President Cameron Responds to the Boston Globe


August 14, 2008
Boston
Globe
P.O. Box 55819
Boston
, MA
  02205
-5819
RE: Response to Globe Editorial

To The Editor:

It is unfortunate, although not surprising, that the Globe editorial board has decided to join in the cacophony of voices calling for “reform” of the police detail system.  More distressing is the premature release of incomplete draft regulations regarding police details by the Executive Office of Transportation.  While the Massachusetts Coalition of Police (MCOP) welcomes discussion of the merits and true costs of police details, the Globe and the E.O.T. seem more interested in claiming “change” rather than in determining where change is needed.

The Globe references the alleged “indulgence” of costly police details,” yet no independent party has determined that replacing professional police officers with civilians will actually save any money.  The General Court, realizing this, specifically instructed the Executive Office of Transportation to “examine the actual costs savings from the utilization of alternative personnel” to police officers before issuing regulations.  While the Globe boldly assumes that replacing police details with unskilled civilians at construction sites will save money, the General Court properly ordered that this be determined before “fixing” any alleged problems.  Regretfully, the E.O.T. has failed its legal responsibility to document what cost savings, if any, actually exist prior to releasing draft regulations.  And the Globe, eager to claim responsibility for “change,” seems not to care.

The Massachusetts Coalition of Police believes that a full examination of all factors demonstrates that assigning sworn, trained police officers to road and highway construction projects provides both enhanced public safety and cost effectiveness.  The M.C.O.P. calls on the Executive Office of Transportation to comply with the Legislature’s mandate and examine cost before finalizing the detail regulations.  We are certain that this examination will prove that police details make cents and sense.  For example, police officers on average on details eard between $ 33.00 and $ 37.00 per hour.  Under the State mandated “prevailing wage” law a flagman must be paid $ 37.45 per hour.  Do we really want to reduce the number of police officers on our streets and pay more for civilian flaggers ?  

Sincerely,

Hugh J. Cameron, President
Massachusetts
Coalition of Police, AFL-CIO