BOSTON — The Massachusetts State Police Association is demanding an apology from Republican gubernatorial candidate Mike Minogue after he suggested on social media that the union had exchanged its endorsement of Gov. Maura Healey for a favorable contract.
Union rejects allegation as baseless
In a statement released Sunday, union president Brendan Murphy called Minogue’s suggestion “categorically false,” saying the allegation smeared troopers who, he noted, “earned” the contract through their service. The union said the agreement provides raises consistent with deals secured by other state unions.
"Mike Minogue's allegation that the State Police Association of Massachusetts exchanged its endorsement for a contract is categorically false,"
Minogue’s Facebook post asked whether Healey had “cut a deal” with the State Police and questioned whether the pay increases were funded in the supplemental budget — allegations that, if true, would raise legal and ethical concerns. The post also asserted the possibility of an exchange of a political endorsement for a taxpayer-funded contract.
Dispute centers on raise figures and timing
The dispute turned on the size of pay increases and how they compare to what the candidate described. Minogue suggested state troopers could receive total raises of 18% over three years. The union disputed that figure, saying the contract provides total raises of 11% over three years, and emphasized that the contract results from collective bargaining.
| Claim | Figure |
|---|---|
| Minogue's suggested total raise | 18% over three years |
| Union-stated total raise | 11% over three years |
Political context and reactions
The union’s statement framed Minogue’s post as an attack on the integrity of its members, saying accusing troopers of corruption without evidence is “reckless.” The union reiterated its endorsement of Healey and insisted its members should not be used as political leverage. Murphy said members of the association perform critical public safety work and deserve recognition for their service rather than political insinuation.
Asked about Minogue’s comments at a briefing Monday, Gov. Healey responded tersely, signaling that the campaign back-and-forth would continue as rivals spar over endorsements and contracts in the run-up to the election.
What this means for voters
The exchange highlights several issues voters weigh this election season: labor contracts for public safety personnel, the transparency of state budgeting, and the role of endorsements in campaigns. The union’s insistence that the contract aligns with other state labor agreements is intended to blunt accusations of preferential treatment.
- Contract transparency: Questions about whether supplemental budgets fund agreements often surface in campaign rhetoric; the union and Healey’s office will likely face scrutiny over funding sources.
- Endorsements: Endorsements from public safety unions can carry political weight, but they also bring heightened scrutiny when accompanied by new or expanded contracts.
- Campaign tone: Candidates’ allegations against unions or officials can prompt rapid denials and calls for retractions or apologies.
Next steps and outstanding questions
The union has asked Minogue to correct his post and apologize to its members. So far, there is no public evidence provided by Minogue to substantiate the claim that an endorsement was traded for a contract or that the contract was timed to avoid pre-election announcement. The union maintains the contract was negotiated through normal collective bargaining and provides raises consistent with other state labor agreements.
As the campaign continues, both sides are likely to keep staking out firm positions on law enforcement pay and endorsements. Voters seeking clarity should watch for documentation from the administration, the union and campaign filings that detail how any pay increases are funded and whether timing of announcements followed standard procedures.
This confrontation illustrates how union endorsements and labor deals can take on outsized political significance in statewide contests, particularly when public safety and taxpayer funding are central themes.
Reporting from ZTL's Massachusetts desk.
