- Sen. Robert O'Leary, D-Barnstable: supportive of the proposal but wants more specifics.
- Senate President Therese Murray, D-Plymouth: backed the change as part of Senate transportation reforms.
- Rep. Demetrius Atsalis, D-Hyannis: “cautiously optimistic” but wants to see specifics.
- Rep. Susan Williams Gifford, R-Wareham: did not respond to requests for comment.
- Rep. Matthew Patrick, D-Falmouth: supports the concept but hasn't seen the legislation.
- Rep. Sarah Peake, D-Provincetown: leaning toward the proposal but wants more specifics.
- Rep. Jeffrey Davis Perry, R-Sandwich: wants more information, but questions the effect it would have on city and town jurisdictions.
- Rep. Eric Turkington, D-Falmouth: wants more information.
- Rep. Cleon Turner, D-Dennis: wants more information.
Update: My rep Paul Donato says he's waiting to see the proposal, i.e. noncommittal. I guess that's what I expected.
Please share widely!
Will admit was listening to Howie Carr this afternoon between innings on a long commute home, and he relayed the story of a state rep from Everett who said he was pulled over 3 times (in 3 miles) this morning, not for tickets, but by lobbying pleas by the police over this issue. Maybe they actually think something can break on this stranglehold once and for all.
<
p>The even better part of the detail scam isn’t even the hourly rate v. flagmen; it’s the guaranteed hours (regardless of how little time is actually spent).
<
p>If DP can actually get something done here, I’ll be impressed (and I’m not being cynical about this comment at all).
Explain, please.
Basically details are not only at an hourly rate, but for a minimum period of time, regardless of time actually spent. So that $30/hour rate quoted can quickly turn to $240, since you have a 4 hour minimum. Can’t remember all of the details (but I’m sure someone on this board has better recollection), but there was an attorney on the North Shore who got in a huge battle because he had to hire a detail, and was ticked in that he had to pay for 8 hours when the actual amount that the cop was there was about 2 1/2. Anyone remember the specifics?
The police officer signs up for a paid detail. The officer gets assigned the detail. The officer gets to the site and they don’t need him/her or whatever. The officer gets a four hour minimum. Say hypotheticaly they wrap the job up in five hours. The officer gets eight hours, well, they are only supposed to get five but they get eight. Now–lets say the detail lasts ten or twelve hours, like paving details in the summer. After eight hours the officer gets time and a half. Ok— the officer wakes up and it is pouring rain out. Hypothetically the department night shift is supposed to call the officer up and tell him the detail has been cancelled, however the drill is that they don’t call and the officer hops in his/her car and drives down to where the detail was supposed to be, hangs around for ten minutes, makes himself/herself seen and noticed for the purposes of identification, then submits a slip for four hour minimum for the inconvenience of a 15-30 minute drive and the day off. If the “state engineer” likes the officer for whatever reason, the engineer may help pad the officers time and throw him her an hour or two OT on the detail. Now just remember that the state police take their cruisers to their details. Sometimes a state police officer will drive 50 miles one way to the detail and the vehicle then idles all day and then the officer drives home 50 miles. Care to guess what that gas bill just cost the taxpayers? maintenance ofn the vehicle wear and tear on tires. The arguement is that they do police work coming and going. Don’t hold your breath. Certainly someone sees something so egregious that they have to do something, but in most cases the offense is ignored.
<
p>Details arose many years ago because police officers were paid a paltry amount and the citizenry begrudged them that. Now unfortunately the cities, towns and state are paying to the piper big time. Governor Dukakis despised and loathed police officers and made his sentiments widely known. He begrudged them every nickel. That’s when the police unions went militant. You can thank Mike Dukakis.
That’s not a justification, just a fact of life.
Hey CMD, remember Charlie’s 10 miler in Worcester?
<
p>10 mile race through the city of Worcester, lasts about 3-4 hours. Dozens of city cops got overtime for a guaranteed 6 hours even if they worked less (which they did). It was a feeding frenzy that eventually cost so much it shut the race down.
Other States look at transportation as a means to an end to push environmental advocacy, pro business economic growth strategies, government performance standards or even
<
p>Does anyone think that after we fight the cops on this that we will actually get into the larger issues. I think not.
<
p>I hope I’m wrong.
<
p>I long for the days Callahan and Highways then a tough Dukakis who pushed for transit over highways or Ed King making Logan a real airport. This is messy stuff but this is what the real issues of transporation are.
<
p>screw the cops, get rid of details. But it’s not really about details it about how we are going to live for the next decade.
<
p>(Yes, Dukakis was a Big Dig advocate but the project was the end result of a grand bargain between environmentalists who wanted the old elevated central artery gone and the business community who wanted a direct connect to Logan from the pike)
<
p>Fight the cops by all means but don’t lose sight of the real goal: a tranportation network that will meet the needs of the next generation.
That is precisely what’s at stake.
when over-qualified traffic control people are used. It seems that the proponents of the change recognize that some cases warrant police presence, but from this observer, the majority of cases do not.
<
p>The money being wasted is not only at the State government level, but at the local government level, and at the many private contractor work sites throughout the State.
They have portable traffic lights, that control traffic one way around the detail site. Must save them billions nationally and that was twenty years ago!!! They work great too. Texas, Calif and all the southwestern states have used flagmen for at least forty years that I am aware of. They don’t even know what a police detail is.
I wonder. Would it be possible, do you think, for all BMG members working together to get their Reps & Senators on the record about ending details?
<
p>Would such an endeavor be worthwhile? I wager that the police unions are making their own lists…
Let’s get on it.
You might see a lot of that….
I quoted a CCTimes article, just pasted it on the flip. Is your rep listed there?
Sadly, that’s the truth and it’s not just on this issue (I have been underwhelmed, to put it mildly, by my Rep Jeffrey Sanchez and Sen. Diane Wilkerson – Boston Ward 19, I think).
<
p>I’ll keep at it. On this issue, and also on stopping the mandated health insurance penalties.
that the police unions, etc. are calling the state house in a frenzy over this – and it is making some state reps think twice. obviously, this is an important measure that will save the state tens of millions (according to charley’s numbers) a year. Obviously, we can’t pass up any savings… so we need to make sure that state reps and senators know that they have some support for this measure.
If details go—you will see the motor vehicle laws enforced by the letter, as well as many other picayune statutes. You will see DUI arrests increase ten fold. If you walk by a bar room and get in your car, you’re going to get locked up. It’s the law of unintended consequence.
It’s happened before.
Bring it on! And dammit start using your turn signals!
You know the one.
If they can arrest more people who DUI, that’s all for the better. The trouble is that the people who DUI frequently get off with a slap on the wrist, or they get off totally scott-free. Regarding the notion that “anybody who simply walks by a barrrom and gets in his/her car will get locked up”, that’s rather far-fetched, imo. Anyone who walks out of a barroom falling-down drunk, gets into their car,
drives off, gets into an automobile crash and ends up killing and/or maiming other people, deserves to get locked up. No sympathy there.
I’m not sure where I heard that but it may boost the argument to plegde those saving to local road and bridge projects?
<
p>
Perhaps I’m the cause of the confusion: Last night on NECN, I think I said it would be $100 million if you included local roads — in fact, it’s $37-67 million, according to the (conservative) Beacon Hill Institute. I think I just conflated the two numbers.
when I hear that term I think of Bechtel and O’Neil and Associates, not police unions.
<
p>while I don’t think cops are needed for telephone repairs there is a safety and efficiency arguments for having authority figures at major construction sites.
but the 1 out of 50 states that requires police details doesn’t dovetail nicely w/ the old McGovern bumpersticker.
In California, where I grew up, and the other Western States, they’ve always had civilian flagmen. In fact it’s often Summer work for High School students, at least in rural areas. I’ve never heard of anyone not respecting the authority of a flagman even though he’s just some kid in an orange vest, but maybe Massachusetts drivers would have different attitudes. If there are demonstrable safety or efficiency benefits that justify the costs, I wouldn’t object to keeping the police details. Otherwise, using civilian flaggers works for the other 49 states and would almost certainly work here as well.
Civilian flaggers are school crossers right now. If civilian flaggers are safe enough for ‘our precious little snowflakes’ why not?
<
p>Interesting that it takes a perceived budget crisis to address this issue, and that all these years it’s not been challenged. Road races in Massachusetts have been bitching about this rule for years. Plenty of decent road races have shuttered because of the cost of the police details.
<
p>Broadly speaking, the problem has been, and will continue to be the public sector unions. Whether it’s police, teachers or municiple employees, there’s no justification for those unions to exist.
<
p>Example: Look at the Quinn Bill and the 10 to 15% salary bump for certain education: life experience credits, diploma mills,…
<
p>Perhaps a recession is a good thing from time to time to wring out some of the crap from the government budgets.
between a school crossing — which is generally at an intersection, in a crosswalk, signed, and/or quite predictable since it’s at the same two times a day 180ish days a year…
<
p>and a major construction site, where traffic lights, wrong way traffic laws, and anything else can be suspended in that small patch of road.
<
p>
<
p>Personally, I’m hoping for a compromise. I do prefer police to the flagmen in locations of major work — in intersections, in downtown Boston, etc. Do we need a cop to “defend” 3 NStar guys in a cherry picker pruning trees along a long stretch of straight road in the countryside? Nope. Ultimately though, you’re going to see more pressure on cities and towns for slightly bigger raises for their cops next go-round though, since after all the cops will be losing income and they’ll seek to regain (some of) it elsewhere. Could this result in a net shift from state expenditure to local expenditure?
<
p>Yeah, there’s a difference.
<
p>There’s also a similarity: you don’t know the risks of either, broadly speaking, unless you are intimately familiar with every school crossing and every construction site throughout the state.
<
p>Take boston for example. The crossing guard’s job is to control traffic “in the vicinity of elementary schools in order to permit school children to cross the street safely when going to or returning from school” and “to report violations of motorists who fail to stop when directed to do so.” Pretty broad responsibility, what with the big dig going on, Boston drivers driving, bicycles and pedestrians.
<
p>There’s no negotiation here. Mass is one state of 50 that require the police detail. It’s a stupid, union mandated activity and just oughta be stopped.
<
p>Whether in a crosswalk, a construction site, the MassPike or a backroad in Richmond, it’s economically possible to train someone, who is not a cop, to do the job cheaper. BTW, the above listed school guard pays $12.83 per hour.
Its not about Police details, it’s about everyone giving a bit to close the deficits. That was the discussion I had with both my Senator and Reps people this morning.
<
p>Neither of them (Pam Resor or Bob Hargraves) has taken a stand their staff knew about yet but they have heard from police officers.
<
p>I recommend every laid off teacher or teachers aid to call and ask; What’s up?
<
p>And I recommend every representative who gets such a call, to reply, “yeah I support reducing Troopers earnings, and I also plan to push for legislation that reduces the amount of State contribution towards teachers’ health insurance, in the name of shared sacrifice.”
<
p>Killing the paid detail thing is a good idea, but it’s going to seriously nick the earnings of a lot of cops.
You mean it may actually bring their gross earnings below $100k per year?
Police take home city’s biggest paychecks
It’ll also create a lot of new, decent jobs across the state – so I say it’s a net wash. It certainly will be an adjustment for many cops – and we’ll have to make sure none of them lose mortgages, etc. over this… but as you well know, it is a necessary thing to do. The fact of the matter is police details (for most of this kind of work) should never have existed in the first place.
Easy money equals big house that you ultimately cannot afford. It is the same trap that many find themselves in now. They got in way over their heads financially when money was flowing.
You can see the proposed legislative language here:
<
p>http://www.pioneerinstitute.or…
<
p>The gist of the section is that the Executive Office of Transportation will draw up regulations governing the use of police details, taking into account a lot of the concerns that have been raised above (location, traffic speed, etc)
<
p>Since they will be regs, there will be a comment period and hearing process.
<
p>If there weren’t so much money at stake, I’d be amused at the gravity that this statute is being given. You’d think the fate of western civilization was at stake.
<
p>Go and read it. Its simply asking EOT to draw up some regs. These regs may, and should, result in the use of police details being curtailed (which I agree with) but this is hardly the end of the discussion.
Does anyone remember when the staties endorsed “H.W.” over Dukakis in 1988?
<
p>I was in the Army, stationed in DC for the Inauguaral in 1989. If my memory serves me, the staties were given the honor of leading the inauguaral parade.
<
p>Also, it seems that the use of police officers on traffic details came soon thereafter.
<
p>I may be wrong, as I served active duty from 1986 to 1991 and so missed what was going on here in Mass. I still seem to recall that the detail work was a form of political payback?
<
p>Bill Weld on Beacon Hill, It’s plausible.
while growing up in North Reading, ever see cops flagging for the DPW.
<
p>Now NR is a relatively small town, so it likely was not done or I never noticed. For sure, in the 1990s and since, there is always a cop with every crew in the road.
<
p>So I concede your point, but offer that it blew up in the ’90s.
Two policemen are on flagmen duty during some tree cutting. As I’m stopped heading west, I see a third cop (in his cruiser, headed east) talking to the first cop. This conversation goes on for about 30 seconds more until there are 3-4 cars now stopped behind the cop. Then, the eastbound cop drives forward and talks to the second cop.
<
p>While this happens, a motorist pulls ahead of the whole line of backed-up westbound traffic and puts himself first in line.
<
p>I see a big smile on the eastbound cop as he finally finishes his conversation and drives past us.
<
p>So, is this why we pay cops to be on detail? They didn’t even give a moving violation to the person who crossed a double yellow to pull to the head of the line. Ridiculous.
<
p>I recognize that there are some truly dangerous conditions that they work in on these details. I also recognize that sometimes the conditions are downright uncomfortable — weather, etc.. But I think everyone recognizes that behavior like what I saw this morning fuels the public’s frustration with police details. In fact, it’s a bit intimidating.
<
p>I will be very glad to see this long overdue reform come to pass. However, I don’t believe there is any current law that prevents a municipality from hiring flagmen instead of policemen to work details. So, it will be interesting to see what real changes take place.
I’m sure that the police officer would have told you that if he was occupied writing out a citation, he wouldn’t have been able to supervise the site …
<
p>I’ve actually seen instances of construction sites with police details where there is a horrendous traffic situation, begging for someone to step in and offer some direction. Officer on duty just stands there and stares into space.
<
p>The big problem here is that these details are bread-and-butter for many cops. Although the basic cop salary is in the $50k range (in Springfield, pre-Quinn bill), these details are an easy way to collect gravy for those who want or need it.
<
p>The disparity between salaries and paychecks would astound many people. I’ll use Springfield as an example.
<
p>According to the Springfield Republican, August 19, 2006, the weekly salary for a patrolman ranged from $871 to $972 in 2007. That translates to $45k-48k per year.
<
p>According to the Springfield Republican, July 17, 2007, the weekly salary for a sergeants is $1,004 to $1,063 ($52-55k), lieutenants is $1,175 to $1,244 ($61k-65k), and captains is $1,375 to $1,456 ($72-78k).
<
p>All figures are pre-Quinn Bill.
<
p>The Boston Herald allows you to search actual earnings for police in Springfield (and several other larger MA cities).
<
p>There were 31 pages of results. I picked page 15 at random, and this is what I found:
<
p>1 sergeant @ $89k (compare to $55k)
2 lieutenants @ $90k & $103k (compare to $65k)
14 patrolmen @ an average of 89k and a median of $90k, low of $70k, high of $115k (compare to $48k.
<
p>That is astounding to me.
<
p>I picked a second page (20) at random, just in case my first page was atypical. That one had:
<
p>1 sergeant @ $79k (compare to $55k)
1 lieutenant @ $103k (compare to $65k)
14 patrolmen @ an average of 84k and a median of $85k, low of $56k, high of $103k (compare to $48k).
<
p>(I screened out 2 patrolmen who made less than $20k as aberrations).
<
p>From what I know of the Quinn Bill, the most it can add to a salary is 30%, so it’s pretty clear that just about everyone is getting in on this gravy in some way. In Springfield, it appears to add 60% to the base salary of a cop — so dropping paid details means something like a 38% pay cut.
<
p>That’s why so much flack is being generated on this one.
I think it was a small shack somewhere in central Massachusetts with a printing press that spit out phony masters degrees for police officers. The biggest joke in the 20th century. Many police officers will tell you with a straight face that they have a masters degree. If it is Anna Maria, feel free to laugh in their face.
When I lived in Worcester, it was a teacher’s college…
But once upon a time, not many years ago, I sat in the Worcester Police Station to type a term paper for a Masters student at Anna Maria. The paper was truly pitiful. Grammar, structure and composition of an elementary student, but it was a Masters student. Anna Maria turned into a Quinn Bill Diploma Mill.
That does come out to alot, but i dont begrudge them that.
For the days that they do have it easy there are the late night routine traffic stops that could easly get them seriously injured or worst case senario killed.
Im a bit torn over this one. Not every detail warrants police presence, but there is a benefit to having police stationed at different areas whether they say they can responed to something in the vicinity or not.
Have you seen the memorial to Massachusetts fisherman lost at sea from/in/ and around Gloucester? I believe the number is in excess of TEN THOUSAND! Now that is a dangerous occupation. Jerry Williams said years ago, “The
only stress a police officer has is when he finds out that his wife and his girlfriend are both pregnant.” Not entirely accurate, but says a lot.
called me to say that he’s generally supportive, though of course would like to see the actual language of the bill. He agrees that this appears to be part of a sensible “good government” strategy.
<
p>Thanks to Rep. Garballey for the quick and personal response!
We rely on police details for our collective safety.
<
p>Look at how many arrests are made by alert police men and women.
<
p>Look at the relative smooth flow of traffic.
<
p>Plus, flagmen will actually cost MORE due to the prevailing wage laws in MA.
<
p>Wake up all you anti-labot snobs!
How many arrests are made by “alert police men and women” while working details, that otherwise wouldn’t have been made?
<
p>Is traffic flow in MA at construction sites better than at comparable sites in other states where flagmen are used?
<
p>Can you back up your claim that prevailing wage laws will result in flagmen being paid better than cops on details?
<
p>If your points are accurate, they’re important additions to the discussion. But if you’re making them up, well, you’re making them up. Let’s see some links.
<
p>Although hearsay, I can report a number of hook-ups and exchanged phone numbers between motorist to troopers at details, but alas, no links.
<
p>Babes just love highly paid uniforms I reckon.
This should be interesting. I would venture to guess that the numbers will be astronomically inverse.
While road construction is one thing from a local budget standpoint, but NStar and Verizon and the like foot the bill to the local municipality for details on their road-stopping efforts (just like the afore-mentioned road races).
but its also not like they are going to lower their rates becasue we’re saving them money now
… the utilities, but construction bids should see a savings if there is any competition.
by the Department of Public Utiliites, not the gas and electric distribution companies.
<
p>Rate-setting is a public, adversarial process in which the Attorney General regularly intervenes on behalf of ratepayers.
<
p>No guarantees in life, but if everyone does their jobs as they are supposed to, the savings will be reflected in rates.
Boston.Com has the Governor offering a more measured and real approach and acknowledging the safety issues that police details address.
<
p>http://www.boston.com/news/loc…
<
p>
“I am going to throw the state under the bus!”
<
p>Please excuse my French, but you gotta me shit’n me. This bufffoon in the corner office has got to go. Is his wife able and willing to take over? I’m speechless. Is there anything this man is not afraid of? I don’t believe it.
I really don’t believe it. You folks that campaigned and voted for this guy—I feel your embarrassment. I actually have empathy and feel sorry for you. I’m incredulous. This is not possible, Finally, DiMasi and Murray come together with and olive branch to bail this guy out and he stabs them and the taxpayers in the back. This is the icing on the cake!
My Senator, Scott Brown, says he’s just now being briefed on it, and understands there might be some sort of tiered compromise with staties detailing some projects, townies others, flagmen detailing projects on dead-end roads and other minor things. Points out that there’s no LAW stating that police officers have to provide details for road construction. Correct, but we’re talking about regulations and practices, not laws, and the Leg controls the parameters of regulations, right?
Emailed last night and got a message from the senator on my answering machine this afternoon. Appreciated the prompt response.
<
p>Here are the parameters the legislature has set (from the Boston Globe):
<
p>http://www.boston.com/news/loc…
<
p>
He’s cruising to becoming a one-term wonder, and I say this as a (formerly?) strong supporter of his… Is Murray ready to go?
<
p>I can’t believe Deval is afraid of this not-very-powerful group THAT OPPOSED HIM IN THE ELECTION. If you can’t stick it to your political enemies after a 20-point win, what is the point of winning??? I’m voting for Grace Ross next time… as my 90-yr-old neighbor said of Hillary, “at least she’s got balls…” (true story)
<
p>I wrote to Wallace and Hart. No word on their position on this…
Which political enemies are you referring to?
<
p>Police unions and chiefs endorsed Deval as I recall, amidst much controversy about his public safety bona fides and his advocacy for certain notorious criminal defendant(s). These endorsements, I believe, were key to stabilizing and improving his candidacy.
It’s unfortunate when progressives view that labor – as hard as it is for some to believe even police unions qualify as labor – is the enemy and legislatively overrides of local collective bargaining agreements somehow represent a victory for better government and working people. This sentiment is similar to the discussions of posters in the past who sought to revoke basic health care benefits from the public sector bargaining table. Or similar to the revulsion expressed by people appalled by the Boston Police’s flexing of political and economic muscle during negotiations for a new contract at the time of the 2004 Convention.
<
p>Reforming the details along the lines bandied about by some advocates will not create any material benefit for taxpayers (the conservative think-tank reports ignore prevailing wage and benefits paid to flag-men), except for the private contractors and utility companies who perform construction work. Are these savings likely to be returned from the corporate executives to the taxpayers? To make matters worse, the outsourcing of details will force police unions to bargain for higher wages from local municipalities, thus reducing any arguable savings touted by reformists. And the taxpayers will receive less public safety services, with fewer officers on the road.
<
p>What’s next? Wage and hour legislation, including prevailing wage and the Fair Labor Standard Act’s guarantees of a minimum wage and overtime after 40 hours a week, also drive up construction costs. Likewise, unemployment insurance and Workers Compensation costs taxpayers money. Should we get rid of those hard-fought protections as well?
<
p>This last-minute “reform” legislation seems an effort to paper over the inadequates of true legislative change in the past few years, instead of portending some new environment of “beating the special interests.”
<
p>Liberals love labor. But go figure. One pretty face with good oratory skills, and they drop you like you were their sister at the prom.
That saddle the hard working citizens of Massachusetts with an expense that most of our fellow Americans manage just fine without.
<
p>That’s what’s at stake. The rest is just speculation.
Senate President Murray’s proposal on police details is a moderate but
important part of a broader group of reforms we need to make in order
to repair our transportation system.
<
p>This legislation is more moderate than it seems from the public debate
on both sides. It does not eliminate police details. When you hear
that 49 other states use flagmen, remember that 49 other states use
police details as well.
<
p>Instead, the Secretaries of Transportation and Public Safety will
issue regulations, after public hearings, on what kind of supervision
is needed in different situations. The regulations would apply to
state police. They would give guidance to local officials, who have
always had, and will continue to have the right to decide when to use
police details and when other measures such as flagmen or even orange
cones would be sufficient. These guidelines would not supersede local
ordinances and contracts.
<
p>There will also be a study of the costs of details, and of any actual
savings from changes.
<
p>There will be major savings from less visible reforms requiring
increased oversight, reporting and transparency for all state
projects.
<
p>It is very important that we take major steps to save money — and
that people SEE that we’re willing to save money — even when it is
controversial, before they trust us to spend the billions we will need
to repair our roads and bridges, and expand public transit.
<
p>Transportation is one of the central responsibilities of government.
It’s not just important to us as individuals: it’s a crucial
investment in our economic future.
With limited resources, we can’t just continue doing everything the
same way we have been and expect to be able to afford to provide for
the infrastructure we all depend on every day.