| Subject: Please vote for the most qualified candidate |
Author:
Bill Perron
[Edit]
|
Date Posted: 23:16:16 01/22/04 Thu
**************************************************************************************
Bill Perron
for
Vice President
We need Legislation that dictates to the Dept. of Corrections that Correction Officers do not serve any punishment or loss of any pay until the appeals process has been exhausted. Presently management takes it’s pound of flesh today and MAYBE you’ll get it back in a couple/few years.
If there is a back log of grievances and arbitrations it would be the Dept. of Corrections who would have to muscle the system instead of the Union. Inherently, and presently it is the Union that bears all the burden and often cost prevents us from chasing every little dime we are cheated out of. Under new legislation which would mirror already existing state law that states “Innocent until proven guilty” , it would be management that would have to go through exhausting hoops for minor infractions that 9 times out of 10 wouldn’t hold up to the scrutiny of a fair and impartial venue. Management would soon stop frivolously disciplining Officers.
This is one of many laws bundled into the Correction Officers Bill of Rights. We need to send each issue to the state house independently, every year, and try to pass them individually but always being cognizant of the whole bundle as our ultimate goal. I wrote the M.C.O.F.U. Correction Officers Bill of Rights. I can effectively assist the Legislative Representative in passing these laws.
Please elect the most qualified Officer for the position of Vice President. Thank you.
**************************************************************************************
Bill Perron
For
Vice President
The MCOFU Constitution needs to be changed from the present stagnant version to a “living” document. Every Vice President to date has attempted to update or change the constitution, and has failed. Basic changes need to be made to easily allow for change. It takes experience and the proper know how to modify this document so it is conducive to change. I have these skills. I ask you not to pay attention to Turner, Hocking and Boudreau when they bombard my posts with lies and deceit. They have an agenda of their own. Please vote for the most qualified candidate for Vice President . You owe it to yourself and the membership.
**************************************************************************************
Bill Perron
Vice President
Fundamental changes have to come of the Executive Board and the Constitution. It’s the Vice President’s job to initiate these changes.
I believe 6 board members should be accountable to the President. And the President should be tempered by 4/7ths of the Executive Board. Constitutional changes need to be made to enforce this. Like our state and federal governments, MCOFU needs one leader, not 7. Like our state and federal government we need a system of checks and balances like the three branches of Government. I have the ability to make these changes.
In the past the Executive Board has put forward changes in the Constitution by reprinting a modified version of the Constitution and expected the body to pick through it, compare it to the old one, and find the hidden changes. Like one of those word puzzles you do when you’re bored out of your head.
The solution to this is line item changes. Instead of modifying the whole constitution all at once, you implement small changes. Put the constitution to vote one line at a time. RE:
Delete:
Paragraph six (6) of “Article II, Duties and Powers of the Executive Board” which states: “The Executive Board shall appoint a member of the Executive Assembly to fill any vacated position of which the term has not expired in the event that the second highest candidate for the position in the last election declines that position.”
Delete:
Paragraphs one (1), of “Article IV, Election of Officers.” Which states: “Elections for Executive Board officers will be held three (3) years after the date of ratification of the first collective bargaining agreement between the MCOFU and the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.
Delete:
Paragraph two (2), of “Article IV, Election of Officers.”
The term of office for all Executive Board officers will be three years. “
Replace with:
Paragraph 1, “Article IV, Election of Officers”
“As vacancies in the Executive Board arise, an election shall be held for said position. The length of office for the vacant position shall be for a term not more than three (3) years, and shall be held in the month of March, in a year when no more than 2 other Executive Board positions are being held. This shall continue until elections are held every calendar year for at least two (2) positions, but not more than three (3).
Changing the constitution in this manner allows for the membership to vote on individual changes to the constitution instead of voting on a “bundle” of changes, some of which you may personally not like, but others you may.
It also cuts down on printing and mailing costs, as you wouldn’t have to print and mail a 22-page document to every member of the Union. Line item changes could be done one piece of paper per proposal for change.
As Legislative Representative, I made fundamental changes in the position, the responsibilities, and duties that forever changed the way our Union does business in the political arena. The most evident being the “Political Action Committee” (the P.A.C.) I have a proven track record in accomplishments that are needed in the position of Vice President. To date, no Executive Board, no Vice president has been able to make changed to the original Constitution and by-laws, a Constitution that was written for the establishment of a Union, not an operating Union. As Vice President I alone have a track record showing I can make the needed changes in our constitution, that will allow our Union to operate smarter and more efficiently.
We also need Assistant Business Agents. I’d propose one Assistant Business Agent per region. One Assistant Business Agent would be responsible for the North, one the South, and one for Framingham, Norfolk, Baystate and Walpole. These Assistant Business Agents would work on their days off and be paid by the Union as a part time job at the same rate of pay as his/her current rate. no more than 8hrs a week each, unless special approval is granted by majority vote of the Executive Board. During a business day these Assistant Business Agents would be responsible to attend one institution per week and report in person to the executive board. Assistant Business Agents would serve at the pleasure the Executive Board.
Other significant change needed is a change in our grievance procedure. In the proposed Correction Officers Bill of Rights legislation, that I drafted, one section deals with Correction Officers not serving any discipline doled out to them by management until the appeals process has been exhausted. How many times in your career have you seen management take their pound of flesh today and tell the officer to “grieve it”? Maybe in 2-3 years you’ll get it back.
How many of you have actually seen your grievance make it all the way through the process? The wheels of justice come to a grinding halt in our grievance procedure. It’s frustrating and infuriating for all involved, and it’s the Correction Officer who has to ensure that these arthritic wheels of justice keep turning. And 999 times out of a thousand, the effort is more painful than the punishment and after a couple years nobody ever heard of your grievance, never mind know where in the process it is.
I would work with the Legislative Representative to pass this section of the Correction Officers Bill of Rights independently on it’s own merit, under the premise of an individual is innocent until proven guilty by an impartial body.
The burden of making sure the wheels of justice keep turning then become management’s problem. If they want their pound of flesh, they are going to have to ensure your due process. Management will no longer be so quick to dole out unwarranted discipline. And when there are a hundred grievances in line for arbitration, and management has a case against an officer they really hate, and they think they have a shot at winning, this case doesn’t jump the line and be heard first. The question to management will be, what do you want to do with these hundred grievances ahead of that one? The inherent failure of the existing system has always been for management to make it so difficult, and so expensive and so incontinent for the Union and the employee, that it’s easier to settle a case than it is to see it to the end on it’s own merit. All this would turn around, in the employees favor. In addition to saving time and untold amounts of aggravation it would literally save 100’s of thousands of dollars the Union spends on petty non-precedent setting grievances that only recoup pennies on the dollar invested in fighting the issue. The system has to change, before we can ever receive justice. Because even a win is rarely worth the fight.
**************************************************************************************
Bill Perron
for
Vice President
AN ACT ESTABLISHING THE CORRECTION OFFICERS BILL OF RIGHTS
SECTION 1. The Massachusetts General Laws are hereby amended by inserting the following new chapter:
Section 1(a). For the purposes of this chapter, The Correction Officers Bill of Rights, a correction officer shall be defined as a sworn member of the Massachusetts Department of Correction who holds one of the following titles: Correction Officer I – Officer, Correction Officer II – Sergeant, Correction Officer III – Lieutenant, Correction Officer IV – Assistant Deputy Superintendent, Industrial Instructor, Maintenance Officer, Recreation Officers.
Section 2. When any correction officer is under investigation and subject to interrogation by his commanding officer, or any other member of the department of correction, which could lead to disciplinary action, such interrogation shall be conducted under the following conditions. For the purpose of this chapter, punitive action is defined as any action, which may lead to dismissal, demotion, suspension, reduction in salary, written reprimand, or transfer for the purposes of punishment.
The interrogation shall be conducted at a reasonable hour, preferably during the correctional officers normal tour of duty, or during the normal waking hours for the correction officer, unless the seriousness of the investigation requires otherwise. This determination shall not be based upon arbitrary or capricious reason, and must be followed by a written statement by the hearing officer. If such interrogation does occur during the off-duty time of the correction officer being interrogated, the correction officers shall be compensated for such off-duty time in accordance with the collective bargaining agreement, and the correction officer shall not be released from employment for any missed work.
The correction officer under investigation shall be informed prior to such interrogation of the rank, name and command of the officer in charge of the interrogation, the interrogating officer(s), and all other persons to be present during the interrogation. All questions directed to the correction officer under interrogation shall be asked by and through no more than two interrogators at one time.
The correction officer under investigation shall be informed of the nature of the investigation prior to any interrogation.
The interrogating session shall be for a reasonable period taking into consideration gravity and complexity of the issue being investigated. The person under interrogation shall be allowed to attend to his own personal physical necessities.
The Correction officer under interrogation shall not be subjected to offensive language or threatened with punitive action. No promise of reward shall be made as an inducement to answering any question. The employer shall not cause the correction officer under interrogation to subjected to visits by the press or news media with out his express consent, nor shall his address, phone number or photograph be given to the press or news media with out his/her express consent.
An officer refusing to respond to questions or submit to an interrogation shall be informed that failure to answer questions may result in a suspension with pay and with out prejudice.
The complete interrogation of the correction officer will be recorded. Upon request a copy of the tape recording of the interrogation will be made and shall be provided to the correction officer at the employers earliest convenience. If any further proceedings are contemplated or prior to any further interrogation at a subsequent time, the correction officer shall be entitled to any notes which will be transcribed by a stenographer and to any reports or complaints made by investigators or other persons, and to any video recording pertaining to the investigation. No notes or reports, which are deemed to be confidential, may be entered in the officer’s personnel file. The correction officer being interrogated shall have the right to bring his own recording device and record any and all aspect of the interrogation.
If prior to or during the interrogation of a correction officer it is deemed that the allegation could reasonably lead to criminal proceedings, he/she shall be immediately informed of his/her constitutional rights, as well as statutory protections.
Upon the filing of a formal written statement of charges, or when ever an interrogation focuses on matters which are likely to result in punitive action against any correction officer, that officer, at his request, shall be informed by the employer of his right to be represented by a representative of his choice, who may be present at all times during such interrogation. The interrogation shall be suspended for a reasonable time until legal counsel or the choice of union representation can be secured upon request of the officer. Reasonable for purposes of this act shall be no greater than three days continuance, not to include weekends, and holidays. The representatative shall not be a person subject to the same investigation. The representative shall not be required to disclose, nor be subject to any punitive action for refusing to disclose, any information received from the officer under investigation for non-criminal matters. This section shall not apply to any interrogation of a correction officer in the normal course of duty, counseling, instruction, or informal verbal admonishment by, or other routine or unplanned contact with, a supervisor or any other correction officer.
No correction officer shall be loaned or temporarily reassigned to a location or duty assignment if a sworn member of his department would not normally be sent to that location or would not normally be given that duty assignment.
Upon completion of the investigation, the correction officer shall be notified of the name of any witness(es) and all charges and specifications against the officer, not less than 10 days prior to any hearing.
In addition, the correction officer under investigation shall be furnished with a
copy of the investigative file and any exculpatory information, also inclusive:
1.) The identity of any complainants and witnesses.
2.) Any non-exculpatory information.
The correction officer under investigation shall be furnished a copy of the investigative file and the exculpatory information described under subparagraph (l) of this paragraph not less than 10 days before any hearing if the officer and officer’s representative agree to execute a confidentiality agreement with the Massachusetts department of correction to not disclose any of the material contained in the record for any purpose other than to defend the officer and to pay any reasonable charge for the cost of reproducing the material involved.
The correction officer under interrogation may not be threatened with transfer, dismissal, or disciplinary action.
Unless otherwise required or conducted on a routine basis, no correction officers shall be required to submit to blood alcohol tests, blood, breath, or urine tests for controlled substances, polygraph examinations or interrogations which specifically relate to the subject of to the investigation. The results of any such tests are not admissible or discoverable in any criminal or civil proceeding against the correction officer, when said officer has been ordered to submit thereof.
Section 3.
No evidence may be obtained, received or admitted into evidence in any proceeding of any disciplinary action, which violates any of the rights established by the United States Constitution or Massachusetts Constitution or by this chapter. The tribunal may not enter any judgment or sustain any disciplinary section based on any evidence obtained in violation of the officer’s rights as contained in this chapter.
Any decision, order or action taken following the hearing shall be in writing and shall be accompanied by findings xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx issue in the case. A copy of the dicision or order accompanying findings and conclusions along with the written opinion and right to appeal if any, shall be delived to mailed promptly to the correction officer or to his or her attorney or representative of record.
Section 4.
No correction officer shall be compelled to work extra duty with out compensation as a penalty for a disciplinary infraction. No suspension for any period of time provide in the departmental rules and regulations shall effect the correction officers eligibility for pension, hospitalization, medical and life insurance coverage or other benefits specifically protected under his or her contract of employment. Suspension may effect the date of pension eligibility by contractual provision or other statutory provision. Nothing herein shall prevent any agency from requiring reimbursement by a suspended correction officer of his or her employee contribution.
Section 5.
No correction officer shall be required or requested of for the purposes of job assignment or other personnel action to disclose any item of his property, income, assets, source of income, xxxx or personal or domestic expenditures (including those of any member of his or her family or household) unless such information obtained or required under state law or proper legal procedure, tends to indicate a conflict of interest with respect to the perfomance of his official dutes, or is necessary for the employing agency to acertain the desirability of assigning the correction officer to a specialized unit in which there is a strong possibility that bribes or other improper inducements may be offered.
Section 6.
No correction officer shall have his locker, or other space for storage that may be assigned to him/her searched except in his presence, or with his consent, or unless a valid search warrant has been obtained or where he has been notified that a search will be conducted. This section shall apply only to lockers or other space for storage that are owned, leased or otherwise under the control of the employing agency.
Section 7.
Evidence which possesses probative value commonly accepted by reasonable and prudent persons in the conduct of their affairs shall be admissible in evidence and given probative effect. The tribunal conducting the hearing shall give effect to the rules of privilege recognized by law and shall exclude incompetent records and documents which any party desires to use shall be offed and made part of the record. Documentary eveidence may be received in the form of copies of exerpts or by incorporation by reference.
Every party shall have the right to cross examination of witnesses who testify and may submit rebuttal evidence.
The tribunal may take notice of judicially cognizable facts and in addition may take notice of general, technical or scientific facts with in its specialized knowledge. Parties shall be notified beforehand of the materials so noticed by the trial board. No correction officer may be adjudged guilty of any offense unless the hearing tribunal is satisfied that guilt has been established by substantial evidence.
*Section 7(A)
No dicipline shall be imposed on any correction officer until due process has been completed.
*Section 7(B)
Evidence tampering harmful to a correction officer: In any disciplinary proceedings a person who knowingly alters, tampers with, conceals, or destroys relevant evidence for the purpose of harming a correction officer, is guilty of a misdemnor.
*Section 7© In any instance or investigation where a correction officer is read the miranda warning the department of corrections shall provide a defense attorney until such time a judge determains the correction officer cannot afford one.
*Section 7(D)
1.) Statutes of limitations: Any investigation of a correction officer must be completed within one year of the department of corrections discovery of any incident. The investigation can be re-opened outside the one year period if significant new evidence has been discovered and that it is likely to affect the outcome of the investigation , if evidence could not be reasonably discovered or if there is evidence which arises from the correction officers pre-diciplinary response.
2.) If the act, omission, or other allegation of misconduct is also the subject of a criminal investigation or criminal prosecution, the time during which the criminal investigation or criminal procecution is pending shall toll the one year time period.
3.) If the correction officer waives the one year time period in writing, the time period shall be tolled for the period of time specified in the written waiver.
4.) The time period shall be tolled for a reasonable amount of time if the investigation is a multijuristictional and requires a reasonable extension.
5.) The time period shall be tolled for a reasonable amount of time if the investigation involves more than one employee.
6.) If the investigation involves an employee who is incapacitated or otherwise unavailagle the time period shall be tolled accordingly.
7.) If the investigation involves a matter in criminal litigation where the complaintant is a criminal defendant, the one year time period shall be tolled during the period of that defendant’s criminal investigation and proscution.
8.) The time period may be tolled in the investigation involves an allegation of workers’ compensation fraud on the part of the correction officer.
Section 7(E)(a) Where a predisciplinarly respons or grievance procedure is required or utilized, the time for this response or procedure shall not be governed or limited by this chapter.
Section7(E)
Closure: The department of correction will provide the correction officer who was under investigation a copy of the entire investigation as soon as the investigation is closed. The closed investigation will include exculpalary and non exculpalary evidence all notes, reports and complaints as well as a finding.
Section 8.
The rights established by the provisions of this chapter shall not be diminished or abridged by any collective bargaining agreement.
Section 9.
Career Ladder: The commissioner of the department of corrections must have served at least one year in each of the positions of correction officer I, II, III, IV as described in this chapter.
*Section 10.
Any correction officer required to work during a state of emergency will receive a compensatory day off for each shift worked above and beyond his/her normal tour of duty. This compensatory day off is in addition to compensatory pay and any other benefit already entitled by the officer under the collective bargaining agreement.
*Section 11
Peace officer status:
*Section 12
*Section 13
| | Replies: | |
|
secc to open in 2006?
SAVE BIG MONEY ATTENTION BIG SALE $$$$$$$$$
WHAT HAPPENED TO THE SECC MEMBERS??