Massachusetts Cop Forum banner
1 - 11 of 11 Posts

· Registered
Joined
·
99 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
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.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
99 Posts
Discussion Starter · #24 ·
Re: Police Detail slashed in transportation refrom pitch

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 :p, 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.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
99 Posts
Discussion Starter · #185 ·
Just in from the Herald:

Patrick backs off talk of curtailing police details

By Associated Press
Thursday, April 3, 2008 - Updated 0m ago

Gov. Deval Patrick is tempering his talk about reducing police details at road construction sites after a backlash from police unions and some local officials.
The Democrat told talk show hosts Jim Braude and Margery Eagen today during his monthly radio show on WTKK-FM that since he talked last week about substituting flagmen for officers on some side streets, he's heard a variety of complaints.
The governor says the more he thinks about the issue, "the less certain I am that we can fix this top down."

Patrick says he will wait to see what local officials want before making suggestions about how they should handle details.
There is no state law in Massachusetts requiring officers at job sites, but its become commonplace across the state. Many communities are looking to Beacon Hill for guidance.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
99 Posts
Discussion Starter · #223 ·
"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?
 

· Registered
Joined
·
99 Posts
Discussion Starter · #324 ·
Seriously, you don't believe the bullsh*t about the Stadium, do you? Wow, and conveniently enough Foxboro PD can get Details on Route 1, a STATE RD when Patriot Place opens...what a
coincidence.:rolleyes:[/quote]

Sorry, still trying to figure out copying the quote thing.

See this is what I love about MSP, "a STATE RD", how about "we should receive all the details because we handle all the calls for service on the roadway". When I say all calls, I mean B&E's, MVA's, DMV's everything. If you are not willing to handle all the calls then don't expect the details, if you handle 1/2 then split then details. I don't handle calls for service on the interstate therefore I don't expect the details.

I work in a town where I work we have three STATE ROADS, two of them we never see MSP, one they occasionally patrol. Not only that we handle ALL the calls for service, but when details are need for the roadway, it is a fight with MSP. They refer the roadway as a STATE RD, therefore they should get the details. Or its is a "moving detail", which if it truly is fine, but to see them 7hrs later in the same place is ridiculous.

I love when they want these details and a call for service comes in MVA, DMV etc. on the evening shift. When we contact the local barracks, because they received the deails, the routine response from the desk Trooper is sorry we have no one available.

Their excuse is "we are running with a desk and 2", what a coincidence my department will go down to 2 and a Sgt., with approx 140 miles of roadway, maybe we might be tied up. If the barracks is always that busy maybe MSP should take Troopers off the CAT team, FBI task Force etc, and put them back on the road, so they will not run short.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
99 Posts
Discussion Starter · #329 ·
Hey Chief,

I hate to break it to you but there are plenty of places in this State where Troopers from the barracks have to assist the locals all of the time, for a variety of calls and to watch their prisoners. We do not get or expect any of the detail/road jobs in these areas. The bottom line is that it bothers the crap out of Foxboro that the MSP is working Route 1 in any capacity.
So if you do not expect to get any details in those areas then why should you expect details on state roads that I patrol??

As well they should if Foxboro PD is answering the calls for service. Answer me this (besides it is a state roadway)why should MSP get details on state roads that locals patrol and answer calls for service??

Bottom line is when our union contacted the troop hq detail/barracks CO office to discuss this they basically say oh well, piss off. Now is that fair or working in cooperation?
 

· Registered
Joined
·
99 Posts
Discussion Starter · #333 ·
Ok, so have your union head contact the MSP and tell us You will no longer cover anything on any State Roads..... of course this reduction in your work may result in no hiring, no details, and possibly a layoff, but the increase for State services will certainly get those RTT's rolling again.
Sorry to have mislead you, we contacted MSP, to notify them that we handle all the calls for service, so if a detail is needed on the roadway then we should get first preference. Basically it fell on deaf ears, I am sure to the enjoyment of the troops.

I never stated that because of this we would not patrol the roadway. We still do, because the MSP rarely does. If no one patrolled the roadway I am sure we would have more MVA's, etc. Basically it is just salt on the wound we we bust our butt and do not get first crack.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
99 Posts
Discussion Starter · #336 ·
Must be Bourne PD! I have no problem sharing details on state roads that you locals assist on but WHERE THE [email protected]@K is the reciprocation????????????????!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! YOU CALL THE SHERIFFS when you need extra bodies to fill details, not us. Is that fair? HELL NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! SPAM should protect our backsides first and formost because no one else sure will.
Hey Tanto,

Let us not assume. No problem sharing?? How about when I book all the MVA's, take all the DMV's, erratics, monitor the roadway, you MSP gets the details, read above about my detail with your detail officers, I see no love there. Should I share with you (MSP)??

You got a problem with BPD take it up with them, stop by when the are working a detail and talk to them, or better yet have someone contact their union leadership. I have and continue to stop on a MSP detail to speak with the foreman when I feel my department should get preference. I even speak with the Trooper to tell them why, sometimes they understand, sometimes they don't. At least I speak my mind and give them the courtesy to speak theirs.

The fact of the matter is, as you stated so eloquently, you are going to look out for your union members I will look out after mine. This conversation is going no where. As I stated before who ever maintains the roadway should get first preference. I do not understand how anyone can disagree with that.

With that being said I am still going to red line it if I hear you calling for help over the scanner.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
99 Posts
Discussion Starter · #381 ·
Police Chiefs had a meeting in Canton today and the discussion centered on Govenor Deval Patrick mission to eliminate all police details and replace them with flagmen within the next two weeks.

The prevailing wage for flagmen is $37.50 per hour and the average police detail is $ 37.00 per hour. Evidently, Mass Highway Superindendent is driving this bill and does not like police.

This bill also takes away the Police Chief's authority to shut down a detail for public safety. The project manager will have full say on traffic control. Once this bill passes we will not get details back.


You must call your union representatives, State Senators, State Representatives, and any other political connections to voice your concerns.
Spoke with someone who has direct knowledge of the resolution. It was filed four days ago, meaning it must be complete within 90 days of filing. There will be at least two hearings related to this topic. Check out EOPPS website or contact them direct to see if the hearing has already been scheduled.
As of right now, the way the current resolution is drafted pertains to only with Mass Highway projects. However, this can change during the filing process.
Your union must have a CBA establishing police details before the resolution is complete. This appears to be the only way to supersede flagman on Mass Highway projects.
Finally, it was in their experience that most of the time these resolutions become complete closer to the 90th day rather than early on. So it appears you might have a small opening to bargain this into your contract.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
99 Posts
Discussion Starter · #639 ·
Unions lose on police details

Patrick moves to tighten rule for work sites

By Matt Viser Globe Staff / September 22, 2008

Governor Deval Patrick has toughened his new rules on police details at road construction sites, outmaneuvering local police unions that were making a last-minute push to get around efforts to rein in the costly assignments.

The governor eliminated a provision that would have allowed local police details to continue at all state-supervised work sites - even on lightly traveled roads where the danger is low - if a local labor contract or municipal ordinance required it.
The governor tightened the rules following a Globe story last week that said local unions were scrambling to exploit the provision and protect the lucrative details for their officers before the rules take effect Oct. 3.
Police officials were furious yesterday when told of the change, saying the new rules will dramatically reduce their ability to make public-safety decisions in their own communities.
"In my 25 years in law enforcement in this state, I have never worked with a more insensitive and arrogant administration that is simply unwilling to listen on this issue," said Arlington Police Chief Frederick Ryan, who is also a spokesman for the Massachusetts Major City Chiefs, which represents police chiefs in the state's largest communities.
"In a labor-friendly state like Massachusetts, it's outrageous that the administration would try to implement a policy that trumps labor's well-established . . .bargaining rights," he said.
An administration source briefed on the plan said the intent of the change was to treat all communities the same, regardless of what type of union contract they have negotiated with their police union.
"The administration decided to remove the provision and treat all communities equally," the source said, speaking on the condition of anonymity because the final plan has not yet been announced. "The elimination of this provision means that in any city and town, projects where the state is the awarding authority would fall under the regulations."
The new regulations, which are final and were obtained by the Globe last week, were filed late Friday with the secretary of state.
The last-minute revision could have a major impact in Boston, where contract language and city ordinances guarantee the use of police details at construction sites.
"You're kidding me," Thomas Nee, president of the Boston Police Patrolmen's Association, said yesterday when told of the regulations. "This is a complete surprise to us."
Mayor Thomas M. Menino declined to comment until reviewing the changes and exploring whether it would be legal for the state to trump local collective bargaining contracts.
"The mayor has not heard anything about these proposed regulations, and would be interested to learn how they'd impact the city," said Menino's spokeswoman, Dot Joyce.
Already, the Massachusetts Highway Department is preparing to place civilian flaggers on state projects early next month.
It will mark the first time police details are replaced, at a lower cost, with civilians to monitor construction projects in Massachusetts, the only state that automatically assigns police officers to nearly all utility and road work sites.
"Congratulations to the governor," said David Tuerck, executive director of the Beacon Hill Institute at Suffolk University and a longtime critic of police details. "The unions will dig in further and do whatever they can on the local level. But they've lost this battle."
The new regulations will place civilian flaggers on nearly all state roads where the speed limit is below 45 miles per hour, as well as on low-traffic roads where the speed limit is higher. Civilians would also be used at sites where barriers are used to block off construction sites on a high-speed, high-traffic road.
Some roads - generally those with speed limits of 45 miles per hour and above, and with more than 4,000 vehicles per day - would still rely on police officers to monitor traffic.
The state currently spends about $20 million to $25 million annually on police details. The new policy will mean annual savings to the state of between $5.7 million and $7.2 million, according to administration estimates.
Municipalities could still allow police details on projects that the state is not overseeing, such as locally funded road sites, utility projects, or private construction projects.
Administration officials have said they hope their new policy will set an example for municipalities, but there's nothing in the state regulations to compel local officials to challenge police unions and make changes on town or city roads.
Completion of the regulations marks a political victory for Patrick, who has overcome an issue that plagued his predecessors. However, the move has generated heated criticism from unions that are among the governor's biggest supporters.
At a public hearing last week on the regulations, Robert Haynes, president of the Massachusetts AFL-CIO, lashed out at the plan, saying it "reeks of political motivation."
Matt Viser can be reached at [email protected].
 

· Registered
Joined
·
99 Posts
Discussion Starter · #782 ·
Details now, Quinn Bill later. I don't think they realize that if they do not fund the Quinn Bill how much of a mass exodus they will hand on their hands.

We were talking about this in roll call, do you think a Chief making 120,000 a year not including the Quinn bill is going to take that much of a hit on their retirement??

If it does go anyone with less than five years should be looking for another job especially with a bachelors/masters.
 
1 - 11 of 11 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top