The Boston Police Superior Officers Federation

Latest News Headlines & Announcements
Written by William J. Walsh on Wednesday, 14 April 2010

Casino Legislation

On Tuesday April 13, 2010 H4591 ("the Casino bill") advanced in the House of Representatives.
State-wide police organizations were seeking a dedicated funding mechanism to fund police education.  For the time being, that will not be a part of the final bill.
An additional issue that we needed to address was jurisdiction.  Originally, the bill as drafted would have given exclusive jurisdiction to the Mass State Police.  At this point in time the amended bill requires the MSP to enter into an agreement with local host communities regarding jurisdictional issues.
The bill will soon advance to the Senate, then any differences between the two versions will be reconciled in a conference committee.  The issues which affect us have a long way to go.  If there was ever a time to stay in touch with the information, now is the time.  When we ask the Membership to mobilize we need to make our voices heard.  Every police orgaanization in the state was represented in unity.  Led by the BPPA, the BPDBs, MASScop, Mass Police Association, NE Police Benevolent Association, the MA Municipal Police Coalition and the FOP.  Every elected state official is up for re-election this fall. 

Print
 
Written by William J. Walsh on Tuesday, 13 April 2010

Call your Representative

We are asking Members to please call their local State Representative in support of the following amendments to the Casino bill (H#4591), being debated today and possibly tomorrow.
Our amendments filed by Chairman Gene O'Flaherty & Rep. Martin Walsh
are numbered #40-46 Police Career Educational Incentive Funding & Study Commission and # 177-Jurisdiction Clarification, which will keep local host communities police departments in casino law enforcement.  Thank you.

Print
 
Written by William J. Walsh on Thursday, 08 April 2010

Update-Medicare & Retiree Health Insurance

As we have indicated, our insurance consultant Denise Doyle from Stop Loss Insurance Brokerage has prepared the following summary for our Members and Retirees. 
We are asking anyone with any questions to please direct them to Group Insurance at City Hall 617-635-4500.
At some point in the future, the Federation will hold an informational summary on this issue.  The short is that we are advised that no Member, or former Member at least for the time being, will be adversely impacted.

Boston
Police Superior Officers Federation

Section 18a- Medicare Eligible Retirees

Effective 7/1/10

 

The law, effective 7/1/10, will require Medicare-Eligible retirees, spouses and dependents to enroll in a Medicare Supplement Plan.   It only applies to future retirees, who retire after the date of adoption.

However, any retiree who turns 65 in the future and is Medicare- eligible, can enroll in Medicare A&B and a Medicare Supplement Plan.

Medicare Eligibility:

            You or your spouse worked for at least 10 years in Medicare covered employment , and

               You are retired, and 65 years old.

When you retire, confirmation of Medicare eligibility status will be required for both the retiree and dependents.

Exception:  When retirees have a non-Medicare eligible dependent who   must be covered by a family plan.  (i.e. full time student under the age of 26).

What to do:

When turning  65, the individual must enroll in Medicare A and Medicare B, this can be done up to three months  prior to turning 65 and three months after turning 65.  Medicare A does not cost anything , and Medicare B costs $110.50 per month or higher, depending upon yearly income in 2008.  The City will pay 50% of the Medicare B premium. 

                                                         Your Yearly Income in 2008

File Individual Tax Return                File Joint Tax Return                          Part B Premium             Employee Cost

    Less than $85,000                             Less than $170,000         $110.50                                 $55.25

   $85,001-$107,000                              $170,001-$214,000         $154.70                                 $77.35

  $107,001-$160,000                             $214,001-320,000           $221.00                                 $110.50

  $160,001-$214,000                            $320,001-$428,000         $287.30                                 $143.65

     Above $214,000                                           Above $428,000                                $353.60                                 $176.80

Sometimes employee and spouse will pay different part B premiums given the information above.

 

What to do when an Employee or Spouse Turns 65?

-          Determine Status- Retired or still working?

-          Determine Medicare Eligibility- if ineligible, get proof of ineligibility from Social Security

-          If employee is still working, subscriber and spouse should still enroll in Medicare Part A and provide Medicare information to the City of Boston.

 

 

What if?

1.  Retiree ( and spouse) has/have dependent children on the plan they may remain on a family plan but must enroll in Medicare Part A & B and notify the City of Boston (Medicare will be primary).

2. Active Employee with no dependents turns age 65 on August 21 and will retire December 1. – Employee should enroll in Medicare part A only effective August 1st and then enroll in Medicare Part B effective December 1st.   The effective date for the Medicare Supplement plan will be the date of retirement, December 1st.   (there is no penalty for picking up Part B when over 65 because employee is still working between August 21st and December 1st).

3. Employee with spouse turns 65 on August 1st and retires on August 1st (spouse is under 65 and not eligible for Medicare).  Medicare A&B for retired employee should be effective August 1st and effective date for Medicare Supplement Plan is August 1st. The non-Medicare-eligible spouse enrolls in a single plan (usually the same health plan spouse had prior to retiree becoming eligible for Medicare). When spouse turns 65, they enroll in Medicare A & B and is enrolled in the Medicare Supplement Plan.  (as a single).  Both employee and spouse will have their own individual plan with separate ID #s.

 

4. (Not Mandatory).  Retired Employee with Spouse turns 65 on February 1st and has been retired for 2 years.  Spouse is also over 65.  Employee and spouse can enroll in Medicare A & B and opt to move into a Medicare Supplement Plan to save on cost, if applicable, effective February 1st.

 

 

 

 

           

Print
 
Written by William J. Walsh on Sunday, 11 April 2010

Police Unions Unify

Members of the BPPA, MASScop, BPDBS, MPA & the BPSOF have been meeting to devise a strategy to try to get the police career education incentive funded by the Commonwealth.
We have filed legislation to utilize some possible new revenues to be received by the Commonwealth to fund this important benefit.
The Federation wishes to thank Rep. Gene O'Flaherty (D-Chelsea) the Chair of the House Committee on the Judiciary who has been asisting us.
Also, the Federation Leadership wishes to thank BPPA Legislative Agent Jim Barry & BPDBS Legislative Agent Mike Muse for their assistance and expertise.
Another meeting is planned for early this upcoming week with the remaining police organizations in an effort to inform them and obtain their assistance.
If there was ever a time for unity and for police officers and their families to make their voices heard to elected officials, all of whom are up for re-election this year, it is now.  Please watch this space and confer with your E Board Reps for further information as it becomes available.  

Print
 
Written by William J. Walsh on Wednesday, 07 April 2010

Mayor & Others Supports Police Details

Civilian flaggers, promoted as safe and less expensive alternatives to police details, are charging more than police on many jobs and could jeopardize public safety if deployed on low-speed, high-traffic urban roads as union officials fear, City of Boston and law enforcement officials said Tuesday.

“In effect the taxpayer is being asked to pay more to be less safe,” Boston Transportation Commissioner Thomas Tinlin told the Legislature’s Transportation Committee, testifying in favor of city-sponsored legislation (H 4581) aimed at ensuring police details on heavily traveled roads like Dorchester Avenue, Massachusetts Avenue and American Legion Highway. The issue “must be addressed before somebody gets hurt, or worse,” he said.

The Patrick administration did not testify at the hearing, where the flagger rules came under assault, but state highway administrator Luisa Paiewonsky told the News Service in a late afternoon interview that flagger rules had saved the state $10 million to date and have not resulted in any accidents or injuries over 18 months.

“State regulations are “silent” on low-speed, high traffic roads, Tinlin said, and the legislation would require police details on roads with speed limits of less than 45 miles per hour and daily traffic counts exceeding 4,000 vehicles. Timlin said state guidelines suggest police details in such instances, but said a prescribed consultation process “frankly does not exist.”

Boston Police Superintendent William Evans said the Patrick administration, through the state Department of Transportation, was angling to place civilian flaggers on the city’s main thoroughfares despite assertions that police should handle those duties because responsibilities in those locations exceed the abilities of flaggers.

Sen. Michael Morrissey and statewide police groups told lawmakers to consider policy changes that would apply to police details on busy urban roads statewide.  Police union leaders said details allow departments to keep more officers on the streets during a period of budget cuts, with further reductions in state aid expected in July.

Boston Police Patrolmen’s Association Thomas Nee called it an “embarrassment” to pay civilian flaggers $20 an hour more than police to work details. 

Executive director of the Massachusetts Police Association James Machado, told lawmakers they should consider spending on police details as a form of local aid.

Committee co-chairman Sen. Steven Baddour said he was disappointed by reports that civilian flaggers are being paid excessive rates.  Tinlin said flaggers on nine projects in the city had submitted hourly rates averaging $45.82, with some bids exceeding $60 an hour, when police could handle the details for between $33 and $37 per hour.

Baddour urged the Patrick administration to find a regulatory solution to the problem, which he described as "exactly what we did not want to happen when we passed transportation reform" legislation last year.   "It was the intent of the Legislature to save money," said Baddour. 

Classifying flaggers as crossing guards, he said, would help save money. “The governor needs to reexamine the decision he made early on in this process,” Baddour said.

In a letter to Patrick dated March 23, Baddour and co-chairman Rep. Joseph Wagner, who did not attend Tuesday’s hearing, said the administration was missing an opportunity to secure “significant savings” by placing civilian flaggers “at the top of the prevailing wage scale” and called on him to address the situation “immediately.”

“We believe this opportunity for reform has been missed,” the chairmen wrote. “In these difficult economic times, we simply cannot afford to pay flaggers at a wage that is nearly equal to police officers.”

Rep. Martin Walsh, and Boston City Councilors Stephen Murphy and John Connolly also testified in favor of the bill, along with representatives of sheet metal and utility workers.

Menino said the legislation had been written clearly, and said the Patrick administration had not implemented the new policies wisely. The mayor said he had spoken directly with Patrick about using police officers instead of flaggers. 

Print
 
«StartPrev12345678910NextEnd»