As reported on the website for Nolan Perroni Harrington, LLP;
The Supreme Judicial Court today (March 7, 2012) issued its long awaited decision in the Quinn Bill case involving the City of Boston and its police officers (Adams v. City of Boston, SJC – 10861–see below link).
The case at issue involved a collective bargaining agreement (CBA) provision allowing the City to reduce Quinn Bill payments in the event that the Commonwealth reduced its reimbursement to the City.

Basically, the Court has held that the Quinn Bill (GL c. 41, Sec. 108L) requires that Cities and Towns only pay 50% of the benefit due, plus whatever amount the Commonwealth contributes by way of reimbursement. The court determined that the employer was only to pay half, plus any amount they receive from the State.

Read Court decision

Will we continue to pay or …

Thought you might like to know.

“Arbitrator Orders Massachusetts City To Return Take-Home Vehicles To Police Commanders

A directive from the Mayor of Methuen, Massachusetts removing take-home vehicles from police commanders has been rescinded by an arbitrator.

The evidence presented suggested that take-home vehicles were given to police commanders since at least 2002; however, the parties� collective bargaining agreement was silent on the subject. Local 17 of the New England Police Benevolent Association argued that this benefit was guaranteed through principles of past practice, while the City alleged that the cars were only a privilege, subject to removal at the discretion of the Mayor.

The case was set against the backdrop of the ongoing fiscal crisis, and a one-year side-letter of agreement containing several Association concessions.

Some six months prior to the Mayor�s order removing the cars, the City and the Association negotiated a one-year contract extension, in which the Association agreed to budgetary reductions in supervisory coverage and training. In addition, Association members volunteered to take unpaid leave and waive their contractual clothing allowance in order to save jobs. In return, the Association negotiated assurances that �no other superior officer contractual benefits or wages shall be garnished upon the successful acceptance of this agreement.� Removal of the take-home vehicles was not proposed during the side-letter negotiation. Six months after signing the side-letter, the Mayor issued a directive removing the vehicles, and the Association filed a grievance.

According to the Arbitrator, the evidence presented by the Association showed that �the vehicles were issued to the employees to enable them to perform the duties required of a superior officer. The assignment of police vehicles to these employees is necessitated by the nature of their positions � to enable them to respond to major incidents whenever they are needed. As such, the assignment of City-owned vehicles to command staff members is of mutual benefit to the City and the individual employee.� Moreover, the Arbitrator held that this practice was mutually accepted by both sides, was applied consistently for many years to the benefit of both parties, and was in effect at the time the current side-letter was negotiated. As the decision explains, �[T]he collective bargaining process is unique in that the agreement is executed in the light of the work environment, and the parties may reasonably expect that existing practices will remain in effect as long as the same working conditions exist.�

Despite the City�s argument that dire economic conditions justified removal of the vehicles, the Arbitrator held that the benefit was a significant enhancement to an employee�s compensation package that could not be removed by unilateral order. Because the Association established that the use of City-owned vehicles by command staff was a well-established past practice, and because it negotiated assurances that no other benefits would be garnished during the life of the existing contract, the Arbitrator ruled that the City�s Executive Order violated the existing collective bargaining agreement.

The City of Methuen and New England Police Benevolent Association, Local 17, American Arbitration Association No. 11 390 00139 10.

Thanks to Gary G. Nolan of Nolan Perroni Harrington, LLP, in Lowell, Massachusetts, who represented the Association in the case and provided LRIS with the text for this article.”

Wouldn’t a program like that make sense. Why are these two Federal agencies not linked? How many computer systems does the country have, or need to manage fingerprint data?

They already work together on some aspects of cooperation.

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) today (06/22/2009)announced that, in partnership with the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), it has met all milestones set forth in a joint business plan announced April 2, 2008, resulting in the elimination of the FBI National Name Check Program (NNCP) backlog.
They have been working on it for some aspects of background checks.

The Integrated Automated Fingerprint Identification System, or IAFIS, is a national fingerprint and criminal history system that responds to requests 24 hours a day, 365 days a year to help our local, state, and federal partners solve and prevent crime and catch criminals and terrorists. IAFIS provides automated fingerprint search capabilities, latent search capability, electronic image storage, and electronic exchange of fingerprints and responses.

The FBI established the Criminal Justice Information Services (CJIS) Division to serve as the focal point and central repository for criminal justice information services within the FBI. The CJIS Advisory Policy Board is a Shared Management Concept Process.The CJIS Division assumed management responsibility for the day-to-day operation of the Integrated Automated Fingerprint Identification System (IAFIS), the National Crime Information Center (NCIC), and the Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program.

IDENT is a program, begun 10 years ago, that had an original purpose of identifying immigration violators and hard-core criminals. You can check the status of IDENT/IAFIS Integration by reading Report No. I-2002-003 dated December 7, 2001.

It would appear that the Homeland Security Office is still working out the departmental integration process for a number of agencies under it’s cloak. The FBI and INS seem to be two of those with integration issues.
Looks like a good Organizational Chart would help this behemoth to move in the correct direction.

Just seems strange, and worthless, to have fingerprints, collected by the officer on the street, having to be sent twice, once to the national fingerprint and criminal history system and ,also, to an agency within the same umbrella group, the INS.

Read more about this in the following article.Illegal Immigration Fingerprint Program, Secure Communities, Has Advocates Up In Arms

Freosion is a term that defines the gnawing away of our freedoms.
This is accomplished not by grand strokes and legislation. The accomplishment is done via lethargy and inattention.
The lethargy is by our elected officials.
The inattention is by us.

The example was clear to me as I voted on Tuesday. I went to my polling location and for the fourth (4th) election straight, the signholders were not allowed their legal right to hold signs under state law.

It is not relevant if you consider them a nuisance or help.

The law is very clear. Under Massachusetts General Laws (M.G.L.) ,CHAPTER 54: ELECTIONS, Section 65: Activities at polling places; regulations; penalties; it is stated “and no other poster, card, handbill, placard, picture or circular intended to influence the action of the voter shall be posted, exhibited, circulated or distributed in the polling place,…within one hundred and fifty feet of the building entrance door to such polling place. ” That distance is reiterated four (4) times in the Statute.

The sign holders were squeezed into an area that was three hundred (300) feet from the entrance.
It was not just my polling place.
I watched video shot during the day at other polling locations.
Each was laid out to maximize the distance from the entrance.

I understand that good order must be maintained and that is the reason that we have police presence.
Our right to be within 150 feet is engraved in the law. The police, who put up the barriers, need to have maps which show the measured distances. (After all, this is not the first time that polling place has been used.) The barriers should be placed correctly each election cycle. It should not require a citizen to approach an officer and wait for a Supervosor to come over, so the distance can be re-measured and barriers correctly placed. The placement should be duplicatable each and every time, until the law is changed.

It is all the small things that we allow our elected and appointed representatives to get away with that erode our freedom.
Ask your officials to follow the rules and regulations they pass. Hold their feet to the fire. Do not accept “status -quo” answers of ” we always did it that way”. Make them write those rules down also.
Ask for access to your government.
Vigilance truly is the price of freedom.

Solomon Decision.

Here is a link to the same article on the Civil Service Commission website.

Decision.
Scroll down the page to :
Solomon, Joseph v. City of Methuen 7/29/10
Click and the PDF will open.

This is the decision mentioned in the following Eagle Tribune articles.

State: Solomon can come back as Methuen police chief

Commissioner Stein on Manzi, Solomon.

Mayor calls Solomon ruling a “political diatribe”.

From (Mayor William Manzi Blog site) BillManzi.com;
Mayor’s Statement Re Civil Service Case.

Read it for yourself.

SECTION 2301, TITLE 5, UNITED STATES CODE
——————————————————————————–

§ 2301. Merit system principles

(b) Federal personnel management should be implemented consistent with the following merit system principles:

(1) Recruitment should be from qualified individuals from appropriate sources in an endeavor to achieve a work force from all segments of society, and selection and advancement should be determined solely on the basis of relative ability, knowledge and skills, after fair and open competition which assures that all receive equal opportunity.
(2) All employees and applicants for employment should receive fair and equitable treatment in all aspects of personnel management without regard to political affiliation, race, color, religion, national origin, sex, marital status, age, or handicapping condition, and with proper regard for their privacy and constitutional rights.
(3) Equal pay should be provided for work of equal value, with appropriate consideration of both national and local rates paid by employers in the private sector, and appropriate incentives and recognition should be provided for excellence in performance.
(4) All employees should maintain high standards of integrity, conduct, and concern for the public interest.
(5) The Federal work force should be used efficiently and effectively.
(6) Employees should be retained on the basis of adequacy of their performance, inadequate performance should be corrected, and employees should be separated who cannot or will not improve their performance to meet required standards.
(7) Employees should be provided effective education and training in cases in which such education and training would result in better organizational and individual performance.
(8) Employees should be–
  (A) protected against arbitrary action, personal favoritism, or coercion for partisan political purposes, and
  (B) prohibited from using their official authority or influence for the purpose of interfering with or affecting the result of an election or a nomination for election.
(9) Employees should be protected against reprisal for the lawful disclosure of information which the employees reasonably believe evidences–
  (A) a violation of any law, rule, or regulation, or
  (B) mismanagement, a gross waste of funds, an absence of authority, or a substantial and specific danger to public health or safety.

  (c) In administering the provisions of this chapter–

    (1) with respect to any agency (as defined in section 2302(a)(2)(C) of this title), the President shall, pursuant to the authority otherwise available under this title, take any action including the issuance of rules, regulations, or directives; and
    (2) with respect to any entity in the executive branch which is not such an agency or part of such an agency, the head of such entity shall, pursuant to authority otherwise available, take any action, including the issuance of rules, regulations, or directives; which is consistent with the provisions of this title and which the President or the head, as the case may be, determines is necessary to ensure that personnel management is based on and embodies the merit system principles.

——————————————————————————–

In Massachusetts I found the following legal reference.
M.G.L. c. 31, §1 defines basic merit principles as follows:
“Basic merit principles”, shall mean
(a) recruiting, selecting and advancing o; employees on the basis of their relative ability, knowledge and skills including open consideration of qualified applicants for initial appointment;
(b) providing of equitable and adequate compensation for all employees;
(c) providing of training and development for employees, as needed, to assure the advancement and high quality performance of such employees;
(d) retaining of employees on the basis of adequacy of their performance, correcting inadequate performance, and separating employees whose inadequate performance cannot be corrected;
(e) assuring fair treatment of all applicants and employees in all aspects of personnel administration without regard to political affiliation, race, color, age, national origin, sex, marital status, handicap, or religion and with proper regard for privacy, basic rights outlined in this chapter and constitutional rights as citizens, and;
(f) assuring that all employees are protected against coercion for political purposes, and are protected from arbitrary and capricious actions.

Maybe this is one of the items that should be included in a pre-hire process for Public safety employees, police and fire. It could remove some of the nepotism claims bantered about. If we keep the results focused on trainability and retainability only, we should be fairly safe from lawsuits about discrimination.

As of 1993, some 83 percent of large city and county police forces used cognitive tests in hiring. (link)

Thus it is not an uncommon practice.

The Wonderlic Personnel Test is a twelve-minute, fifty-question test that can be taken on-line. It became prominent with it’s usage in the NFL draft process but is now widely used in industry.

 The Dangers of Personality Testing

A recent decision out of the federal district court in Connecticut garnered much attention both in the newspaper and television media last month.(link) Robert Jordan applied to the New London Police Department and was rejected for being too intelligent. During the application process, Jordan took an examination to test his cognitive ability and apparently performed too well. Upon his rejection, he filed a claim in federal court alleging that the police department violated his right to Equal Protection under the United States Constitution. The Court ruled in favor of the police department, a decision which to many seemed to fly in the face of common sense.

Depending on what article you read, up to 50% of employers in the United States are using personality and psychological tests to assist in the hiring selection process. How are these tests used and what legal land mines lurk just beneath a seemingly innocuous test? In the Connecticut case, the New London Police Department required all applicants to sit for the Wonderlic test, a cognitive examination. The test boasts objective criteria by which an employer could determine that an applicant is overqualified, will become dissatisfied and ultimately leave the position. It provides a table of recommended scores for various occupations. The recommended range for police officers is between 18 and 30. Jordan scored a 33. The police department admitted that his superior cognitive ability prevented him from obtaining the job. Under a constitutional analysis, the Court found that Jordan is not a member of a suspect class and that there is no fundamental right to employment as a police officer. Therefore, the city had to show only that their action was rationally related to some legitimate government purpose — that employing the exam could be beneficial to their stated goal of increasing employee longevity.

The legal obstacles to administering personality tests may not always be so easy to overcome as in the Connecticut case. An employer’s use of personality tests may implicate a number of legal issues. For example, the federal anti-discrimination statute, Title VII, specifically allows for use of personality testing, but it does so only so long as the test is professionally developed and not designed, intended or used to discriminate. The Supreme Court and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) have interpreted this to mean that only job related tests may be used and they may not adversely impact any minority or other protected group. Therefore, employers who make use of these tests should monitor the ultimate selection outcome to ensure that no one group’s success is affected disproportionately to another.

Personality tests may run afoul of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) as well. Medical inquiries may only be made upon receipt of a conditional offer. The EEOC has stated in its guidelines that a psychological examination is a medical examination for purposes of the ADA if it provides evidence that would lead to the discovery of a mental impairment or disorder. The ADA may also be implicated where an applicant is not selected for a position because of a test and alleges that the employer discriminated on the basis of a perceived disability. Employers should take care to review the tests for content to ensure that all the questions posed are job related and do not gather information that could inadvertently expose the company to liability.

Finally, personality tests may violate an individual’s right to privacy. Personality tests which delve into sexual practices and religious beliefs have been deemed too intrusive and violative of both state constitutional and anti-discrimination laws. A test which seeks to obtain information which constitutes an unreasonable, substantial or serious interference with the employee’s privacy, might contravene public policy and warrant the imposition of liability on the employer.

Massachusetts has not forbidden the gathering of information about an employee’s character entirely, but the Legislature has imposed restrictions on employers seeking certain information from an employee or prospective employee, such as polygraph testing for honesty. Personality tests which test for the veracity of the applicant may constitute a violation of the Massachusetts “lie detector” statute which defines “lie detector test” to include a written examination which is used to render a diagnostic opinion regarding the honesty of an individual. Mass. Gen. Laws Ch. 149, §19B . Conceivably, an examination which tests for other legitimate personality types could impose liability on an employer if one of its purposes is to verify the truthfulness of an employee or applicant.

When giving personality tests employers should do the following to minimize potential risk:

Ask why they are using a personality test and what information they are hoping to gather from it. Is this information related to a specific attribute or skill required for the job?

Only utilize tests that can be shown to be job-related and whose validity has been verified by credible data.

Never base a hiring decision solely on a personality test result.

Obtain an applicant’s written consent prior to giving the examination.

Administer tests consistently across the board.

Maintain confidential test results and monitor the impact on protected groups.

Consult labor counsel when using tests in hiring process.

Remember to read the disclaimers above. This is offered as a discussion point to improve our hiring processes.

Today, front page, is an article entitled,”Still no new reserve police selections in Methuen “.

Quoting from the article,

Bowman noted that Lavigne testified at a previous hearing that police had a “business need” to pick 12 reserves, but almost three months after Bowman’s order came out, the city still hasn’t produced a new reserve list.

McQuillan noted that Methuen had a municipal election in which Manzi faced challenger Al DiNuccio after Bowman’s order came out.

The implication is that the Mayor was busy running for re-election and didn’t have time to obey the order.

The problem with this logic is that the Mayor only has to review, approve and submit to the City Council the names. The process, just like the original, is carried out by the Police Department and the Human Resources Director.

Since the process was concluded once, it should have been a simple matter to make the choices from the original list, as required by the Commission order and forward that to the Mayor.

Since the Mayor continued to conduct City business during the campaign, he could have accomplished his activity and have complied with the requirements set forth.

It would appear to me that Methuen wants to skirt the original order. They will do this by waiting for the new list to come out. They will, then,  specify 12 openings, get the 3 bands and make the selections based on a similar criteria that led them to the Commission order in the first place.

I have seen no activity that leads me to believe that the City has changed any of it’s policies regarding Civil Service hiring.

The Mayor appears to want time to wipe this incident from peoples memories and then next year, they can return to implementing lifetime doles for political friends.

I have advocated that the City ethics code be enforced. This would require WRITTEN notification of possible conflict of interest. None of this verbal, “I told my boss, isn’t that ok?”.

From the Municipal Code; CODE OF ETHICS

B. Definition

4) Personal InterestAny interest arising from blood or marriage relationships (wife, husband, mother, father, child,brother, sister, mother-in-law, father-in-law) or from business relationships (partners or corporate officers), whether or not any financial interest is involved.

D. Conflict of Interest – Financial or Personal Interest

No official or employee, either on his/her own behalf or any family member shall have any financial or personal interest in any business or transaction with any public body unless he/she shall first make full public disclosure of the nature and extent of such interest.

E. Disclosure and Disqualifications

Whenever the performance of his/her official duties shall require any official or employee to deliberate and vote on any matter involving his/her financial or personal interest, he/she shall publicly disclose the nature and extent of such interest and disqualify himself/herself from participating in the deliberation as well as in the voting.

J. Nepotism
No appointed or elected official shall appoint or vote for appointment of any person related to him/her by blood or marriage to any clerkship, office, position, employment or duty, when the salary, wages, pay or compensation is to be paid out of public funds.

The Code has been amended to include the following  (Chapter 4A. Additional Conflicts of Interest):

Section 4A-4A. Family Disclosure

All elected officials shall disclose, in a writing to the City Clerk, all family members, together with their annual wages, who hold a compensated position with the City during the elected official’s tenure of office. Family members shall have the same meaning as immediate family member as defined in Chapter 268A, Section 1, Massachusetts General Laws, and shall also mean all nieces, nephews and cousins of the first and second degree of said elected officials or elected official’s spouse.

B. Violations by Appointed Officials

A violation of this ordinance or Chapter 4 shall constitute good cause for removal under the provisions of Article 9, Section 9-10 of the Methuen Home Rule Charter. The Mayor shall, upon being notified of the potential of a violation of said Chapter 4 or this Chapter, immediately investigate such matter and take such action as may be appropriate and consistent with the above provisions.

No investigation occured, originally.

No one has stepped forth with legislation that would tighten the slight loophole. The loophole that does not explicitely state that all disclosures must be in writing.

Should they?

The City seems to feel that verbal is ok, but the overriding legislation is Massachusetts General Law.

Here is what that states. M.G.L. 268A;

Chapter 268A: Section 24. Disclosures and certifications; form; public inspection
Section 24. All disclosures and certifications provided for in this chapter and made in accordance with its provisions shall be made in writing and, unless otherwise specifically provided in this chapter, shall be kept open to inspection by the public by the official with whom such disclosure has been filed.

This small loophole in our Municipal Code should be closed.
We also need to correct the Veterans Preference. A seperate list only leads to errors. The job application for the City of Methuen should be redone. I recommend that the city copy the format from the State. I did not attach a copy but have a link here. this would put the information required on one form or series of forms and avoid the accidental overlooking of a seperate list.
Small changes can help Methuen comply with the Commission findings.
These have not been taken.
My guess is they won’t be. Though I always am an optimist.

Progress, far from consisting in change, depends on retentiveness. When change is absolute there remains no being to improve and no direction is set for possible improvement: and when experience is not retained, as among savages, infancy is perpetual. Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.

This famous statement has produced many paraphrases and variants:

Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it.
Those who do not remember their past are condemned to repeat their mistakes.
Those who do not read history are doomed to repeat it.
Those who fail to learn from the mistakes of their predecessors are destined to repeat them.

 I was at the Nevins Library doing research and came across this Headline in the Lawrence Eagle Tribune.

Methuen chief

 may be fired

 

 Deja-vu!!!!!.
The headline was from June 6, 1972. I didn’t copy the entire story but the front page stated;

“Police Chief Christopher H. Devine was served notice last night that the selectmen are considering firing him.
Devine is charged by selectmen with violating state statutes governing larceny:
making false written reports: influencing, impeding, obstructing, delaying or interfering with jurors or witnesses and violating town police rules — which are rules Devine was instrumental in establishing.
The selectmen’s action came via a 2 to I vote and with the stipulation that a hearing on the charges against the chief will be held June 13 at 2:30 p.m. in Town Hall.
Whether the hearing is public or private, according to Selectman Wilbur A. Hyatt, will be up to the chief.
The selectmen declined to elaborate on the charges against Devine but have ordered Town Council Americo J. Fusco to deliver a written notice to the chief indicating the specific charges against him and the reasons for his possible removal.
The charges against Devine stem from the selectmen’s investigation of the police completed last fall.
Voting to take action against the chief last night were Selectmen Chairman Daniel J. Dodson and Selectmen Hyatt. Opposing the move was Selectman William E. Moran.
Moran said that he did not find sufficient evidence in the investigation transcript to warrant the chiefs removal.
The motion to press charges against the chief came from Hyatt, with Dodson casting the deciding vote.
Their vote came just one month after investigation inquisitor Atty. Peter B. Gay advised selectmen and the town counsel in a written decision to review the transcript and take action against Devine…”

 Within the same page quarter was the following tidbit. I highlighted the last sentence.

Noucher trial set to begin
SALEM — The Superior Court trial of Thomas H. Noucher, 43-year-old operator of the 400 Club in Methuen who’s accused of conspiracy to violate state gambling laws, was tentatively set to start this afternoon.
That was the work this morning from an Essex County District Attorney’s office source who said that impaneling of the jury would start either today or tomorrow.
Due to be tried with Noucher on the same charge was Hamlet B. Rogers, 57, a Lynnfield amusement company owner.
The charges against Noucher and Rogers stem from the so-called Methuen police controversy which began to draw public attention in the summer of 1970.

 

Is Santayana correct? You have to decide for yourself but I think we need a strong leader who has no internal interest to lead the Methuen Police Department out of it’s current morass.

Time to do a nationwide search for a chief that has no history with this department and can lead it to “Be the Best that They can be”.

We should have done it after Solomon was fired and my opinion has not changed.

I never understood, in this circumstance, how the Mayor could claim the department was fractured and factious, then remove the head of one faction and promote a member of the other faction. How was a move like that going to correct the internal issues? That is strictly an outsiders view of the events. [Isn’t that how Solomon got his Chief promotion in the first place? Anyone remember Chief of Police Bruce MacDougall, Police Department 1975 — 2002]

Lot’s of dedicated officers in need of unbiased leadership.

As always, you decide.

“The Massachusetts Legislature finally may be ready to pull the plug on the police pay boondoggle known as the Quinn Bill.
That’s great news for the state’s taxpayers. But legislators’ plans simply to cut funding for the program will leave many cities and towns stuck with its full costs. That isn’t right.
A better solution would be for legislators to muster up the courage to take on the police unions and phase the bill out over a few years. That would give municipal leaders a chance to adjust their labor contracts so that they would not be left owing police officers millions for the state’s share of Quinn Bill payments.
The Quinn Bill was a 1970 law intended to boost professionalism in police ranks by providing officers with pay increases for obtaining college degrees. However noble that purpose, the Quinn Bill has long since outlived its usefulness. The program now is little more than a pay-boosting scam.
Under the Quinn Bill, police officers receive a 10-percent pay hike for obtaining an associate’s degree, a 20-percent bump for a bachelor’s and 25 percent for a master’s. The increase applies not just to their base pay but to overtime and pension calculations as well.
The payments to officers under the bill amount to about $100 million a year. Cities and towns pay the full cost up-front and are reimbursed for 50 percent of their expenses by the state.
And that’s where the problem is. Both the House and the Senate are looking to the Quinn Bill as a source of savings as legislators try to balance their budgets. The House budget proposal cut Quinn Bill funding to $25 million, about half of the state’s share of the program’s cost. The Senate budget, due out later this month, is expected to eliminate Quinn Bill funding altogether.
That has municipal leaders howling. Many cities and towns have contracts with their police unions that require them to cover the full cost of the program even if the state cuts its funding.
Methuen is among those communities. Mayor William Manzi sent a letter to state Sen. Steven Baddour saying the state should not make cities and towns cover its share of the Quinn Bill tab.
Baddour counters that communities were never required to opt in to the Quinn Bill benefits. Nor did the state force them to sign contracts that left them liable for the state’s share of the funding. Manzi inherited his police contract from the previous administration.

[Note: Manzi did not submit those contracts for approval until August 2007, his 2nd year in office-seems there was time to read and renegotiate if needed.] webmaster note.   
Rather than play a blame game over who is responsible, it would be better to find a way to eliminate the Quinn Bill while giving communities — and police officers, for that matter — time to adjust to the loss of funding. Phasing the bill out over a few years would allow cities and towns to write Quinn Bill payments out of new contracts.
The Quinn Bill began with the best of intentions. But those intentions have gone awry as too many police officers obtain meaningless degrees at so-called “Quinn Mills” just to get the boost in pay.
It’s time to eliminate this expensive boondoggle, but in a way that does not place yet another financial burden on cash-strapped cities and towns.”

Shame that our Legislators are too busy to address this.