A year ago, many of us heard Secretary of Transportation Cohen at the public hearing on the Detail/Flagger issue, state that no matter what testimony was presented, there would be flaggers, because there would be a substantial monetary savings to the state. 
No matter what testimony was presented? Why let the truth get in the way of a fabricated story of savings and a political agenda? We also heard Mr. Widmer of the Massachusetts Taxpayer Foundation tout the savings that would be realized by the use of flaggers. Well, twelve months later, we hear from the administration that this is a jobs program (and we have seen who the flaggers are), not an effort to save money. Could it be because there is no savings? A report by the State Auditor revealed no appreciable savings. It may seem obvious on its face to those in public safety that more cops on the street equate to safer streets. But our current administration feels that a flagger lacking in training, equipment and public safety authority at the same or often more money is a better public safety choice. It makes you wonder how sound their judgement was on other issues. A year later, Mr. Widmer further states that laws (prevailing wage) have to be changed to save the money that he originally stated would be saved by just the implementation of the Detail/Flagger regulations. Which is it Mr. Widmer?
Yes, this is the same administration that was going to put 1,000 more cops on the streets. I guess some members of the administration don’t know that we have lost hundreds of sworn members since the last class, and some cities and towns are sending officers to the unemployment lines. Never mind the additional officers that have been taken off the streets by the use of flaggers (Note to the Boston mayoral candidate who thinks taking police off of details puts more cops on the street – you clearly have taken advantage of the change in marijuana laws if you believe this to be remotely true).
Subscribe to TROOPER NEWSPAPER
