PAX Centurion - January / March 2016

www.bppa.org PAX CENTURION • January/March 2016 • Page 21 Commissioner Evans testifies in favor of joint State/Boston jurisdiction in Seaport District By James W. Carnell, Pax Editor O n February 3 rd , 2016, Boston Police Commissioner William Evans testified before the State Legislature’s Joint Committee on Public Safety offering his support for a bill which would give Boston Police concurrent jurisdiction with the State Police in South Boston. As it currently stands, Boston Police cannot respond to calls in South Boston’s Seaport District as the State Police maintain exclusive jurisdiction with Massport. There is no logic or rational reason for this situation to exist. The Seaport District is part of South Boston; always has been, always will be, despite the fact that instead of vacant lots and dive bars, (which the State Police had – in the past – gladly ceded to the Boston Police for “routine” call response – i.e., homeless congregating, bar fights, etc., etc. – when the area was depressed, as some of us still remember….) the area has been developed into Boston’s newMecca for big money development, hotels, and booming business. Of course, when there is a need for fire services or medical help, the BOSTON Fire Department and BOSTON EMS respond. So what is the rational, logical reason for excluding the Boston Police from a part of Boston? Answer: There is none. It makes no sense. It is strictly a matter of power and control by the State Police. Commissioner Evans has already said it is not a matter of trying to grab paid details; Boston already has thousands of unfilled details, the State Police can keep the details, if they really need them. Additionally, liquor licenses in the Seaport District are issued by the City of Boston’s licensing board, concurrently with Massport. As such, State Police are not “agents” of the City’s Licensing Board, only Boston Police Officers are. Again, ask any representative of the State Police why it’s OK to use the city’s EMTs and Firemen to respond to the Seaport district, but its police are excluded. They will not give a logical answer… because they cannot. Residents and businesses pay their taxes to the City of Boston, and NOT to Massport or the State. Residents vote – in the City of Boston (NorthernAve. condo-owners, for example, are inWard 6, Precinct 1.) So other than issues related purely to power and control, what logical reason is there for the State Police to lay claim to this area of the city? Construction permits and licenses are issued by the City of Boston. The upcoming (August 2016) “Indy Road Race,” which plans to use a portion of the Seaport District, is being negotiated and planned – by and large – between the Mayor of Boston and the event organizers. Many years ago, the City of Boston, for lack of a better term, “dumped” stewardship of the property on Massport, during times of economic hardship for the city. At the time the city, apparently, thought they would save millions in snowplowing, upkeep, hazardous waste removal, etc., etc. by having land ceded to Massport for development. The area itself NEVER stopped being a part of the City of Boston. Over the last ten years, development of the area has exploded. Hotels, condominiums, businesses, restaurants, and nightclubs have sprung up everywhere. What were once vacant parking lots have been replaced by glittering glass towers. Those achievements are credited to a booming local economy and a pent-up demand for hotels, offices and residences, and not to Massport’s marketing genius. (Although they’ll certainly take credit.) My former next-door neighbor, Southie’s own Thomas J. Butler (God rest his soul) was a Massport employee in charge of community relations; he would have been a strong advocate for locally-controlled, Boston Police jurisdiction. Indeed, crime statistics for the Seaport area must be next to zero – the BPD doesn’t keep them and the State Police charge news outlets exorbitant fees for “copying and research time” (the subject of an ongoing lawsuit by the media, by the way). But again, it is still a part of the City of Boston . If Boston Firefighters and EMTs respond and Boston issues licenses and permits and the residents and businesses pay taxes and vote in Boston … then please…Mr. State Police…The logical reason for excluding the Boston Police from policing a huge portion of the City of Boston is: ___________________________________________________. (Please fill in the blank line with your answer and mail back to: Pax Centurion, 295 Freeport St., Dorchester, MA 02122) Letter to BPD Office of Labor Relations Deputy Steven Whitman: Re: Pilot Program for Body Worn/ Dashboard Cameras Dear DeputyWhitman, T his is in further follow-up concerning the above-named matter. Although you have acknowledged the Union’s position that any pilot program for body worn cameras and/or dashboard cameras is a mandatory subject of bargaining and that any such bargaining must be part of the main table bargaining for a successive collective bargaining agreement, as explained in our November 19, 2015 letter (enclosed), you appear to be disregarding this position. In your January 6, 2016 letter on this topic, you reference “input from the BPPA,” with the implication that the BPPA has bargained with the Department on this issue and has in fact reached some agreement. This approach will do nothing but inhibit any dialogue on this topic short of formal main table collective bargaining. Although the Department has claimed to understand that the topic of body worn cameras and dashboard cameras are critical issues for the BPPA bargaining unit employees, who will likely be the primary users of any such technology, you continue to be dismissive of the Union’s position that this matter must be fully bargained BEFORE any implementation of any cameras including any pilot program. The BPPA continues to believe that there are many significant issues concerning body cams and dashboard cams which must be fully discussed and investigated through bargaining before there is any utilization of any cameras. Contrary to the claims in the media and elsewhere, such cameras are not a panacea for all the wrongs in our society, but are, rather, a distraction from the real issues of proper support for the men and women of the Boston Police Department who risk their lives everyday protecting the citizens and visitors of the City of Boston. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Respectfully,, Patrick M. Rose, President, BPPA cc. BPPA Bargaining Committee, Susan F. Horwitz, Esq.