Perhaps the time has come to dismantle Civil Service in Massachusetts.
The system is a vestige of a time when public employees were without union protection and subject to the whims of political machines. It provides favored public employees an extra level of protection available to nobody else. And the written exams it administers that determine candidates' fitness for service as a police officer or firefighter and, later, their ability to ascend the ranks, are not a reliable test of one's fitness to serve.
Increasingly city and towns officials have sought to free themselves of the shackles imposed by this anachronistic bureaucracy. That is a good thing.
As is seen in Haverhill, the protections provided by law and collective bargaining agreements are sufficient to make sure a public employee is given adequate opportunities to defend himself against improper punishment.
Haverhill firefighter Jeffrey Given has admitted that he helped falsify EMT recertifications for dozens of his colleagues in the Haverhill Fire Department.
Undoubtedly, had this admission been made to a supervisor in a private company, his job would have been forfeit.
Trinity Ambulance company's training officer, Leo Nault, was also involved in the scheme. He has since been fired.
But Given was given a hearing this week to try to overturn a five-day suspension he already served after the recertification debacle came to light.
He will have opportunities once Mayor James Fiorentini decides his punishment to challenge the decision in court or with the Civil Service Commission.
Let's do away with Civil Service entirely and let those in charge be governed by the law and collective bargaining agreements. If the mayor and the persons charged with running the police and fire departments aren't doing a satisfactory job, the voters can let them know that the next time they go to the polls.
OUR OPINION: Last legislative session nothing to write home about
Regardless of what any of the denizens of Beacon Hill might tell you, casinos are not the cure for what ails the Bay State economy. And allowing slot parlors at two dying racetracks certainly wasn't going to turn things around.
But what would help more than, say, even turning Revere Beach into another version of Atlantic City, is if Massachusetts were to have the kind of leadership more interested in getting things done than engaging in the kind of political posturing we've witnessed the past few days on the gaming issue.
Back in 2006 some voters bought into Deval Patrick's claim that the state would be better served having a Democratic governor working with the Democratic leadership in the House and Senate. It hasn't quite worked out that way.
Polls have repeatedly shown that a majority of Bay State voters are OK with the idea of casino gambling. Many view playing the slots and table games as just another form of entertainment; and city and town officials — whose budgets already rely heavily on Massachusetts Lottery receipts — felt it might provide them with a small, but much-needed, boost in revenues.
Yet after much huffing and puffing over the last month of the current legislative session, Patrick, Senate President Therese Murray and House Speaker Robert DeLeo weren't able to get the job done. As of Wednesday it appeared likely legislators would remain on their extended election-year vacation and try again after Jan. 1.
It's hard to fathom why any state representative whose district does not include Raynham, Taunton or Plainville would care whether the Raynham/Taunton dog track or Plainridge harness racing track won the right to install slot machines.
Except maybe Haverhill's state Rep. Brian Dempsey, whose committee created the gambling bill at the behest of DeLeo. Had Dempsey been able to deliver a winning gambling proposal, he would have risen in DeLeo's esteem and therefore in the House heirarchy.
Yet even though Patrick had made clear he would not sign a gaming bill that virtually guaranteed slot licenses for those facilities, House members, including all those from the North Shore, stood with DeLeo in refusing to back off from that position.
For better or worse, it appears the gaming bill is dead for another year. Casinos would bring some jobs, both temporary and permanent and would likely mean salvation for East Boston's Suffolk Downs. But passage of the bill would not have reversed the downturn in consumer and business confidence recently noted, nor would it do anything to change the expensive collective bargaining contracts and personnel practices currently crippling state and municipal budgets.
To be fair, Patrick and the Legislature were able to deliver on some matters like providing health insurance rate relief to small businesses and consolidating the state's economic development bureaucracy. But these, too, were only passed at the last minute, which is no way for a "full-time" legislature to conduct its business.
You'll hear a lot of bragging between now and the November election from Patrick and incumbent legislators about the things they were able to accomplish. But voters should weigh that against their failures including the lack of action on the casino bill and plan design. The latter would have allowed cities and towns to save millions by giving them the same right the state currently enjoys to choose a health insurance plans for their employees.
The fact is a majority of lawmakers still fear leadership and the unions more than they do the voters.
Oh, they did manage to raise the sales tax and extend it to other products like alcoholic beverages. That won't help the economy much either.
