Ok, here is the question, How, when, at what meeting did we authorize the selectmen to INCREASE the size of the fleet AGAIN?
Here is the history:
In 2002 the budget committee put the spending purpose of "cruiser lease agreements" into the budget for the first time. This was because the selectmen claimed they were going to lease two new cruisers every two years. They were going to trade the two oldest cruisers in on two new ones, and this would mean that they wouldn't have to put warrant articles in every two years. The voters passed it thus giving the selectmen the authority to lease vehicles without prior voter approval.
The first time this came up after that was March of 2003, the voters had just turned down a new elderly affairs car, yet elderly affairs got one anyways, because the selectmen(read that as the chief) only traded one in on the two new cruisers, giving the extra one to Elderly, without prior voter approval, or a selectman vote. Then he bought the "surveillance vehicle" through donations, and three months later sloughed that off to elderly to. So even though the voters said no, Elderly got TWO new vehicles in 2003.
The next time the lease came up was in 2005. This year the selectmen(read that as the chief, again) leased a $30,000 SUV, without public disclosure, or vote of the selectmen, thus making the transaction illegal. Sapia STILL insists no laws were broken in that transaction, he is wrong, again! Once again they increased the size of the fleet with no discussion or approval, nor was it done in public. They tried to shelter this heinous action by saying that the spending purpose was in the budget. See how corruption quickly gets out of hand.
The next time leases came up was in 2007, Once again the selectmen only traded one in for two, again increasing the size of the fleet. With the new Wheelchair van on the way we now own 11 police /elderly vehicles! Why, when we only have 1 officer on patrol at any given time? Who drives them all?
Great Article, this is why for the past two years as budget committee chair, I tried to change that line item back to "cruiser expense" to remove that purpose from the budget, and force the selectmen to put it in a warrant article so that the voters have a say. I was outvoted both times. But as you can see, they are three for three at doing the wrong thing, As I said at the public hearing last year, "I dont trust the majority of the board of selectmen to do the right thing."
ReplyDeletewhat the hell do we need 11 cars for? I think we only have one cruising on most shifts, who are the other for?
ReplyDeleteI dont remember hearing about this extra car at deliberative session, must be something the chief wanted. selectmen probably didn't even know until it appeared on this blog.
ReplyDeleteOn Monday night, I noted, with great interest, that the Selectmen voted to authorize purchase of the wheel-chair van. Mr. Sullivan did note that no Selectmen's vote was necessary, since it had been approved by Town Meeting via a warrant article. And he was right. Mr. Sapia, however, was determined to follow through with a vote of the Board. Good man, Jack.
ReplyDeleteIf ONLY you had done the same with last year's SUV, which was not approved by anyone, and which was not a warrant article item.
Oh wait...you didn't know about the SUV until it was in the PD parking lot, did you? Too late to authorize; the Chairman had already purchased it.
And lest we forget one selectman has no authority to do anything. and that is why the purchase was illegal!
ReplyDeleteAtkinson is so lucky to have a police chief who breaks the law, aren't we?
Our town motto should be spend, spend, spend.
ReplyDeleteIt's bad enough on election day the majority of the residents who turn out vote in favor of warrant articles spending money like a bunch of drunken sailors. Then, to next find out about the "2 for 1" deals with regard to vehicle procurement we as taxpayers are being treated to, I'm beginning to wonder if ever the money is going to run out in this town?
I don't imagine the new Lewis development is going to bring in enough additional tax revenue for us to keep up our current spending habits - both the ones voted by our taxpayers and the ones done "unilaterally" by those who feel they can spend our money WITHOUT our approval!