The Boston Globe is reporting Governor Deval Patrick will unveil new regulations today that will place limitations on the use of police details on state road jobs.
While the plan will not force municipalities to adopt the regulations, it is the most aggressive step yet to end a cash cow for police officers that critics have long called a waste of taxpayer dollars.
“There’s a crack in the dam now,” said David Tuerck, who is director of the Beacon Hill Institute and has criticized Patrick for not going far enough to crack down on police details. “The governor has shown a great deal of political courage in taking this step.”
It appears that the new regs will place civilian flaggers onto roads that are below certain thresholds for traffic count and speed limit.
The new regulations will probably require civilian flaggers on 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. Flaggers will also be used on sites where barriers are used to block off construction sites on a high-speed, high-traffic road.
Some roads – generally those with speed limits above 45 miles per hour and with more than 4,000 vehicles per day – will still rely on sworn police officers to monitor traffic.
The reactions came in from several different areas.
“On our roadways, public safety has to be the number one issue,” said Rick Brown, president of the State Police Association of Massachusetts. “Putting flaggers out on state highways is going to cause someone to get hurt, whether it’s the flaggers or drivers on those roadways.”
From the other side of the issue the Governor took some criticism.
“I wouldn’t say it’s a disappointment, but anyone who looks at this with a straight face would have to say we’re not going to see much change,” said Jim Stergios, executive director of the Pioneer Institute, a fiscally conservative think tank.
And a comment by Senator Steve Baddour.
Senator Steven A. Baddour, a Methuen Democrat and cochairman of the Joint Committee on Transportation, praised the regulations yesterday.
“This is the first step,” he said. “We’ll continue to look into modifying things as we go forward.”
I think Senator Baddour has it right. The Governor has taken a big first step, and that “crack in the wall” has occurred. It has taken some political courage by the Governor to push forward these new regs, and he deserves credit for doing so. Read the Globe story here.
Bill Manzi.com 
Your Honor,
This is a red herring if I saw one. It’s an attempt to counter the prop 1 arguments.
There are so many caviates and limitation that no thinking person can take it seriuosly. Flag men will have to take a training course, class of project will limit opportunities, and required agreements will all but cancell available applications.
You, the governor, your good friend senator Baddour and the Boston Globe Democrat certainly went overboard praising this turkey.
We save 5 million?
Boy, I can see the meeting between the Governor and the union.
GOV Look we got to give the public something to give them the (mistaken) idea we are saving money.
UNION BOSS My guys are going to be pissed.
GOV If we don’t we may have to live with the consequenses of Prop 1.
UB Ok, but nothing further, capish.
GOV Yah, and you can make a public announcement denouncing this regulation.
UB Ok, but remember Governor, you owm me.
Jules
LikeLike
Jules,
You are so cynical! In the business of politics and democracy everyone has a seat at the table, including the unions who represent their many members. I never expected that the first set of reforms would be all encompassing. I do think that this is progress, and the Governor could have caved in and done nothing. Baddour seemed to me to acknowledge the imperfection but say it is a start. In a democracy sometimes that is all that can be hoped for.
LikeLike
Your Honor,
Cynical? I wonder how I got that way. It does keep me in Starbucks coffee.
We are the only state in the entire nation with this “corrupt” legislation. You are right about evryone having a right at the table of compromise. I just don’t see anyone representing the people.
Jules
LikeLike
Your Honor,
Another factor that justifies my cynicism: contractor and union pay rate regulations for state and municiple contracts. Flagmen will require police union wage.
VOTE YES ON PROP 1
Jules
LikeLike
That may be true, but it is not entirely clear yet. The police unions argued that point strongly, saying that the “prevailing wage” would require flagmen to be paid at a rate that would end up costing just as much as police. We will know that shortly.
LikeLike
I would like to speak as someone who has been close to the police detail issue and as a steady critic of the governor on other issues. However cautious he has been in taking this step, the governor deserves enormous credit here. None of his predecessors, for all of their bluster, would do even this much. Instead of bashing the governor on this issue, we should hold his example up before the far more timid state legislature and municipalities (are you listening, Mr. Mayor?) and challenge them to act with similar fortitude.
LikeLike
Yes I am listening. I agree that the Governor has taken steps that others simply walked away from, and deserves credit. At the municipal level we could use a little help legislatively. If the Legislature would bestow on municipal CEOs the same authority that the Governor utilized here in promulgating new regs you would see some real change at our level. If the change must come through collective bargaining then it will be difficult and expensive and politically bloody. Give us the authority and then hold us accountable.
LikeLike
Hooray for Gov. Patrick!
But a question:
Does anyone here know whether he was able to eliminate this wasteful perk (albeit just on state roads for now) unilaterally? Was this purely a regulatory change? I know Speaker DiMasi and Sen. Murray supported the change, but was there actually any legislation to accompany the new regs?
If it was just a regulatory change under the control of the governor, then why couldn’t Gov. Weld or Gov. Romney make the change during their terms?
Interesting point above from Jules Gordon that any action here comes in response to Prop 1.
LikeLike
Your Honor and Dave,
Have you forgotten our “brave” governor and the “leadership” of the house and senate came out not long ago with determination and bravado to end this practice. Remember how they bragged then folded like a beach chair when the unions faced them down.It only to a couple of days for then slink away like sheep.
Note: can anyone tell me why the legislators and the administration are so AFRAID of this union?
Now he offers us an obvious morsel to give the impression he’s handling the issue.
THIS IS NOTHING MORE THAN AN EFFORT TO EFFECT PROP 1 VOTE. IF THE VOTE FAILS THINGS WILL GO QUIETLY BACK TO THE WAY IT WAS.
Vote yes on prop 1.
Jules
LikeLike
I like that Mr Mayor.
OF course my friend Dr Tuerck of Suffolk University is a staunch and consistent anti union, anti government employee advocate and thus has a bias.
To the point HOME RULE ought to mean just that if local officials are held accountable and can be competitive with new ideas and new approaches.
NO UNFUNDED MANDATES!
How much admen money has Methuen collected off detail money. Is Sen Baddour going to advocate for a state appropriation to make up for that loss of revenue to property taxes do not rise because of this decision?
LikeLike
To Marc,
The Governor’s authority was borne out of legislation that required that the administration promulgate these regulations. Prior Governors did not have such authority.
LikeLike
VOTE YES ON PROP 1.
MAKE THESE YAHOOS THINK ABOUT THINGS BEFORE SWELLING THE BUDGET.
IF PROP 1 LOOSES THEY WILL RIGHTFULLY BELIEVE THE PUBLIC DOES NOT CARE AND THE LEGISLATURE IS FREE TO SPEND….SPEND…..SPEND.
Jules
LikeLike