Monday, March 10
11 comments:
-
I agree, outstanding analysis;
As for the write-in campaign, I am flatterred, but as I have said many times, thanks to the efforts of my buddies, I couldn't get elected Dog Catcher in Atkinson.
And I think the article on frivolous lawsuits should be passed, no one should sue the town frivolously, and if they do they should have to pay the costs.
They were happy over this, because they think that if a suit loses it was frivolous, not true. Even the removal suit, though it lost was not legally frivolous, the Judge allowed it to continue, and had some very harsh words in his Order for the actions of our chief. -
March 10, 2008 at 7:55 AM
-
Pretty good analysis but they haven't shown that they need a tower! If they need equipment, say equipment. A tower does nothing!
The officers claim they don't have a problem and this a waste of money right now. They need to go back to square one, establish that there's really a problem, then proceed to look at solutions without preconceived ideas of the outcome. Why put $100k on something we DON'T KNOW WE NEED????
VOTE NO -
March 10, 2008 at 9:15 AM
-
Mark,
I mentioned you because I understand Brian Boyle had not interest in the job. That being said, I'm changing my recommendation to Brian.
Regarding the lawsuit warrant - I just got a little suspicious when I saw Jack jump up and applaud when it was passed. I figured if Jack liked it, it had to be bad. However, I will change my position on this.
Regarding the tower - As I implied, the whole thing is a mess and should be voted down. However, I do believe the PD has a problem and money will need to be spent. What is needed is a better plan. I still maintain that we should bank this money with the goal being not to exceed this amount. -
March 10, 2008 at 10:44 AM
-
I was talking to one of the officers last week and I noticed that the cruiser has no computer in it. How does this spots terminal work. Do you need a computer to use the service, and why isn't there a computer in the car?
-
March 10, 2008 at 11:13 AM
-
I believe the terminal is a hardened laptop and allows the offices to do license/plate checks directly from their vehicle. It is tied by radio to the state police database. Much more efficient and quicker way to obtain what could be critical information. I think that is a good thing.
What I don't want is for the chief to have one in his vehicle(s). Because he can't carry a firearm this makes him unqualified to make traffic stops. With his history, having a Spots terminal is like giving matches to a child. -
March 10, 2008 at 12:42 PM
-
But how do you run the checks when the computer is not in the car?
-
March 10, 2008 at 2:20 PM
-
You call the dispatcher and have them do it. Problem is that if there is a lot of information it has to all be relayed verbally. If the dispatcher is on the phone with another call, it could add to the delay.
Many, many PD's have switched over to a Spots like system. Takes out the middleman. I can envision where speed is of the essence and could affect an officer's safety. It is not a lot of money and cheap insurance. My only concern is its potential for abuse. -
March 10, 2008 at 4:16 PM
-
How so George? What could happen?
-
March 10, 2008 at 7:26 PM
-
I think that you missed the point of anonymous March 10, 2008 2:20 PM, they said that the computers are not in the cars. So where are they?
-
March 11, 2008 at 10:31 AM
-
Imagine the chief sitting in the parking lot at a town meeting or deliberative session running real time license checks. That kind of thing scares the crap out of me.
-
March 11, 2008 at 11:52 AM
-
Your right, I missed the point. The warrant article says, "-purpose of adding the State Police Online Telecommunication Systems (Spots) to the existing laptops in three police vehicles."
Obviously, the cruiser you saw was not one of the three. However, take a drive by the station some time and count the number of cruisers in the lot. I don't know the exact number, but it is more than 3.
So, that brings up a very good question, which cars do have the laptops???????? If it is not the patrol cruisers, then what's the point of them. -
March 11, 2008 at 12:58 PM
ATKINSON's Vietnam HONOR ROLL as VOTED and PASSED by 2005 Town Meeting and re-approved at Special Town Meeting Sept. 12
Publius: Article Submission.
Should have done this earlier but better late than never. Here's how I'm voting Tuesday.
Selectman - Topic has been beaten to death. Time for change. Valerie all the way.
Conflict of Interest - Jack Sapia - Puleeeeeeeese, gives us a break. If he is elected anyone going before that board should immediately insist he recuse himself. Write in Carol Grant
Moderator - Tough job but needs to be done better.Write in - Mark Acciard
All the others, no problem.
Warrant articles-
Item 4 - Thought the budget committee did a good job of presenting it but next time the supporting documentation would be nice. I vote yes, but the police budget needs a close review. Has anyone seen how many cruisers are sitting in the PD parking lot, not to mention what the chief has at home? If only one car is on duty at any one time, why so many cars? And the donation accounts are screaming for oversight.
Items 5, 6 and 7. Road construction and repair -Yes.
Item 8 - New PD driveway. Get that house in order before any improvements. - No.
Item 9 - Communications Tower - Poorly conceived, poorly presented, ripped apart on cross examination, all to solve a problem that has not been fully characterized. Cheaper alternatives were rejected out of hand and the plan as presented is way overkill and way expensive. Most definite NO.
Item 10 - Capital reserve fund for communications system. Money will likely need to be spent. Hopefully not nearly as much as Item 9 asks for. Might as well accept it and start setting aside some funds. - Yes
Item 11- The committee was charged to come up with two proposals. They came up with bad and worse than bad. It should not even be on the ballot. - NO.
Items 12 and 13 - FD capital reserve and new ambulance. Chief Murphy did his homework and presented a convincing case. - Yes.
Items 14, 15, and 16 - Recreational stuff. Don't use any of it. Most of the money appears to be there so why not - Yes.
Item 17 - Mosquito Control. When I was a kid mosquitoes were just pests. Now they kill. If anything, we should be spending more here - Yes.
Items 18 and 19 - Cemetery stuff. Dale Childs did a good job presenting but then she started taking her last name to heart. All that was missing was her throwing fruit at the speakers. Can't trust a word out of her mouth anymore. - No.
Item 20 - Road Agent Assistant. Here is a case of Ted trying to do the right thing and he got badgered for it. A yes in my book.
Item 21 - NH Operations Unit. Sure, why not - Yes.
Item 22- Spots terminals for 3 crusiers. I'm fine with this as long as one does not end up in the Chief's car. No gunny, no Spotty. - Yes.
Item 23 - Records Management System - Time to come into the 21st century - Yes.
Item 24 - Town hall addition. Not this year. Things are tough and getting much tougher for all of us. Maybe next year - No
Item 25 - Capital reserve fund for Town Hall addition - Sure
Item 26 - Road acceptance. Guess this means they can get plowed now - Yes.
Items 27, 28 and 29. Not what Leon wanted but he did it to himself. Refer to the my submission in http://atkinson-reporter.blogspot.com/2008/02/deliberative-session-rules-show-up-or.html regarding how to present a petition. Too many of these guidelines were not followed. Rethink the goals and try again next year - No
Item 30 - Working in harmony - What a fricking joke. A perfect example of what is broken in the Deliberative Session process - No
Item 31- Frivolous Lawsuits - Jack and the chief seemed to get extremely excited when this passed. Not a good sign. - No
Item 32 - Disposing of capital equipment. Started with the cloud surrounding the cruiser trade-in. Why is it the chief had to beg the dealer to take the car in trade, and yet his son buys it the next day. Fails the smell test. - This is a Yes but watch the "trade" part of it. That is what got us into this mess. Someone else should be assigned to negotiate cruiser trades.
Items 33, 34 - Not what Carol wanted but, again, I refer her to http://atkinson-reporter.blogspot.com/2008/02/deliberative-session-rules-show-up-or.html and keep trying - I believe she wanted a No on these.
Differ if you want. Just my opinion.