BOSTON — Beacon Hill lawmakers approved a measure making it easier for cities and towns to replace paid police details with less costly civilian flagmen, part of a $3.5 billion transportation bond bill that cleared the Senate yesterday.
The Senate would authorize state transportation and public safety officials to draw up rules for when it is appropriate to use civilian flagmen instead of police.
Speaking on the Senate floor, Sen. Steven Baddour, D-Methuen, the Senate point person on the plan, said this is the beginning of a series of cost-saving reforms.
"I'm confident this is the first step in reforming the transportation system," Baddour said.
There is no state law mandating that police officers protect workers at road construction sites, but the practice has become commonplace and been fiercely protected by police unions.
Massachusetts is the only state where civilian flagmen are not used, and some communities have labor contracts requiring that police staff construction sites.
It is estimated civilian flagmen would save the state $100 million over 20 years.
Also, a 2004 study by the Beacon Hill Institute, a nonprofit fiscal watchdog at Suffolk University, concluded that municipalities would also save between $37 million and $67 million annually by replacing most police details with flagmen.
With the state facing a $15 billion to $20 billion tab just to maintain its roads, bridges and public transit over the next two decades, lawmakers have stressed the need to approve reforms before looking to raise money to bridge that gap.
"I don't think we can ask taxpayers to fund any transportation projects until we look at common sense ways to save money," Sen. Susan Tucker, D-Andover, said.
However, they faced stiff resistance from the Massachusetts Police Association, which represents local police. They're concerned about losing a valuable perk that supplements their pay. They also contend police are better equipped to handle accidents at road sites and they get more respect than flagmen when pulling dangerous drivers aside.
Earlier this week, members of the police association lobbied lawmakers to reject any limit on details. The AFL-CIO and other union officials also met with legislative leaders to express their concerns.
Baddour said police have overblown what the Senate is doing. He stressed the Senate plan does not eliminate paid police details, and that cities and towns would maintain control over local details.
"There's a balance that needs to be struck between public safety and protecting the taxpayer dollars," Baddour said.
The reform measure was tacked onto a borrowing bill because the funds are desperately needed for transportation projects, and it increases the likelihood of passage.
But Sen. Bruce Tarr, R-Gloucester, said he'd like to see the Senate go further.
"You have to start somewhere," Tarr said. "A lot of observers say we couldn't do these reforms. "This will be a test of the Legislature's ability to do that."
Although the Senate plan doesn't force municipalities to use flagmen, Barbara Anderson, executive director of Citizens for Limited Taxation, said it was an important step.
"The idea of taking on the (police) unions is huge," Anderson said. "It's a huge difference in the way business is done on Beacon Hill.
The Senate also took a stab at curbing Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority retirees' benefits, which over the next 20 years will total $1.1 billion. MBTA retirees currently do not pay for health care. The Senate would have them pay 15 percent of premiums, the same as state employees do.
The MBTA would also study delaying benefit eligibility until 55, the same as most state workers. Right now, there is no minimum age for when MBTA retirees can receive benefits.
The Senate bill now goes to the House, which passed a version of the bond bill earlier this week that did not have the limits on police details. House Speaker Salvatore DiMasi backs the Senate changes, meaning it is likely the bill will sail though the House.
Gov. Deval Patrick also supports the reform measures.
