Boston's firefighters are hardly at the peak of their collective popularity right now, but no one can blame Maureen Feeney for that.
The president of the City Council orchestrated a lovefest for Firefighters Local 718 on Wednesday, in which they were allowed to air their issues with the city without any annoying interruptions from the administration.
The public meeting differs from a public hearing in that only the entity that requests it, often a labor union, gets to present its point of view. In this case, Feeney said, the Firefighters Union wanted to address a string of unflattering press reports.
The reports have been bad indeed, with allegations ranging from cheating on exams to dubious disability claims to serving under the influence.
The local is locked in a nasty collective bargaining battle with the city. The major sticking point in the negotiations is said to be random drug testing, though the real issue is, as always, money. The union has maintained that it does not necessarily oppose testing. The question is what it wants in exchange.
By Feeney's own account yesterday, she did not allow councilors to raise questions about the negotiations. Feeney said that because councilors by law have no role in collective bargaining, it would have been inappropriate to allow questions about it. She said that everywhere she went yesterday people were thanking her for the nonhearing she sponsored.
"Yesterday was not about choosing sides," she said. "We made an offer to the administration that if they would like to set up a meeting to present something to the council, we'd be happy to host that."
The way she describes it, you'd think Feeney was talking about a tea party.
"I have never received so many positive comments from people," she said.
I am not about to thank her. I think this is a perfect example of why people do not take the City Council seriously. Instead of exploring the issues in the department, they opted to host an infomercial.
It has become clear in the past year that drug testing, which is the norm in public safety departments, is sorely needed in the Boston Fire Department. It is equally clear that the firefighters want no part of it. They have successfully torpedoed every attempt to bring meaningful reforms into the department, an effort now being abetted by their labor-fearing friends in public office.
It's one thing to say that drug testing should be subject to bargaining. But here is a question that has never gotten a good answer: Why on earth should the public have to reward the firefighters, in the form of bigger raises, to agree to a policy that's just common sense? Why should we pay them to stop using drugs?
Feeney is right that the charter bars the council from taking a role in collective bargaining, though it isn't clear why that precludes asking any questions about it. The council holds hearings over matters it is powerless to directly influence all the time. That's a significant amount of what it does.
Firefighters are a significant part of Feeney's Dorchester constituency, and politically it's easy to see why she was so willing to be supportive. But by being so spineless, the council just reinforces the view that nothing really needs to change in the Fire Department.
It is both morally and practically imperative that the department change. When Firefighter Warren Payne died on duty last year with cocaine in his system, his death brought an old issue to light. For the sake of both the public's safety and that of the firefighters themselves, testing and rigorous enforcement have to become nonnegotiable. And the changes should not stop there.
Wednesday's meeting doesn't figure to affect much, which is the good news. But the council missed an opportunity to display some leadership in favor of scoring a few cheap political points. In the process, it treated a serious public issue as if it were the Dorchester Day parade.
Maybe we should be thankful the council doesn't have a role at the negotiating table.
Adrian Walker is a Globe columnist. He can be reached at walker@globe.com.
