From the Boston Globe's Scot Lehigh:
And I find it hard to imagine why the mayor or the governor would show any hesitation about having the State Police help in Boston's high-crime neighborhoods. But they both have. Yesterday I asked Mayor Menino why he opposed it.
"First of all, you have different unions here," he replied.
Our city is suffering a killing spree, and police union resistance really suffices as a reason? Good Lord.
Keeping the deep-pocketed unions happy, so as to not negatively impact his electoral concerns. People are being killed, and that's Mayor Menino's "first of all". I guess every man has to have his priorities, however depraved and twisted.
I'm guessing the real rubbing point would be the infighting over which officers would get to make up the mayor's personal security detail.
What an absolute disgrace.
But, wait, there's more.
Meanwhile, citing federal data from 2000, Sam Tyler, president of the Boston Municipal Research Bureau, said Boston ranked third in percentage of full-time officers assigned to administrative tasks, and last in terms of full-time officers assigned to the field.
"We have people who are uniformed officers behind desks when they could be out on the street if they were replaced by lower-paid civilians," notes Tyler.
Come on, Scot. You're not looking at the big picture here.
What's more important? Fighting the urban street violence that's taking the lives of the city's young people? Or maintaining a staff of armed police officers for the purpose of harassing and belittling law-abiding citizens seeking permission from the State to own a firearm?
Seriously, you're not thinking "progressively" enough.