Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Pax Centurion - May/June 2008

Pax Centurion - May/June 2008

Ratings: (0)|Views: 57|Likes:
Published by bppa_uploader
Nation’s First Police Department • Established 1854

Boston Police Patrolmen’s Association, Inc. Boston Emergency Medical Technicians

Volume 38, Number 3 • May/June 2008

By Jim Carnell, Pax Editor he Pax has learned through our sources at the State House that anti-police/anti-union critics of police details are absolutely livid that BPPA-sponsored language requiring a cost-comparison study of police vs. flagmen was inserted into proposed legislation. The obvious question is, of co
Nation’s First Police Department • Established 1854

Boston Police Patrolmen’s Association, Inc. Boston Emergency Medical Technicians

Volume 38, Number 3 • May/June 2008

By Jim Carnell, Pax Editor he Pax has learned through our sources at the State House that anti-police/anti-union critics of police details are absolutely livid that BPPA-sponsored language requiring a cost-comparison study of police vs. flagmen was inserted into proposed legislation. The obvious question is, of co

More info:

Published by: bppa_uploader on Jul 03, 2012
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial


Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less





Nations First Police Department Established 1854Volume 38, Number 3 May/June 2008
Boston Police Patrolmen’s Association, Inc.Boston Emergency Medical Technicians
Permit No. 2226Worcester, MA 
Boston Police Patrolmen’s Association, Inc.
9-11 Shetland StreetBoston, Massachusetts 02119The advertisers of the
Pax Centurion
donot necessarily endorse the opinions of the
Pax Centurion
/Boston Police Patrolmen’sAssociation.The advertisers are in support of the BPPAScholarship Fund and every patrolmenwho risks his or her life to protect and servethe community.
(continued on page A11)(continued on page A5)
Police Detail foeslivid aboutBPPA-sponsoredcost analysisstudy…
But why?
BPPA receives donation from PAL
(continued on page A11)
By Jim Carnell,
 Pax Edito
has learned through our sources at the StateHouse that anti-police/anti-union critics of policedetails are absolutely livid that BPPA-sponsored lan-guage requiring a cost-comparison study of police vs.flagmen was inserted into proposed legislation.The obvious question is, of course, why would foesof police details, whose arguments for replacing policeofficers with flagmen are based almost totally on alleged cost savings, be opposed to a cost-comparison analy-sis? And the obvious answer is that, as the BPPA hassaid all along,
there are no cost savings.
Under the pre-vailing wage law, flagmen are already
the ratefor a Boston police officer: a flagger/signaler under Mass. prevailing wage law is currently $37.50 per hour – 
ex-cluding overtime, night, weekend, specialty add-ons,
while a BPD officer is $34.00-$37.00 per hour whichnever changes or increases regardless of time, day, etc.etc.The anti-police, anti-union big mouths, represented  by the likes of the Beacon Hill Institute’s/Suffolk Uni-versity Prof.
David Tuerck,
Massachusetts TaxpayersFoundation’s
Michael Widmer,
 Boston Herald’s
Rachelle Cohen
and the hag from Marblehead,
Bar-bara Anderson,
do not want facts interjected into their tirades against police details. They continue to perpetu-ate the myth of “$12.00-$15.00 per hour flagmen,” de-spite glaring evidence and published reports that jobs at$15.00-$20.00 per hour aren’t being filled on Cape Cod and other resort locations because they simply don’t payenough to survive in this area and this economy.In fact, it has been reported that Prof. Tuerck and Mr.Widmer were almost apoplectic when they found outabout the requirement for a cost-benefit analysis. Their intent, as we recently discovered, was to eliminate notonly police details but the entire prevailing wage lawand collective bargaining laws for public employees.Such is the level of hatred that these elitist frauds havefor working people. Quoting our sources: “Why even bother with this [proposal for police detail reform] if you’re not going to eliminate the prevailing wage law,too”!, said the cop-hating “reformers.”For those unfamiliar with Prof. Tuerck and the Bea-con Hill Institute, which presents itself as some sort of  benevolent organization that conducts public-intereststudies and surveys, it is instructive to recall an editorial
By James Carnell,
 Pax Edito
 N YET ANOTHER STUNNINGEXAMPLE of the upside-down,double-standard world police officersare subjected to, the Massa-chusetts Supreme JudicialCourt recently ruled that liedetector tests, are “OK” for one profession – police offic-ers.Quoting from the
“Saying  public confidence in law en- forcement must be protected,the state’s highest court ruled… that police officerscan be forced to take lie de-tector tests during internal in-vestigations into possiblecriminal activity. [The court]ruled against Plymouth police officer 
 Kevin Furtado
, who w
as forced to takea lie detector test by the Plymouth po-lice department. The demand cameafter he was accused in 1999 of sexu-ally abusing two children,
an allega-tion the parents of the boys later said were unfounded,according to court records.” 
Plymouth Police Chief 
then subjected Furtado to thelie-detector test before allowing himto return to work, apparently eventhough the parents of the boys had al-ready admitted that the charges wereunfounded. (Ed.: Furtado took the testand returned to work in 2000, thensued the Plymouth PD.)
“We have
(emphasis added)
in con-cluding that, when the functions of a Police Department are disrupted by
allegations of criminal conduct by police officers
(emphasis added)
the…decision to subject officers to liedetector tests furthers law enforcement objectives,” Justice
 Robert Cordy
SJC: Lie detector tests OK…but only for cops
Inadmissable test OK for terminating police officers
wrote for the court….”
As any fair-minded individual can plainly see, this decision opens thedoor for absolute, total and completedisregard of any rights that police of-ficers may have previously believed they enjoyed as citizens of the United States of America. We are expected toassiduously and vigorously protect therights of others, but we apparently havenone of our own. The SJC
did not
OK the use of the lie detector test for judgesor lawyers – despite their ballyhooed 
That “criminal investigation” rubric now opens thedoor for unbridled and unscientifically-provenuse of the lie detector test by police chiefs on awitch-hunt expedition against their own officers.Or, a suspect could allege that a police officerused “excessive force” during an arrest. A policemanager could now use the excuse of “aninvestigation into an allegation of criminal assaultand battery by a police officer” to justify the use –and misuse – of the lie detector test.
By Jay Broderick,
 BPPA Secretary
ust this week, the BPPA received a very generous donation from BostonPolice Athletic League Director 
Gerry Ridge.
As many of you know,Gerry is a former Boston Police Officer and has been the key component for the PAL program for many years. Boston PAL is an organization that isgeared towards creating and supporting activities for the kids of the city.They have been incredibly successful in their endeavors under Gerry’s guid-ance and direction. Gerry, knowing the BPPA’s commitment to the commu-nity, graciously secured a $25,000 donation for the BPPA to use towardshelping different organizations within the city.
Page A2 •
May/June 2008617-989-BPP
From the President:
Thomas J. Nee
The voter’s wrath?
Nation’s First Police Department 
Boston Police Patrolmen’s Association, Inc.Boston Emergency Medical Technicians
9-11 Shetland Street, Boston, Massachusetts 02119Phone: 617-989-BPPA
Fax: 617-989-2779www.bppa.org
Unity & Strength 
Volume 38, No. 3 Readership 125,000 May/June 2008
Thomas J. Nee,
Executive Director 
Ronald MacGillivray,
Vice President 
John Broderick, Jr.,
Thomas Pratt,
James Carnell,
Managing Editor 
Mark Bruno, Pat Rose,
 Assistant Managing Editors
James Orsino,
Robert Morley,
Vice President 
EMS Officers
Matthew Carly,
 Anthony O’Brien,
Len Shubitowski,
Chief Steward 
Bulk Mailing Postage Paid at Worcester, Mass., Permit No. 2226
Brian Reaney • Tom CorbettJohn Bates • James CarnellMichael Leary • Robert AnthonyBob Luongo • James Warmsley
David FitzgeraldCynthia Beckford-BrewingtonRichard McCormackSteve Parham • Atiya Younger
Timothy Golden • Bill HoganJoe Miskel • Mark BrunoPatrick Rose • Chuck Kelley
Rich Moriarty • Scott YanovichRobert Butler • Greg LynchLou Maderia • Michael McManus
Michael Harrington • Paul NeeLawrence CalderoneGerald Rautenberg • Steve Kelley Arthur McCarthyChris Morgan • Richard Jordan
IDENT. UNIT – John FitzgeraldDRUG UNIT – Paul QuinnYVSF – Timothy Stanton
Richie KelleyChris Broderick
John KundyP.D.S. – Karen VanDyke
John Conway • Dave StewartRichard Brennan
Paul Downey
Jeff Tobin
Hector Cabrera • Francis Deary
Bob Butler • J. Broderick • G. Rautenberg
Bob Butler • Jim Carnell • Brian ReaneyMike Leary • Tom Pratt • Dave Fitzgerald
Tom Nee
Tom Nee • Ron MacGillivray • Brian ReaneyTom Pratt • Dave Fitzgerald
Jim Barry
Jim Barry
Kevin Ford • Patrick Butler
Robert Lundbohm • Mike MurphyRheitha Stewart
Jim Barry
Jim Carnell • Mark Bruno • Patrick Rose
Tom Nee
John Kundy
Dave Fitzgerald
Tom Nee
Brian Reaney • Patrick Rose
1.Opinions expressed in this publication are not necessarily those of the Boston Police Patrolmen’s Association.2.No responsibility is assumed for unsolicited material.3.Letters or articles submitted shall be limited to 350 words and must be accompanied by the writer’s name,but may be reprinted without name or address at writer’s request.4.Freedom of expression is recognized within the bounds of good taste and the limits of available space.5.The B.P.P.A. reserves the right to edit submission and/or include Editor’s notes to any submitted materials.6.The deadline for printed materials for the next issue is JULY 27, 2008.7.Any article printed in this issue may be reprinted in future issues.
Call the
 Pax Centurion
Advertising Staff at:COMMONWEALTH PRODUCTIONS: 781-848-8224 • Fax: 781-848-8041
Tel.: 617-989-BPPA 
• Fax: 617-989-2779
Office Personnel:
Annie Parolin • Annmarie Daly 
Union Printworks
ummer vacation squads haven’t even begun and already the BPPA has beenfocusing on its fall work schedule and the November 4th election season.Certainly picking a new President is veryimportant and the greatest nation on theearth will make that decision on that date.But there will also be another crucial deci-sion made on that date by the voting publicof Massachusetts. A decision that could sig-nificantly alter the way we all live and work today.The BPPA leadership has and is deeplyconcerned with the current trends in theeconomy and believes that it could have asignificant impact on the voting public’smindset and thought process in November.So to our membership I ask, let the con-versation begin here. On the November bal-lot, every citizen in the Commonwealth will be asked to vote on a ballot proposal thatcomes from the Coalition for Small Gov-ernment, led by one-time Libertarian Partycandidate for Governor,
Carla Howell.
The ballot question would phase out thestate income tax by cutting it from 5.3 per-cent to 2.65 percent in 2009 and subse-quently eliminating the income tax alto-gether in the year 2010. The question begsto be asked; should you vote for or againstthe ballot initiative? Should you vote to keepthe Massachusetts Income Tax or end it?You probably want to make an informed decision.As the economy continues to go southmore and more people are worried aboutlosing their jobs, their homes. The price of gas just topped four bucks and foreclosuresare seemingly outpacing the war spending.The silence from Washington is deafen-ing and the voting public is sick and tired of the helpless feeling and they want somefeeling of power. They’re sick and tired of  paying taxes, hell so are we. All you haveto do is look to the many recent overridevotes to understand my point. They are sick of broken promises and they’re looking for answers, some say they are looking for someone to blame.Back in 2002 we were in a similar situa-tion; the nation was in the grips of a reces-sion in the post 9/11 world. An identicalquestion was proposed in Massachusettsand it got 45 percent of the vote. Duringthat campaign and if I might add during anemotionally different time period, propo-nents of the measure promised as I am surethey will again that if you vote to repeal theincome tax, the average taxpayer (3,000,000of us) will save about $3,600.00 per year.They will promise that it will shrink gov-ernment and Massachusetts will be all the better for it. I say that these people have been hugging trees to long. This proposalis so bad that even
Barbara Anderson
isreluctant to support it. If this tax roll back issuccessful it would require the Common-wealth of Massachusetts to operate on thesame level a budget signed into law in 1995(about 17 plus billion). Could you pay your  bills or do your business if you were to lose40 percent of your income? Could you payyour bills and have the same quality of lifethat you have today on the same budget thatyou had in 1995. Of course you couldn’t.Let me give you another visual of what thistax roll back would do to the state revenues.First of all,
14 BILLION dollars
will im-mediately disappear from the state revenues.
Sam Huff,
a private policy consultant whostudies the state budget recently reported that if the Commonwealth of Massachusettsrecently reported that if 
stateworker were laid off that would represent
Your quality of life andwork opportunities areat stake in thisconversation.
on the income taxroll back initiative.Don’t live in themoment, vote your future. The decision isyours and here inMassachusettsit is as important aspicking a President,enough said.
about 5 billion dollars. What do you think happens next, where do you think that theywill find the other 9 billion dollars? Localaid, Quinn bill, pensions, health care, paid details; I could go on and on about the thingsthat affect you. How about a page right outof the Kevin White playbook, police, fireand teacher layoffs. Don’t think it won’thappen, there are still plenty of peoplearound and still on the job that experienced his political lies and nonsense, just ask themhow serious an impact it had on them and their families. Think that it is worth $3,600 per year, I don’t. If this initiative is success-ful, we will all be looking at a serious newway of living and frankly not for the better.Do we want to pay fewer taxes, absolutely, but at the expense of every thing else, noway.So please, speak to your family, friendsand loved ones during the couple of months,and have a factual conversation about thisill-conceived initiative.Your quality of life and work opportuni-ties are at stake in this conversation.
on the income tax roll back initiative.Don’t live in the moment, vote your future.The decision is yours and here in Massa-chusetts it is as important as picking a Presi-dent, enough said.In closing and as always, please be safeout there.
• May/June 2008 • Page A3
Message from the Vice President:
Ronald MacGillivray
Polygraph test 
he Massachusetts Supreme JudicialCourt ruled that police officers sus- pected of criminal activity can be subjectto a polygraph test during the administra-tive investigation so long as there is “an al-leged crime in the picture (not a mereviolation of a De- partment regula-tion).” The Courtsaid it was irrel-evant if criminal prosecution wasimpossible. In thecase before theCourt the officer had been granted immunity.BPPA attorneys
Bryan Decker,John Becker
Patrick Bryant
filed a friend-of-the-court brief and pointed out many incon-sistencies in the decision, the obvious be-ing “that the SJC itself has deemed poly-graphs to be inadmissible in court againstcriminals. In addition, Bryan presented cases from other jurisdictions that havestruck down polygraph statutes as uncon-stitutional where the statute treats policeofficers differently than
other publicemployees.”Our attorneys made a sound presenta-tion that any neutral, impartial body should have reasoned. The Supreme Court’s con-flicted motivation in singling out our pro-fession is disturbing given the total disre-gard for existing principles in making their determination. Just more of the same…
The BPPA subscribes to a publicationthat keeps us up to date with current events both locally and around the country. Theservice is called Labor Relations Informa-tion System. Recent periodicals have con-sistently made mention of the fiscal insta- bility of cities and states across the country.Like most reporting…you hear about theextremes. Declining revenues have been thecause of layoffs and salary reduction withthe word recession being mentioned in mostaccounts. The City of Boston is in good shape but will have to deal with level fund-ing and some cutbacks in State aid.Speaking of extreme…In California, itis reported in the San Francisco Chronicle,that the City of Vallejo’s City Council hasvoted unanimously to declare bankruptcyafter all attempts failed in reconciling their large deficit for fiscal 2009. “The city of 117,000 will owe its police, fire and other union members $79.4 million in 2008-09, but will have $77.9 million in its generalfund according to the bankruptcy filing.”Odd that the school system is not mentioned  but it must come under a different fundingsource. These numbers did not get like thisovernight because of a weak housingmarket…and to no one’s surprise, the cityclaims they can not rebalance the generalfund without restructuring its labor costs.Former Bankruptcy Judge
Lisa Fenning
states there has not been much litigation inthis area…and does not knowwhether the judge will al-low the city torewrite itsunion con-tracts or im- pose terms for salaries and  benefits. Thiswill be closelywatched after what hap- pened in the private sector to both the air-line and autoindustry’s pensions and benefits.
Defining MedicareParts A, B, C and Dand Section 18
Taken from an earlier article…Medicareis the federal health care system that coversabout 36 million people age 65 and older, plus 7 million disabled. It has 4 parts:
Part A
. Covers inpatient hospital careas well as nursing home and hospice care.Most elderly and disabled Americansqualify for Part A coverage which is fi-nanced by a 2.9% payroll tax divided equally by employers and employees.
Part B
. Covers outpatient care, doctor’sservices, durable medical equipment, homehealth visits and preventive care. Part Bcoverage is voluntary…roughly 40 million people are enrolled. Financed by beneficiary premiums and federal general revenue.Current monthly premiums are $96.40. In2000, premiums were $45.50. Individualswhose taxable income is more than $80,000.will pay a higher premium.
Part C
. Medicare Advantage managed health care plans provide health care nor-mally provided by Medicare Parts A and B.They may also provide some other benefits,including prescription drugs, not covered  by traditional Medicare. Part C is voluntary;about 7 million beneficiaries are enrolled.Financed by Medicare and beneficiary pre-miums, which vary among plans.
Part D
. Medicare prescription drug plans come in 2 types; those that just cove prescription drugs and those that cover drugs as a broader managed care benefit.Part D is voluntary. The plans are privateand financed by Medicare and beneficiary premiums, which vary among plans.
Section 18.
In the last negotiations, theCity bargained what is referred to as Sec-tion 18 prospectively...though still notimplemented, this legislation shifts Medi-care covered costs from the City to the Fed-eral Medicare program requiring Medicare-eligible retirees, spouses and dependents(“retirees”) to enroll in a Medicare supple-mental plan. The City recently gave a draftanalysis on how it would arrive at prospec-tive costs for the retirees as compared tothe actives.Retirees would be covered by MedicareParts A and B, plus a City-sponsored Medi-care supplemental plan. Medicare and theCity-sponsored plan must together offer  benefits that are of “comparable actuarialvalue” to the existing plan as per our agree-ment. The City is targeting no more than a2% to 3% variance from the active plans.The Comparable Actuarial Value will notrequire identical benefits and will look ataverage per person payout, not the impacton each individual enrollee.The BPPA suggested that the City ask insurance providers to design supplemen-tal plans for retirees that will provide iden-tical coverage to the active employee plansnegating the need for an actuarialcomparison…use assumptions of actualutilization figures from the City as opposed to the North East…and compare all as op- posed to specific types of service provided in determining the value of the plan(s).Health insurance is going to be a hugeissue for both the actives and the retirees inthe future. Any definitive information will be passed along.Stay vigilant on the details.
Our attorneys made a soundpresentation that any neutral,impartial body should havereasoned. The SupremeCourt’s conflicted motivationin singling out our professionis disturbing given the totaldisregard for existingprinciples in making theirdetermination.Just more of the same…
By Jim Carnell,
 Pax Editor 
ARCH, march, march, march, walk,walk, walk, walk, run, run, run,run…Yes, it’s “ THE MARCHING SEASONagain, that wonderful time of year whenhundreds – perhaps thousands – of “good causes” decide that God himself came downfrom Heaven and conferred upon their be-nevolent organization the unfettered rightto clog Boston’s streets and cause untold aggravation, delay and frustration for resi-dents, motorists and the most forgotten of all… the police.Yes, it’s never the precocious little chil-dren in duck costumes and their obnoxiousyuppie parents participating in the annualBeacon Hill
“Make Way for Ducklings”
march who get blamed by fuming motor-ists who have to drive six miles out of their way to get around the block. And it’s notthe nitwits from Newton or the boobs fromBrookline walking in the annual BostonCommon “Walk against Hunger” who haveto feel the wrath of aggravated residents whosimply want to enjoy a quiet weekend. Nei-ther is it the waddling pig clad in spandexwho occupies the public streets for 3-plushours to complete a five-mile “run” in theannual “Race to Remember” who has toexplain to lost motorists why it’s taken anhour to proceed 100 yards on a Sundaymorning. No, the poor S.O.B. who gets blamed for all of these conundrums is themaligned, beleaguered street-level patrolofficer.There must be a good reason why theWalk against Flatulence or the March of Morons can’t be relocated to Route 9 inWellesley, but I haven’t heard it yet. And I’m still waiting to hear why every year inearly June, on a weekday during high-noonand extending throughout the afternoon and into the evening rush-hour, those suburbanfroot-loops and “eccentric”
(trans.: crazy)
Beacon Hill Yankees dressed in revolution-
The Marching Season, part 7
Q: Who gets blamed for traffic delays and aggravation for “Good Cause” marches?  A: The cops
ary war costumes who comprise the “An-cient and Honorable Military Company”
(“first at the bar, last at the battle”)
get to bring traffic to a standstill why they per-form their pansy-girl routine in the middleof Tremont St.Soon, there will again appear the “Cor- porate Challenge Road Race,in whichman-girls from Boston banks and board-rooms dressed in their underwear trying toimpress their bosses with their athletic prowess will expropriate downtown streetsduring rush-hour while harried patrolmentry to explain to angry residents why they’restuck in traffic on their own street. Natu-rally, the organizers of these marches and the people who issued the permits are never around when frustrated motorists are vent-ing their spleens at the officer having themisfortune to be assigned to traffic duty inthe intersection. And of course, each and every motorist wants- nay,
a per-sonalized explanation of 
is going on,
is marching,
how long 
it’s going to last,
it’s going to be over, etc. etc.
ad nauseum.
My all-time favorite remains the annual“March against Hunger,” in which thou-sands of well-meaning, starry-eyed partici- pants adorn themselves with the mantle of martyrdom and descend upon our fair cityfor the express purpose of feeling good about themselves while deluding them-selves into believing they are helping to feed the poor and downtrodden. (Of course, atthe end of the day, the vast majority willreturn home to privileged, lily-white sub-urbs where they have moved to get awayfrom the poor and downtrodden.) Busloadsof impressionable school children singing“Michael, row your boat ashore” and gray-ing hippies with anti-war slogans pasted ontheir backpacks gather to raise money tofeed the alleged hungry and starving poor folk. Of course, about 100 yards away, roll-
(continued on page A4)

You're Reading a Free Preview

/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->