# Romney targets courts, police patrols in budget



## Brian823 (Nov 21, 2003)

Romney targets courts, police patrols in budget

THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
BOSTON - Gov. Mitt Romney will veto funding for special state police patrols in dozens of cities and towns, many aimed at quashing crime and quelling rowdiness at beaches during the summer months, when he unveils his budget cuts today.

Romney said it's "outrageous" that lawmakers are using more than $2 million of specialized state patrols to save money on local police at the expense of state taxpayers.

The funding is one of dozens of vetoes to the Legislature's $22.5 billion budget Romney is expected to announce today.

Yesterday, Romney said he will veto about $7.4 million from the court's $595 million budget, including $1.6 million for court officers, $1 million from Boston Municipal Court and $4 million from the trial courts. 

He said his goal is to pressure lawmakers to close and consolidate courthouses and fold the Boston Municipal Court into the district court system.

He also criticized lawmakers for dipping into more than $600 million in state reserves and said he will target funding for pet projects sprinkled throughout the budget.

Romney had some words of praise, crediting lawmakers for crafting a balanced budget on time and without raising taxes.

(Published: June 25, 2004)


----------



## Guest (Jun 25, 2004)

Excuse me, Mr. Governor, but the beaches are state property and they are *your* responsibility. The State Police are on the state payroll. :roll:


----------



## SRRerg (Sep 19, 2003)

My question is this? - If the legislature submits a line item that states "X amount of dollars so that the State Police may assign extra patrols as they see fit" then its o.k.? 

On the other hand, by geting rid of the BMC system, you can save enough money for year-round directed patrols.


----------



## union1 (Sep 18, 2002)

I dont think he targets Police in the general sence by reading that, it sounds more like he is targeting State Police. The article goes on to say that he wants the patrols to be picked up by the local jurisdiction.


----------



## Dr.Magoo (May 2, 2002)

In a previous article this week Gov. Romney stated that he did not see the logic of the legislature dictating how the state police should patrol certain areas. He stated he felt it was the responsibility of the State Police command staff to decide where/when units should be deployed.

Off topic slightly, this never would have happened if they didn't merge the State with the Mets.

Posted Sat 26 Jun, 2004 17:35:

Here is the article I was referring to.

http://news.bostonherald.com/localRegional/view.bg?articleid=33244

*



Romney said the state police, not state lawmakers, should decide where to patrol. He said lawmakers are using the patrols to save money on local police at the expense of state taxpayers.

``It's over $2 million of specialized patrols telling the state police where they should put their police cars and where they should have their patrols. That's outrageous,'' Romney said in an interview with The Associated Press on Thursday. ``Let the colonel, the superintendent of the state police decide where the state police should be.''

Click to expand...

*


----------



## MVS (Jul 2, 2003)

From reading the article, I'd say it sounds like a decent choice. Sounds like he wants to funnel that $2 million back to local PD's which in most areas every dollar will help. Lets get real, most beaches ARE patrolled by the local PD's. They might be state property but that means crap when the nearest MSP is 20 minutes away and there's a fight or drowning.

This has been a common occurrance in Natick (and maybe wayland, Framingham) with Cochituate State Park. It is a heavily used beach and recreation area in the summer and when there's an emergency the Ranger calls MSP, who quite often calls Natick and says "we have _XXX_ at the state park and our nearest cruiser is 25 minutes away on 128, can you respond?"

Just give the money to the local PD with beaches to add assigned patrols.


----------



## SRRerg (Sep 19, 2003)

> Just give the money to the local PD with beaches to add assigned patrols.


RPD, I gotta disagree with you on this one. He's not talking about giving the money to local PDs, he's talking about not spending the money: _"lawmakers are using the patrols to save money on local police at the expense of state taxpayers. " _ Like I stated in an earlier post, will the Governor okay the funds if the legislature submits "XXX dollars for the MSP to provide additional coverage where the Colonel sees fit?"

In A troop (where I may or may not work), Those funds put extra cruisers in those areas (Revere Beach, Salisbury Beach, etc) during the busy season. Short of putting through more classes, it allows the State to bring the staffing up to what it should be for those areas.

Finally, it is a political win/win. The Governor gets to be a strong fiscal conservative by vetoing the funds, and the reps get to be the local heroes by overriding the veto.

Juat a thought.


----------



## mpd61 (Aug 7, 2002)

Well...............

He's just a business man in a politician's clothes!


----------

