To the editor:
I felt you did the citizens of Haverhill a disservice with your recent editorial entitled "Mayor caves in on police details," which contained factual errors and creates a false impression about the most recent contract between the Haverhill Police Patrolmen's Association and the city.
You seem confused about which costs are actually "fixed costs" that continue to wreak fiscal havoc with the city of Haverhill's budget, as well as those of other Massachusetts cities and towns. Those troublesome fixed costs are mainly health care and pension costs which have been skyrocketing beyond any increase in municipal revenues.
Your assertion that somehow police private details are a "fixed cost" for the city is incorrect. Police details have nothing whatsoever to do with Haverhill's fiscal problems. In fact, recent practices instituted by Mayor James Fiorentini curbing the use of police details for city projects have saved Haverhill taxpayers hundreds of thousands of dollars. These ongoing savings are incorporated in the new contract with the police officers. So, in fact, the city gave nothing away, but enshrined a significant recurring savings to the city for which the union ceded any right to take the issue to arbitration.
While anyone can look through every contract with every collective bargaining group, public and private, and find sections which they would prefer to just eliminate, the collective bargaining process doesn't quite work like that. There is always give and take to the process. These contracts contain provisions which long preceded this mayor. The mayor has to make choices about which priorities to pursue. In this case, here is what the mayor pursued and got: continued significant savings in the city's health care costs and significant savings forever in the elimination of police road details for city of Haverhill projects.
You suggest that the city abandon the mayor's long-term efforts to rein in health insurance and pension costs for the sake of further reducing police road details. These are the facts: Eliminating police details also eliminates about $84,000 which the city receives as 10 percent administrative costs on all private details. The result for Haverhill taxpayers would be a net loss.
City Council President Michael Hart was correct when he recently said: "You could argue police details are a high expense that we all pay for and that flagmen are cheaper. But it's a better deal for Haverhill taxpayers to get health care concessions and allow the details."
Contrary to the impression in your editorial, there would be no $100,000 savings by eliminating police details, unless you are talking about the savings the mayor achieved years ago by eliminating police details for city projects. The Eagle-Tribune editors have the luxury of suggesting what should be eliminated without feeling a need to suggest what they would be willing to give up to get such concessions from the union.
Mayor Fiorentini is the first mayor who has sought and achieved any significant long-term concessions from city unions. This change in strategy and tactics, which has been fully supported by the City Council, has resulted in the kind of "change" which the city desperately needed, as you have pointed out. He understands that you sometimes have to make concessions to get concessions. The concessions he's gotten have been significant and are one of the reasons why the city's bond rating has improved and the city's fiscal outlook has remained steady.
Change just for the sake of change, when it provides no cost savings to city taxpayers and actually ends up costing taxpayers more money, would be a foolhardy negotiating position for the city to take, and, one that would not serve Haverhill taxpayers.
WILLIAM D. COX JR.
City Solicitor
Haverhill
