In response to The Day’s Editorial, “Union objections should not stop state labor-force study”, (Dec. 18), I would like to clarify the misleading characterization of the State Employee Bargaining Agent Coalition’s (SEBAC) response. By failing to mention the $2 million cost to taxpayers associated with the Boston Consulting Group, the editorial board fails to report the whole story.

If the state wants to find ways to save money, starting off by spending $2 million on private consultants is not the right way to go about it. Instead, the state should be looking within for savings − for example, in the Department of Transportation alone, simply by in-sourcing inspection and engineering projects the state can save $100 million annually. When I was promoted, one of my tasks was reviewing the contractual plans compiled from both state forces and private consultants. On a regular basis, property maps being created by consultants had to be returned for major corrections, adding to costs.

On top of performance issues, as compared to state forces who work at cost, private consultants work for a profit, increasing the cost. So, when the editorial board fails to mention these negative facets to this “labor-force study,” it fails to report the whole story.

Jeff Beckwith

Montville