News & Events

Massachusetts Laborers’ District Council Letter to Governor Patrick - Supporting Police Details

President Cameron addressing the 2008 Training Seminar on
the recent Training Bond Bill section 10 & 11. For more Photos Click Here.

Massachusetts Concerns of Police Survivor's - Supporting Kids Golf Tournament

Civil Service Commission Issues Written Decision Affirming Refusal
to Allow Results of Polygraphs into Evidence

May 7th, 2008 by Bryan Decker

The full Massachusetts Civil Service Commission has affirmed a hearing Commissioner’s
ruling that a City cannot introduce evidence of the results of a lie detector test. Sandulli
Grace Attorney Bryan Decker successfully argued at hearing that polygraph results should
not be allowed into evidence because lie detector tests are so unreliable as to be (in the
words of the Maryland Appeals Court) “incompetent.” The full Commission has now agreed,
closing the door on municipalities that seek to introduce polygraph results. The Commission
joins other states such as Illinois, Maryland and Ohio that refuse polygraph evidence in
administrative hearings when a public employee’s job and reputation are on the line.

This victory comes as we are still waiting for the Supreme Judicial Court’s decision in the
Furtado v. Plymouth case, which involves whether a police chief can order a police officer
to take a polygraph examination during a non-criminal disciplinary investigation, although
all other employees in the state are protected from such an order. Sandulli Grace submitted
a friend of the court brief in the case arguing for equal treatment for police officers, and
discussing the history of polygraphs as pseudo-science. We’ll let you know as soon as a
decision is issued.

Whatever the outcome in Furtado, it is our hope that Police Chiefs will stop wasting time
and money trying to intimidate employees with the “magic truth box.” Since the results
from any results from any “failed” polygraph tests will not be admissible in disciplinary
hearings, the tests themselves serve no legitimate governmental purpose.

"HOW TO RUN A LOCAL POLICE UNION"

A seminar for Mass. C.O.P. Union Members & Invited Police Associations

Monday, May 5, 2008

Doubletree Hotel - Westborough, MA

Call Mass. C.O.P. Central for Registration  Information: 508-581-9336.
 

NAPO Testifies Before Senate Judiciary Subcommittee

On Wednesday, February 27, 2008, Detective Anthony Wieners, President of the
New Jersey State Policemen’s Benevolent Association and NAPO Executive Board
Member, testified before the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime and
Drugs regarding the role of the federal government in helping communities
prevent and respond to violent crime.  Please find attached Detective
Wiener's full testimony.

Detective Wieners addressed three issues in his testimony that are of
increasing concern to NAPO and law enforcement: the decrease in funding for
vital Department of Justice state and local law enforcement assistance
programs witnessed over the past several years; the additional duties taken
on by local law enforcement agencies in the post-9/11 era; and finally, the
recent increase in crime rates experienced by communities nationwide.  He
called on the federal government to reverse the downward spiral in support
of state and local law enforcement grant programs and to recognize the
important impact having more police on the streets has on crime.

NAPO was the sole law enforcement organization invited to speak on behalf of
rank-and-file law enforcement at this hearing.   NAPO thanks Detective
Wieners for taking the time to address these important issues on behalf of
the nation’s law enforcement community. 

Detective Wieners Testimony

NAPO Achieves Victory at U.S. Supreme Court

On February 25, 2008, the U.S. Supreme Court issued two decisions in favor of the National Association
of Police Organizations ("NAPO") and law enforcement officers across the United States.  First, the Court
granted a motion filed by NAPO in November to allow the group to participate in the case as an "amicus
curiae" or "friend of the court".  The role of an amicus curiae is to make available to the Court the benefit
of NAPO's extensive knowledge and experience in the sphere of law enforcement, particularly as it regards
the challenges and dangers confronted by rank and file officers.  NO OTHER POLICE GROUP WAS
GRANTED PERMISSION BY THE COURT TO PARTICIPATE.

Second, the Court also granted a petition made by the State of Arizona and supported by NAPO, to review
a decision of the Arizona State Supreme Court that, if left unchallenged, could significantly endanger the
safety of officers everywhere.  In the case, Tucson officers conducted a routine "Belton" search of the interior
of a vehicle following the lawful arrest of the occupant.  On appeal, the state supreme court held for the first
time that once the officers had placed the occupant under arrest and secured him, they had lost the right to
search the vehicle they had just removed him from.  This decision contradicts well-settled law concerning the
right of officers to search the passenger compartments of vehicles to locate and preserve evidence, to safe
keep items, and most importantly, to protect themselves.  If left to stand, the Arizona court's decision would
force officers to try to search a vehicle when the accused is still occupying it, or to give up their legitimate
right to protect their own safety by being unable to search once an arrest has been made.  

The next step in this process at the U.S. Supreme Court level, now that that Court has agreed to take
jurisdiction, will be for both parties to file briefs on the merits, and to set the case for oral argument.
NAPO will keep all members informed of the progress of the case.  The case is titled "Arizona vs. Gant" 
U.S. Supreme Court Case No. 07-542.  NAPO's brief was authored by Devallis Rutledge of the Los Angeles
County D.A.'s Office, and Bill Johnson, NAPO's executive director and general counsel.
 

2008 Presidents Dinner Photographs

NAPO FIghts to Restore Byrne-JAG Funding.

MassCOP won the vote to represent the full-time police officers in Town of Lee
(after an unnecessarily lengthy fight lasting 18 months).  Thanks to President
Hugh Cameron, Area Vice President Jeff Coe, and the local organizers Billy
Bartini and Tim Briggs on making this happen.

November 21, 2007 - MassCOP President Cameron Responds to Boston Globe Op Ed Article

November 7, 2007 - Security In the Details

November 6, 2007 - MassCOP President Cameron Responds to Boston Herald Article

November 7, 2007 - Fall River Local #1854  Helps Elect New Mayor - Correia beats out House colleague in race to become city's next mayor

October 15, 2007 - A Letter From MA AFL-CIO President  Robert J. Hayes regarding the bargaining for health care coverage

PRESIDENT HAYES BLASTS THE BOSTON HERALD FOR UN ION BUSTING

To the Editor:

It wasn’t a surprise coming from an employer like the Herald who makes its workers pay
an overwhelming majority of health care costs, but the Herald’s lead editorial on 8/22/07
 “For real tax relief, scrap veto power” had little to do with the problem of today’s suffocating
health care costs and blatantly mischaracterized the role of unions to help solve the health
care problems. No one has done more to proactively and pragmatically help solve the health
care problem than unions. In this regard, the editorial was almost as useless as it was inaccurate.

First, unions do not have veto power in this GIC reform. Unions have the ability to negotiate,
which is a two-way street between workers and employers. Collective bargaining is the only
tool for public workers to be treated fairly on the job. Public employees already cannot go on
strike, now the Herald and Mass. Taxpayers Foundation want them to give up their collective
bargaining rights? It’s as ridiculous as the MTF claiming to be able to predict savings when
even the Group Insurance Commission itself acknowledges it is too early to make any such
predictions.

Second, despite the Herald’s brazen denial of this fact, to get rid of collective bargaining for
public employee unions would be an assault on workers’ fundamental and legally protected
rights.

Teachers, police, fire fighters and municipal workers are always held in high esteem, except
when they want to exercise their rights to collectively bargain. Well people are sick of the
Herald and others cherry-picking which parts of public service deserve respect. The bottom
line is that collective bargaining is the most proven and most important way for all workers,
public or private, to achieve fairness in compensation and benefits for their hard work and
indispensable skills. And it is a fundamental right for workers protected by law that the Herald
and Mass. Taxpayers Foundation should respect, no matter how much they want to fleece the
workers who provide our most important governmental services.

These workers are the very same homeowners and taxpayers for whom the Herald claims to
speak. These workers depend on the very same services that they provide for our communities.
They’re taxpayers who would like to see savings as well. As such, they have been fair-minded
and reasonable in all discussions about health care costs. The thoughtfulness and reason with
which unions participated in the GIC debate is the reason this reform saw the light of day. It’s
the unions who are giving this a chance to succeed, while the Herald and MTF try to torpedo a
law that is barely in effect. Isn’t it more rational to actually let a law take effect before claiming to
know its effects?

Sincerely,

Robert J. Haynes
President, Massachusetts AFL-CIO
389 Main Street, Malden, MA

City Ordered To Pay Union Nearly $300,000 For Breaking Promise

A State judge has ordered the City of Lynn to pay $270,000 to the Lynn Police Association
and its members for violating written promises to reimburse police officers for lost benefits.
The Lynn Police Association (“the union”) is Local 302 of the Massachusetts Coalition of
Police, AFL-CIO and is represented by attorneys from Sandulli Grace, P.C. The decision,
which was issued May 15, 2007, prevents a public employer from exploiting financial
hardship to reneging on negotiated agreements with public safety unions.

The case arose in 2003, when the City of Lynn encountered serious financial troubles.
After intense negotiations with the City, the Union signed a memorandum of agreement
in which the officers agreed to forego certain negotiated benefits for a one-year period.
These voluntary give-backs saved the City about $290,000 and demonstrated the
Union’s willingness to help the city weather difficult financial times. In making this
arrangement, the City agreed that if it obtained any federal or state grant funds,
it would pay back the benefits sacrificed by the Union. When the City obtained a
$270,000 community policing grant, it refused to pay back the benefits. The
Union filed a grievance under the collective bargaining agreement, and Arbitrator
Richard Boulanger found that the City breached the memorandum of agreement
when it failed to apply the grant to pay back the officers for the benefits they had
sacrificed. He ordered the City to pay the Union a sum equal to the value of the
community policing grant.

The City appealed the arbitration decision to the Essex Superior Court, arguing
that a state law designed to rein in irresponsible spending on personnel expenses
by City officials prohibited the City from complying with the award and paying
the $270,000 to the Union. The City also argued that the subject matter of the
grievance was a non-delegable management right and not subject to arbitration.
Superior Court Judge Kathe M. Tuttman rejected every single argument. Judge
Tuttman found that public policy favored upholding the arbitrator’s decision. She
held that the public interest was furthered by enforcing an agreement to reimburse
the Union that had sacrificed negotiated benefits in order to help the City in troubled
times. Judge Tuttman wrote: “Public policy requires the court to hold the [City]
accountable for the contractual obligation it undertook to reinstate benefits that the
[Union] voluntarily conceded in order to accommodate the [City’s] fiscal crisis if it
became possible to do so.”

Sandulli Grace Attorney Susan Horwitz represented the Union in negotiating
the memorandum of agreement and successfully arbitrating the grievance. Sandulli
Grace Attorney John Becker, assisted by Attorney Kevin Merritt, represented the
Union in the appeal of the arbitration award at Superior Court.

Paul Nunziato, Port Authority PBA, Testifies
Before Congress on Collective Bargaining

On June 5, 2007, Paul Nunziato, Vice-President of the Port Authority Police Benevolent
Association, testified before the House Subcommittee on Health, Employment, Labor
and Pensions on “Ensuring Collective Bargaining Rights for First Responders: H.R. 980,
the Public Safety Employer-Employee Cooperation Act”.   Specifically, Mr. Nunziato
addressed the issue of collective bargaining and homeland security efforts, using his
experience, and that of his fellow officers with the Port Authority Police Department, in
responding to the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks.   Congress needs to understand
that collective bargaining rights are crucial to the protection of the health and welfare of
public safety officers and their families, and that these rights in no way represent a
danger to national security.