speed misses and idiots driving inside the set ups...I am DEFINATELY not sleeping or watching movies on a laptop....nor am I getting my ass out of the car because maybe it won't hurt as bad getting hit from behind while everyone's driving through there 20+ over the speed limit....my eyes are firmly glued onto the rear view to watch out for the next lemming who can't understand the miles of set up saying stay out...same people who complain about the details I am sure...may appear inappropriate in there to the passerby and I apologize to you other guys.....but that ain't worth the money you know what I mean?
Off highway..stationary...I couldnt agree more...we are our own worst enemies....get out of car and wear cover...at least APPEAR to be paying attention...slippery slope we're on right now boys ....(and ladies)

Posted by: ryan57

resqjyw0 "Don't apologize. Now we know how you really feel."
Those are my feeling for those who walk on water.....those are my statements and I stand by them....I was apologizing for posting it on the site not for what was actually said....

Posted by: Sniper

Ryan your attitude sucks, and so does your opinion. So much for a brotherhood huh ?

Posted by: ryan57

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sniper

Ryan your attitude sucks, and so does your opinion. So much for a brotherhood huh ?

Then don't sleep on a detail or sit in your cruiser on a detail in my City......this member of the Brotherhood wants to keep his Details......and not give ammo to the Herald and Globe!

Posted by: Sniper

Quote:

Originally Posted by ryan57

Then don't sleep on a detail or sit in your cruiser on a detail in my City......this member of the Brotherhood wants to keep his Details......and not give ammo to the Herald and Globe!

That's fine. So do I. HOWEVER, you don't see me slinging feces at other departments or board members on here. How old are you?

Posted by: bbelichick

Quote:

Originally Posted by ryan57

Then don't sleep on a detail or sit in your cruiser on a detail in my City......this member of the Brotherhood wants to keep his Details......and not give ammo to the Herald and Globe!

Then stop talking on your cellphone and looking like a slob in my State.

Jerk.

Posted by: CJIS

Ladies Get back to the Issue at hand please. Thank you

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bruschi54

Someone mentioned it many many pages ago.....but has anyone actually printed the 2004 "study" done by the Beacon Hill Institute for Policy Studies (Suffolk University)? This thing is so distorted and packed full of lies it's downright sickening. The "safety" stats and "typical pay rates and savings" stats will make you laugh. The whole thing is a hack sham.

This is the kind of crap that gets spewed to the public and legislature making this a continual uphill battle for us every year. Maybe we should all invest a little money in the truth and present a factual study with real numbers.

We have to think for people on a daily basis. Let's do it once more and save what is for most of us a lifeblood and necessary evil.

P.S. Thanks to all the non police unions out there that have supported us (NSTAR, Verizon, Comcast, etc.) always a pleasure to work with you. Hope to keep doing so....or move to the Carolinas.

Good point the study is flawed. I would like to know who sponsored it. I am also tempted to make my own study. Very easy to do now-adays Use a site like Survey Monkey or something and post it to the entire Internet and await responses.

I might just do it.

Posted by: ryan57

"Then stop talking on your cellphone and looking like a slob in my State.

Jerk."

Oh....here we go....after you guys get done saving Massachusetts, can you turn my bread into fish and my water into wine? That would be great...thanks.....

I can't wait until you guys are riding trains!!!

"That's fine. So do I. HOWEVER, you don't see me slinging feces at other departments or board members on here. How old are you?"

I'll be 29 tomorrow actually.....thanks.....remember, my bread into fish and my water into wine.....your the best!!

Posted by: wgciv

My daddy could beat up your daddy.. blah, blah, blah. The way to defeat issues such as this one is through unity and strength in numbers. We should be focused on pointing out the benefits of police details, as was the case early in this thread, not the negatives. Some make mention of feeding the media with "ammo" but fail to realize that they too, through their posts on this site, are in fact feeding this "ammo" to the media. I guess it is easier to point fingers and pass blame. Not everyone is perfect and we know that there will always be that 10%. Not everyone you pass on a detail that is in the cruiser or on the cell phone is a shit bag either. Perhaps that officer is in the cruiser due to safety reasons, i.e. what good would it do to stand between your cruiser and the roadway with vehicles passing in excess of 60 mph? They barely see the cruiser lights before they are on top of you, do you think they will see you under the cover of darkness and blue led's? Perhaps that officer on the cell phone was making just a brief phone call and you just happened to drive by during his 30 second conversation. He may have been having a conversation concerning an emergency with a child at school, a supervisor who directed him to call, or maybe he was contacting the detail Sergeant to request additional detail officers for an unsafe site. I do not do road jobs, my court time is more than sufficient, but I certainly do not want to lose them. But, to Ryan, I appologize on behalf of all the shit bag officers and troopers who could never walk a day in your shoes (according to you, that is all of them).

Posted by: Sniper

Quote:

Originally Posted by ryan57

"Then stop talking on your cellphone and looking like a slob in my State.

Jerk."

Oh....here we go....after you guys get done saving Massachusetts, can you turn my bread into fish and my water into wine? That would be great...thanks.....

I can't wait until you guys are riding trains!!!

"That's fine. So do I. HOWEVER, you don't see me slinging feces at other departments or board members on here. How old are you?"

I'll be 29 tomorrow actually.....thanks.....remember, my bread into fish and my water into wine.....your the best!!

See how ignorant you are? Now you're generalizing again and including me in your holy bullshit. You must work on some 10 man department kid, because if you worked in a city the size of mine you would understand about the brotherhood and know that it extends outside the walls of your PD. IF you are even a cop. I feel bad for your coworkers. I agree about the cellphone use and sleeping in cars. If the shoe fits, wear it but don't come on here and blame certain people or departments for ruining it for you in "your city". Your FTO must be so proud of you.

Posted by: CJIS

I really hope the public does not veiw these past few pages. Not helping the situation at all

Posted by: USMCMP5811

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sniper

Ryan your attitude sucks, and so does your opinion. So much for a brotherhood huh ?

I 110% agree Snipe

Posted by: ryan57

How does one become so Elite? Must be the Cool-Aid they make you guys drink......

Posted by: BIG IRISH

Ryan, there is no need for hostility. "WE ARE NOT THE ONE'S TRYING TO GET RID OF DETAILS". As for people doing the right thing I think it's apparently clear that the people that have been posting for the last 27 or so pages are the ones "DOING THE RIGHT THING". We know that there are a few bad apples not doing the right thing (out of vehicles/un covered/on cell phones/ blah blah blah) and we must police these individuals. So take it easy, check your heart rate, grab a couple of beers and continue to march!!

Posted by: bbelichick

Quote:

Originally Posted by ryan57

Just so we're clear...you're claiming to be on BPD or the MBTA?

Either way, perhaps you could button your uniform shirt up past your belly button, wear a t-shirt underneath it so your chest hair isn't poking people in the eye, shave the 2 days growth of beard and get a haircut so your cover isn't perched on top of your mullet.

See, I can generalize too. Easy, huh?

Posted by: USMCMP5811

Quote:

Originally Posted by ryan57

How does one become so Elite? Must be the Cool-Aid they make you guys drink......

You're not helping your case any Ryan so,

Posted by: wgciv

Quote:

Originally Posted by ryan57

How does one become so Elite? Must be the Cool-Aid they make you guys drink......

Yet another gross display of your lack of maturity.

Posted by: bbelichick

Quote:

Originally Posted by ryan57

I can't wait until you guys are riding trains!!!

Joe-

Not gonna happen, despite your union's best attempts, including lying to the Legislature.

Keep trying, I heard the MSP will test soon!!

Posted by: CJIS

for

. I am very

. Get along and be

.

No in all seriousness take your BS elsewhere. I am not pointing fingers here. I don't care who started it, I do not care what dept. you are with. At the end of the day we are ALL affected. If you clowns want to duke it out like school boys do it in PMs or open your own thread! Some of us are very concerned about this issue. We do not need jealousy and tempers flaring on a Public forum showing we can't get along within our own ranks. Don't ruin the valuable opinions, facts, and other constructive information we put into this thread. I have worked my rear end off trying to get through to the legislature and the public, providing useful facts and information about this subject. I don't need your Crap to screw it up! If any of you have an issue with this PM me. Thus said expect there to be no more comments that are not relevant to the Issue at hand.

For the members of the general public that have been reading this thread, please excuse some of the previous posts that have no bearing on the topic at hand. Like in any profession we have a few people knuckleheads as well. Do not allow the behavior of a few demean the actual facts of the Proposed Transportation Reform Bill. This bill will not save money and will degrade Public Safety.

Posted by: 78thrifleman

Quote:

Originally Posted by ryan57

Sounds like someone couldn't pass the test

Posted by: Sniper

Quote:

Originally Posted by npd_323

for

. I am very

. Get along and be

npd, you are dead on but this is a little much don't you think? apologizing to someONE who MAY be reading masscops ????? I know this is a serious topic but come on.......

Posted by: nirtallica

Quote:

Originally Posted by ryan57

I can't wait either. More funding, details, grant money and patrol area for us.

Posted by: Delta784

Quote:

Originally Posted by nirtallica

I can't wait either. More funding, details, grant money and patrol area for us.

Be careful what you wish for.

Posted by: nirtallica

Quote:

Originally Posted by Delta784

Be careful what you wish for.

I am definately not wishing for it, but, if it happens, I will try and look at it in a positive light.

Posted by: CJIS

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sniper

npd, you are dead on but this is a little much don't you think? apologizing to someONE who MAY be reading masscops ????? I know this is a serious topic but come on.......

If there is one thing I have learned it's you never know who is lurking where.

Posted by: CJIS

Here is the BS the Governors office fed me.

Dear *****,

On behalf of Governor Deval Patrick, thank you for your recent correspondence regarding police details at roadway construction sites. Governor Patrick, along with Speaker DiMasi and Senate President Murray, are working together to create new regulations that will encourage state and municipal officials to rely on civilian flagmen instead of officers to direct traffic at low risk construction sites.

Governor Patrick understands that this is a complicated issue with different sides that affect police officers, their families, the taxpayers and cities and towns of the Commonwealth. He is grateful to have your voice join in the discussion and will keep your thoughts in mind moving forward.

Sincerely,

Constituent Services Aide
www.mass.gov/governor/contact

Posted by: SBU29

I'm new to this forum but I'm an ex NYPD guy that left the city because of horrible pay, now I just got hired in a North Shore town and it looks like I could be fighting the same thing here if the details go away.

I hope for me and to all of you who already depend on the details that people of MA. WAKE UP!

P.S. I'm originaly from NY and my father is a retired truck driver that now works for the state of NY, and some times he has to flag at job sites, and to everyone that thinks people will obey flag men, take it from him they will not.

Posted by: kttref

SB - They don't listen to us, so why would they listen to flagmen, ya know?

Good luck in MA.

Posted by: j809

Today is the big day, call your reps senators.

Posted by: CJIS

anybody have any-word what happened today?

Posted by: SinePari

Sir

As you have on your plate a Transportation Reform Bill, which will allow the Secretaries of Transportation and Public Safety determine the fate of police details, I urge you to consider the source of those pushing the bill, encourage a meaningful study, and increase your knowledge with facts. The newspapers and newscasts love to show the salaries of a select few who choose to work details and overtime during their free time, but many of us support the use of police on road projects which are a significant source of police presence in that municipality.

Contact me anytime regarding this subject.

Respectfully,

****
Worcester, MA

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

****,

Thanks for your e-mail and advocacy. Very clearly the bill which we are debating would have no impact on what a municipality chooses to do.

Once again, thank you for your e-mail. Should you have any additional questions or concerns please let me know. In addition, our district office is open each day Monday thru Friday and I hold open office hours on a weekly basis or by appointment. Please visit my website for additional information.

Make it a Great Day,

Robert P. Spellane
State Representative
13th Worcester District
State House, Room 254: 617-722-2220
District Office, 781 Pleasant St.: 508-799-3948
www.bobspellane.com

Posted by: kttref

Quote:

Originally Posted by SinePari

Make it a Great Day,

Robert P. Spellane
State Representative
13th Worcester District
State House, Room 254: 617-722-2220
District Office, 781 Pleasant St.: 508-799-3948
www.bobspellane.com

UGH...What a douche...

Posted by: Danman1116

Just got a reply from my Senator. All he had to say to me was:

"Please forward your home address and telephone number. Thank you."

Ya, um no

Posted by: kwflatbed

The bill passed in the house and is on Coupe's desk

Posted by: Danman1116

Quote:

Originally Posted by kwflatbed

The bill passed in the house and is on Coupe's desk

this the same one that passed in the Senate?

Posted by: kwflatbed

Quote:

Originally Posted by Danman1116

this the same one that passed in the Senate?

I haven't seen anything in print saying if there were any changes made,
all it said was it passed unanimously and is on Coupe's desk

Posted by: celticsfan

If this gets past the Governor's desk, I assume what will happen now is all those towns and cities who don't have ordinances or by-laws will simply enact them. There is still a lot of pull at the local level, right? My sense is that this whole thing will turn out to be a "paper tiger."

Posted by: Delta784

Quote:

Originally Posted by celticsfan

My sense is that this whole thing will turn out to be a "paper tiger."

It's but the first step down a slippery slope.

Posted by: CJIS

Quote:

Originally Posted by Delta784

It's but the first step down a slippery slope.

I hate Slippery Slopes

Posted by: mikemac64

Quote:

Originally Posted by npd_323

I hate Slippery Slopes

The Quinn Bill is somewhere on that Slippery Slope.

Posted by: Nick

Wednesday, April 9, 2008
Police track down man who fled into Barre woods

By Bradford L. Miner TELEGRAM & GAZETTE STAFF
bminer@telegram.com

BARRE— A search this morning by state and local police, with help from canine units and the state police helicopter, resulted in the arrest of Jesse Matthews, 18, of 144 Gage St., Athol.

Mr. Matthews, formerly of 201 Summer St., Barre, was arrested after a short pursuit near Higgins Energy Alternatives on Worcester Road.

Police were seeking Mr. Matthews on outstanding warrants for vehicle theft, leaving the scene of a property damage accident, breaking and entering at night with intent to commit larceny and two counts of assault and battery.

Police Chief Erik J. Demetropoulos said police were adding charges based on Mr. Matthews attempts to elude arrest and he would most likely be held on bail at either the Spencer Police Department lockup or the state police barracks in Brookfield for arraignment tomorrow in Western Worcester District Court in East Brookfield.

Chief Demetropoulos said Mr. Matthews was spotted about 8 this morning by Officer Keith Nichols, who was working a detail. The chief said Officer Nichols saw Mr. Matthews sitting in a car at the intersection of Valley and Mechanic streets and as he approached the car, the suspect fled.

Police searched the area of Hubbardston Road and Valley Road, but after two hours the dogs had lost the scent and the search was suspended, the chief said.

“He was outside of the perimeter we’d set up when a Hubbardston Road resident who was out burning brush said a person matching Mr. Matthews description was walking through the woods and stopped to ask directions,” the chief said.

The resident called the police, the chief said, and the area was searched without success.

While on Valley Road, the chief said he was approached by a McDonald Oil employee who said the suspect was in the company office on Worcester Road, asking to use the phone.

“We converged on the building, and the suspect broke a window trying to flee and we chased him down outside of Higgins Energy Alternatives at which point officer Paul Magierowski arrested Mr. Matthews and took him into custody.

Chief Demetropoulos said he would additionally be charged with resisting arrest and destruction of property valued at more than $250.

Posted by: msp428

It really gets no clearer than that. As "Joe Citizen" I am disgusted that scumbag polititians are willing to take officers capable of doing that off of the street to put asshats with orange flags in their place, ultimately at a higher price, just to fatten their own pockets.

Posted by: resqjyw0

Doubts raised about plan for civilian flaggers

by The Republican Newsroom
Monday April 14, 2008, 11:10 PM

By DAN RING
dring@repub.com

BOSTON - Leaders on Beacon Hill are laying the groundwork for civilians to replace police officers on some roadside construction details, but critics are raising doubts about whether the move will lead to any substantial savings.

Gov. Deval L. Patrick and top legislators have agreed that the administration will write regulations for using civilians with flags to direct traffic at some less-traveled construction areas.

The administration would have 90 days to write the regulations, according to a bill on Patrick's desk. The intent is to consider using civilian flag people on secondary roads or dead-end streets, not major highways.

Police have long used the details to hike their salaries, sometimes into six figures. Police have defeated several attempts in the past to limit their detail work or supplant them with civilians.

David G. Tuerck, executive director of the Beacon Hill Institute at Suffolk University in Boston, said legislators and the governor may be too beholden to police unions to break the police grip on details at road construction or utility sites.

Under the provision, the regulations would not affect police details if they are guaranteed in municipal contracts or local ordinances or bylaws.

"That takes all the teeth out of it," said Tuerck, whose institute estimated that cities and towns would save between $37 million and $67 million each year by replacing police details with civilians.

Michael J. Widmer, president of the Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation, said he's skeptical of any big savings from the regulations partly because many efforts for change have failed in the past.

"There's an opportunity for the administration to take a stand and do it in a way that is fair," Widmer said.

Widmer said the details are a key part of the agenda of police unions. "Everybody is leery about touching it," he said.

Police make campaign contributions to legislators and the governor and they also work for candidates during elections.

During the 2005 and 2006 election cycle, for example, the Boston Police Patrolmen's Association gave $40,000 to candidates and the Massachusetts Police Association gave $21,875.

While advocates said civilians would save money, police argue that they provide a level of public safety, visibility and clout at road construction sites that would be missing with civilian flaggers.

Richard Brown, president of the State Police Association of Massachusetts, said police are concerned about any changes that could be spurred by the bill.

State police earn $42 an hour on the details, while municipal police earn an average $38.50 an hour.

Brown and Raymond F. McGrath, lobbyist for the International Brotherhood of Police Officers, said they doubt officials will find any meaningful savings through the use of civilian flaggers.

They cited the state's prevailing wage law, which requires a "prevailing wage" for all workers on publicly-financed construction projects. The statewide average prevailing wage for a laborer such as a flagger would be $34 an hour, according to McGrath.

Add in health insurance, union dues and safety considerations and it would likely make little sense to hire a civilian for the work, they said.

"Who would you rather have?" McGrath asked. "An ineffective pole holder or a fully trained police officer with the skills and ability to make a difference at the site?"

Patrick's press secretary said the governor is looking for opportunities to cut costs.

"We stand ready to work with the House and the Senate to determine when it is safe and cost-effective to use flagmen on road-side projects," spokesman Kyle Sullivan stated.

Rep. Joseph F. Wagner, D-Chicopee, said civilian flaggers might eventually be used when the state awards contracts for work on municipal roads or bridges, as long as public safety is assured. Wagner said he hopes it leads to some savings.

http://www.masslive.com/news/index.s...egory=Politics

Posted by: Gil

Quote:

They cited the state's prevailing wage law, which requires a "prevailing wage" for all workers on publicly-financed construction projects. The statewide average prevailing wage for a laborer such as a flagger would be $34 an hour, according to McGrath.

Add in health insurance, union dues and safety considerations and it would likely make little sense to hire a civilian for the work, they said.

"Who would you rather have?" McGrath asked. "An ineffective pole holder or a fully trained police officer with the skills and ability to make a difference at the site?"

That's what most cops have been saying all along but nobody seems to be listening...

Posted by: Delta784

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gil

That's what most cops have been saying all along but nobody seems to be listening...

That's because the "taxpayer advocates" really don't care about saving money. It's all about keeping police officers down, because that would make them feel better about their own unmeaningful lives.

Posted by: CJIS

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gil

That's what most cops have been saying all along but nobody seems to be listening...

Some people just can't stand the truth of the matter. "They" were so sure they would save money. "They" can't stand being wrong.

Posted by: evanbr33

"State police earn $42 an hour on the details, while municipal police earn an average $38.50 an hour."

Not to split hairs here, but again, the media is feeding the public false information...State police earn $40/hr, not sure how accurate the municipal average is. Nonetheless, no big shock the supposed 'cost savings' is turning out to be unfounded.

Posted by: mikemac64

You mean th flagmen won't be making $12.00 and hour. Thats what Michael Wydmere of the Massachusetts Taxpayer Foundation keeps saying.

Posted by: Gil

Quote:

Originally Posted by mikemac64

You mean th flagmen won't be making $12.00 and hour. Thats what Michael Wydmere of the Massachusetts Taxpayer Foundation keeps saying.

Michael Wydmere is seriously misinformed...

Posted by: msp428

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gil

Michael Wydmere is seriously misinformed...

Or a jackass, one of the two.

Posted by: kwflatbed

Patrick will pursue road details reform

By David Kibbe

Standard-Times staff writer
April 18, 2008 6:00 AM

BOSTON — Gov. Deval Patrick said Thursday he will seek to replace police details with civilian flagmen "wherever and whenever we can," as he signed a $3.5 billion transportation bond bill into law with legislative leaders at his side.
A provision of the bill will direct the secretaries of transportation and public safety to draw up regulations within 90 days on when civilian flaggers could be used safely at road construction sites. Legislative leaders have said the regulations would be directed at state projects on secondary roads.

"We are committed to introducing flaggers wherever and whenever we can," Gov. Patrick said.
Critics have said the legislation lacks teeth because it would not affect police details on city and town roads. Police unions successfully fought for a provision that would prevent the new regulations from superseding local law or union contracts that require details.
"We are going to come up with regulations that try to make distinctions for where it is in the interest of public safety it makes sense to use po