#1 2009-08-12 07:15:43

(Adapted from my post from the thread on the interim chief that changed focus)

Questions about the role and responsibilities of new interim Chief Richard Stanley

Maybe Dan or if he's still checking in, Capt. Cardilino, can weigh in on this.

I mean no disrespect to your new interim chief who seems to be a capable law enforcement leader, but I think there are some very important unanswered questions about his role and responsibilities.

First and foremost, I'm not even sure it is legal for Wareham to have a half time chief, especially one with another job as a full-time chief. Is there precedent for this in another Massachusetts police department?

Second, how was it decided to have an interim chief and who found him? Was anyone else considered for a half-time chief job? It seems that there are some retired chiefs in the area that might have been interested.

But assuming it is legal, and everything was above board, 20 hours in Wareham isn't much out of the 168 hours in a week. In all towns and cities I'm familiar the chief or a designee is called in for emergencies involving fatalities and things like a bank robbery or major drug bust.

It should go without saying that being a police chief is a 24/7 job.

For example, in my town the chief worked dawn to dusk for three days at the scene of a drowning until the victim was found.

What happens in Wareham when there's such an incident and the chief is in North Andover, either at home or on the job?

If he's working and even consults with Wareham PD he's double dipping.

If he's at home is he going to drive to Wareham in the Wareham cruiser? Is he expected to break the speed limit with lights and siren if he does so? (Police always take a calculated risk of having an accident when they do this.)

How does the state police feel about it if he is?

Does the second in command, presumably Lt. Wallace, have the authority to make all decisions until Stanley gets here or does he have to check with him first?

What happens if the chief gets here and there's an incident back in North Andover?

Has the Wareham BoS cosulted with the North Andover BoS about potential conflicts? Have they consulted with the town attorney?

Even if all the answers to these questions are satisfactory, to me at least, I have to admit there's something that smells like a particularly low tide about this decision.

I agree with the lone dissenter Bill Gordon on the N. Andover BoS who said

"I don't see any benefit to North Andover when the police chief has a part-time job an hour and a half away," Gordon said yesterday afternoon. "It's nothing personal. The chief has done a good job. But the position of police chief is the kind of job that is 24 hours a day, 7 days a week."

Isn't it nice to know that the Wareham job is expected to be Stanley's SECOND priority:

"We believe helping out a fellow community is the right thing to do," Watson said. "As long as his first priority is and always will be the town of North Andover. After 60 days, we'll see if the arrangement is working for us."

We don't know how Selectman Dan Lanen, a North Andower police officer who is on their BoS would have voted since he had to recuse himself. If anybody would have an educated opinion from the North Andover BoS it would be a police officer.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/ff/North_Andover_ma_highlight.png North Andover

Offline

 

#2 2009-08-12 08:20:41

I sent a private message to Capt. C to get his input on this situation. I have not heard back from him, unfortunately. I wanted to have input from someone who is close to the situation and has the knowledge and expertise to explain what the thinking may be within the PD.
However, since I haven't heard from him, I will simply say that I am trying to gather as much information as I can in  order to make a balanced and rational decision.
I see absolutely NO benefit to the Town of Wareham  by having a part time Chief.
The concept is contrary to anything I have ever experienced as a Police Officer, and in a management sense, it is impossible to work.
The biggest problem I have is to remove Police Officers from Civil Service.That is their protection against elected officials that overstep their bounds and attempt to run a Police Department when they have never been cops, don't know anything about cops, and never will be cops.
Foolishness.
A little more research and I will be able to comment further on this.
In the meantime, if you are up and able to take nourishment, Capt C, please answer my Private Message.

Offline

 

#3 2009-08-12 08:36:54

Dan,

Not only Wareham PD, but I would be interested in what North Andover officers think of having their chief driving off to Wareham several times a week.

I assume he has a marked cruiser...

If so it has to be a little odd to have a Wareham cruiser parked at the North Andover department.

Does anybody know if Stanley was given one of your newer cruisers?

Last edited by urneighbor (2009-08-31 19:21:10)

Offline

 

#4 2009-08-12 08:44:09

urneighbor,
I also would like to share my own questions.
First, did the administration even advertise for the "part time" position ? 
If so, where ?
How many applicants were there ?
When did they officially (on the record) approve the appointment they made ?
I would ask the ITA myself but he doesn't respond to citizen's questions because he's "too busy putting out fires".  Half of those fires or more, he and the leaders created.

My biggest concern is that if when the "part time" chief is not on our clock and then the senior staff (Lt. Wallace, I presume) is adequate to fill that role,
then why is he and staff not adequate full time until such time as the position is officially filled ?  That makes no sense at all.

Finally, when he takes Wareham's vehicle home, does he park it and then use N. Andover's and are we paying his lengthy travel time.

I'd be interested in knowing who negotiated this arrangement on behalf of the Wareham citizens and the department.  I also smell the low tide.

Offline

 

#5 2009-08-12 08:48:20

a question i have is wallace getting chief pay for those hours he is assuming that role? i would think he should..

Offline

 

#6 2009-08-12 09:12:00

Where is the infamous George Coleman?  Is he still directing Crime Watch?  Crime Watch has been very quiet.  How will the new interim part-time Chief relate to the Crime Watch organization?  I wonder if anyone has tried to explain that convoluted mess to the new Chief.

Offline

 

#7 2009-08-12 09:31:17

LIZdaGnome,

If he got additional money when Chief Joyce was on vacation if he was officially acting chief he may have a case to make that when Interim Chief Stanley isn't on duty in Wareham he is not just second in command but is functioning as acting chief.

Probably the most important question is whether Lt. Wallace is acting chief the other 148 hours a week.

I doubt he is. He's probably back to being the senior lieutenant.

Therefore is there a new set of rules or guidelines which differ from how it was when Lt. Wallace was functioning as second in command under Chief Joyce about when to run command decisions by Stanley?

I'd also wonder about the contact logistics for reaching Stanley since it will presumably have to be by telephone. Is Wareham providing him with a cellphone and is he expected to answer it all the time? If so I assume he is working for Wareham on/call 24/7.

Being on call for Wareham while working for North Andover may be considered double dipping if the on call duty is considered part of his Wareham pay as it would be in North Andover.

Last edited by urneighbor (2009-08-12 09:34:24)

Offline

 

#8 2009-08-12 13:15:38

bbrady wrote:

urneighbor,
I also would like to share my own questions.
First, did the administration even advertise for the "part time" position ? 
If so, where ?
How many applicants were there ?
When did they officially (on the record) approve the appointment they made ?
I would ask the ITA myself but he doesn't respond to citizen's questions because he's "too busy putting out fires".  Half of those fires or more, he and the leaders created.

My biggest concern is that if when the "part time" chief is not on our clock and then the senior staff (Lt. Wallace, I presume) is adequate to fill that role,
then why is he and staff not adequate full time until such time as the position is officially filled ?  That makes no sense at all.

Finally, when he takes Wareham's vehicle home, does he park it and then use N. Andover's and are we paying his lengthy travel time.

I'd be interested in knowing who negotiated this arrangement on behalf of the Wareham citizens and the department.  I also smell the low tide.

When I see him again, I'll ask him.  Good luck on that one, but I bet he will give honest answers unless he has been ordered not to speak of your above questions.  I'm weird, I like the smell of low tide, but------have you ever noticed the awful smell at Swifts Beach at low tide?  I'm not referring to Brucie, either - just a coincidence I guess.

Also, I wonder why Lt.Cardalino was on full force on this site and now nothing.  He'd better be on vacation.  Paul, we need some answers to things like civil service, etc..............

Offline

 

#9 2009-08-12 13:18:12

gogatemen wrote:

Where is the infamous George Coleman?  Is he still directing Crime Watch?  Crime Watch has been very quiet.  How will the new interim part-time Chief relate to the Crime Watch organization?  I wonder if anyone has tried to explain that convoluted mess to the new Chief.

I mentioned it very briefly when I met him.  He cracked a smile and kind of looked down for a second.  I saw Coleman going into HIS(not the chief's) OFFICE yesterday afternoon but he had a dk grey shirt on.  Incognito?

Last edited by bornofwareham (2009-08-12 13:49:38)

Offline

 

#10 2009-08-12 13:26:35

I don't believe a crime watch organization is a bad thing. It does serve a purpose. The problem is how it is set up and who it reports to. It needs to be better laid out to be effective. Maybe the new chief is working on that?

Offline

 

#11 2009-08-12 13:48:48

Larry McDonald wrote:

I don't believe a crime watch organization is a bad thing. It does serve a purpose. The problem is how it is set up and who it reports to. It needs to be better laid out to be effective. Maybe the new chief is working on that?

Crime Watch in other communities works, really.  I find that is nothing more than what our parents and neighbors did way back then.  If you see something that doesn't look right in your neighborhood, call the police.  This was what Crime Watch was supposed to be in the Town of Wareham.  When George got the vests and then the shirts and then a car he got -in his head- more power.  It has gone beyond what some people would call the "small man syndrome".  He has cruisers with commercial plates, which are for a business, unless your vehicle goes by the ton or axels.  Does George Coleman own this business?  He and his wife hold the positions of Pres., V.Pres or Ceo, Secr'y and Treasurer.  That is like a corporation.  Is Crime Watch incorporated? Who gave him the tickets?  He used to be watching for drug activity and break ins, etc. when he first started CW.  Now, he is overcome with the power of giving out tickets for parking and seems to have eliminated the "watching for crime aspect".  Who pays for the car ins. and any liability his volunteers may get into.  What about his rent?  Still donated?  We give him gas $ every month.    Plenty of questions asked over and over and NEVER have we rec'd the same answer twice.  Let's just hope that Mr. & Mrs. Coleman move out of  town with Mr. (using this loosely) Slager.

Offline

 

#12 2009-08-12 14:13:46

Born,
I see how it can all go wrong, but maybe with some direction from the New Chief, they can reel this back in and make it a more effective operation. This shouldn't be a pet project of the Selectmen. This should be an arm of the WPD. You are right, they don't need the car or any of the "police" equipment, what they need to do is to contact the police. It just got out of hand.

Offline

 

#13 2009-08-12 16:02:57

09-21388 1850 Unattended Death - Suspicious
Location/Address: SEAN CIR
EMS Unit: 61-Rescue 1
Unit: 2
Unit: 15
Unit: 11
Unit: 37
Unit: ZB1
Narrative:
POSSIBLE UNATTENDED. MALE FOUND INSIDE THE FRONT DOOR
SUSPICIOUS NOTIFICATIONS TO BE MADE
DETECTIVE DAMATA NOTIFIED 08/11/2009 1902
CHIEF STANLEY NOTIFIED 08/11/2009 1902
CHEIF ADVISES TO CONTACT LT WALLACE AND KEEP HIM (CHIEF)
UPDATED.
LT WALLACE 08/11/2009 1904

Hope this call explains it.. Looks like Lt. Wallace is in charge when Chief is out of town!

Offline

 

#14 2009-08-12 16:23:05

that answers 1 of my questions..ty

Offline

 

#15 2009-08-12 16:28:18

Yeah, so let's waste time trying to get ahold of the PT Chief so he can give the okey-doke for Lt. Wallace to take charge. Just what we need, more middle men when decisiveness is needed.
PShooter(Not Bobo's Buddy)

Offline

 

#16 2009-08-12 17:01:48

the postings on this thread raise a couple of questions & comments.

1. The article in the Lawrewnce eagle-Tribune seemed quite specific on the issue of the new Chief's vehicles. To wit: the town of N. Andover has issued a vehicle for the chief to use on duty in their Town. Fair enough. Their BoS has objected to their Town's vehicle going to the "Cape". OK, not quite.

The Chief responded, per the article, that the Town of Wareham has provided a vehicle for him to travel back & forth, as well as while on duty for the ToW. Well. doesn't that just beg the question: Where does the Wareham vehicle reside while the Chief is on duty in N. Andover? One can presume, I suppose, that it will be in the chief's driveway. Thus, is the Town of Wareham paying for a vehicle to sit idle during the Chief's full-time duties in N. Andover, to sit idle during the Chief's time off (you know, grabbin' a few Z's, etc.); but only to be used for travel to & from Wareham, and while on duty within Wareham? Does this make sense to anyone?

Today, I heard that a department head in Town Hall was denied permission to order STAPLES, because the department was out of staples. Idled cruisers v. staples and other necessities. Does this make sense to anyone, besides BoBo & the BoS?

2. Crime watch: is this group incorporated? Have they paid the necessary fees to the DOR (i.e,, corporate excise)? Who owns their vehicles? If they are owned by the corporation and/or leased, then motor vehicle excise must be paid to the town. Do they?
If they are not incorporated and a private group, then all of the furniture & fixtures are taxable by the Town as personal property.
If they claim to exempt from the taxes mentioned, then have they filed the proper documentation with the Attorney Generlal's office?

Many times, groups such this fail to cover these legal, and necessary points. It would be interesting to see if this group did its due diligence.

Offline

 

#17 2009-08-12 17:05:25

The concept of a part time Chief of Police is ludicrous.

Offline

 

#18 2009-08-12 17:35:37

Dan,

I'd expand this and add "who works full-time as a chief in a town 85 miles away which he owes his primary loyalty to".

You use of "ludicrous" is being kind.

If anything he should have been hired as a consultant, but that would be based on the asusmption that the Wareham Police Department had problems which justified bringing in an outside consultant.

From my information aside from not being able to control a rogue Crime Watch (through no fault of their own) and some personnel issues and use of force questions many departments have to remedy, your department was doing just fine.

Every department needs to take a fresh look at how they police their towns when they grow and change.

Chief Joyce was there long enough to see numerous changes in Wareham and you all have observations and opinions as to how well he adapted police policy and procedures to deal with them.

With a limited budget and fewer officers than I'm sure are needed to cover a town with two city centers and a huge retail strip on the heavily traveled Route 28 and another retail strip on Route 6, plus miles and miles of residential neigborhood is no easy logistic problem to solve.

Hopefully Chief Stanley can bring some fresh idea about that, but then he could have done this as a consultant not that this would be the best idea.

If anything Stanley can present ideas to the selection committee for the new chief as to what changes he thinks would benefit the department and the town so they can ask more cogent questions to the job candidates.

You could have waited until a new permanent chief was hired so he or she could work on these problems on their own.

Last edited by urneighbor (2009-08-12 17:38:38)

Offline

 

#20 2009-08-12 20:25:11

In their Articles of organization I don't see any authority to write up
traffic violations.  I'll research a bit further.  Otherwise Articl II spells out their authority.  See Article IV noting NONE
____________________________________________________________

ARTICLE I
The name of the corporation is:
ONSET COMMUNITY CRIME WATCH, INC.
ARTICLE II
The purpose of the corporation is to engage in the following business activities:
NEIGHBORHOOD CRIME WATCH, WORKING TOGETHER FOR A SAFER COMMUNITY INCLUDING BUT NOT
LIMITED TO VANDALISM PREVENTION, LARCENCY PREVENTION, SAFETY TIPS FOR SENIORS AND
WORKING TOGETHER WITH LOCAL POLICE DEPARTMENTS, PROVIDE THE MEANS FOR CITIZENS TO
RECOGNIZE POTENTIAL CRIME AND IMPLEMENT PREVENTION STRATEGIES, FURNISH RESIDENTS WITH
THE OPPORTUNITY TO BECOME BETTER ACQUAINTED IWTH ONE ANOTHER AND HTE ROUTINE
ACTIVITIES OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND IMPROVE THE QUALITY OF LIFE WITHIN A NEIGHBORHOOD
AND INCREASE COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION.
ARTICLE III
A corporation may have one or more classes of members. If it does, the designation of such classes, the manner of election or
appointments, the duration of membership and the qualifications and rights, including voting rights, of the members of each
class, may be set forth in the by-laws of the corporation or may be set forth below:
ARTICLE IV
NONE
Other lawful provisions, if any, for the conduct and regulation of the business and affairs of the corporation, for its voluntary
dissolution, or for limiting, defining, or regulating the powers of the corporation, or of its directors or members, or of any class of
members, are as follows: (If there are no provisions state "NONE")
_____________________________________________________________

Offline

 

#21 2009-08-12 20:33:00

Bullshit!!

Offline

 

#22 2009-08-12 20:33:43

They're a 501(c)(3) as stated in the "Articles of Ammendment".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/501(c)(3)# … .29.283.29

PShooter

Last edited by PShooter (2009-08-12 20:34:51)

Offline

 

#23 2009-08-12 20:34:04

hey lets ask the new chief ?
oh he can`t be bothered after 3 pm.
or his day off.




09-21388 1850 Unattended Death - Suspicious
Location/Address: SEAN CIR
EMS Unit: 61-Rescue 1
Unit: 2
Unit: 15
Unit: 11
Unit: 37
Unit: ZB1
Narrative:
POSSIBLE UNATTENDED. MALE FOUND INSIDE THE FRONT DOOR
SUSPICIOUS NOTIFICATIONS TO BE MADE
DETECTIVE DAMATA NOTIFIED 08/11/2009 1902
CHIEF STANLEY NOTIFIED 08/11/2009 1902
CHEIF ADVISES TO CONTACT LT WALLACE AND KEEP HIM (CHIEF)
UPDATED.
LT WALLACE 08/11/2009 1904

Offline

 

#24 2009-08-12 21:25:28

Was Lt. Wallace acting in the place of the chief able to make decisions in that role, or did he have to consult with the chief first.

Keeping the chief informed is unclear. Does it mean "tell me what you've decided to do and I'll either authorize it or not"? Or does it mean you make the decisions and just keep me apprised of what they are. Big difference.

My understanding is that there is always a line of authority that ends either with the chief or the chief's designee.

As I wrote before, when a chief is on vacation usually the second in command is the acting chief and has that authority.

What is the status of Chief Stanley in this regard? Is he always the final authority even for the 148 hours when he isn't working in Wareham?

Offline

 

#25 2009-08-12 21:35:48

Flyspeck & Pshooter

Not quite.

1. the classification of a corporation as a 501(c)(3) by the INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE, A FEDERAL AGENCY, has no bearing on the taxable status at the local level.

2. a filing with the Secretary of State of the Commonwealth has no bearing on the taxable status at the local level.

3. The organization MUST file with the public charities division of the Attorney General's office to qualify as an exempt organization. And, then MUST file with the local Board of assessors on form 3ABC, including the determination of the Attorney General. Only then, will an organization be classified as exempt from local taxation; whether it is a church, school, hospital, Crime Watch. Whatever.

this confuses people no end, because they believe that the exemption is automatic. Nope. Gotta do the paperwork.

And that was the question that I raised. I will check it out, and report to PShooter, Rip dinkle et al.

Last edited by notalawyer (2009-08-12 21:46:18)

Offline

 

#26 2009-08-14 00:18:01

Larry McDonald wrote:

Born,
I see how it can all go wrong, but maybe with some direction from the New Chief, they can reel this back in and make it a more effective operation. This shouldn't be a pet project of the Selectmen. This should be an arm of the WPD. You are right, they don't need the car or any of the "police" equipment, what they need to do is to contact the police. It just got out of hand.

Chief Joyce saw this getting out of hand.  He tried to slow them down and not have them giving out tickets, but the selectmen pushed it.  I think the BOS just weren't going to go along with anything Joyce said.  Bitter. The worst thing is that most of the volunteers are very nice and cordial people, trying to make their community better.  During a recent meeting, a volunteer asked Coleman about something to do with money.  I was told he almost bit off the person's head and yelled at him that HE was in charge and he named the positions of he and his wife.  Pres.,V.P., Secr'y & Treas.  Whoa!  I have been in the position of witnessing his ticket giving actions.  He is a bully with a foul mouth.  Visitors to Onset have asked me why we need a crime watch, is this town not safe? I word my answers carefully.  Chief Stanley introduced himself to me and we talked quite frankly about the hornet's nest he is sitting on.  I got a good feeling about him, straight up guy.  I asked him what he thought of our Crime Watch, he had a little grin, lowered his head and shook it a little.  I don't think he's impressed and I don't think that he should have to deal with them if there are so many ISSUES IN THE WAREHAM POLICE DEPARTMENT AND NEW DIRECTION NEEDED, per the selectmen.  By the way, he said that he had a lot of respect for the LT. and everyone he has met has told him that Wallace should be chief.  ''EVERYONE''  His words.

Offline

 

#27 2009-08-14 01:36:56

I think Wallace may be a good choice.   Maybe lunch sometime??

Offline

 

#28 2009-08-14 02:35:42

Ok, someone's bound to ask...

TREASURER      WILLARD N. OUTHOUSE         55C MINOT AVENUE
VICE PRESIDENT      GEORGE A. FUNNELL         24 HARDING AVENUE

Are the treasurer and vice president related?

Offline

 

#29 2009-08-17 10:32:46

interesting article from the new chiefs selectmen note 1 of them is a cop note his opinions..and it is stated wareham IS giving him a cruiser...
NORTH ANDOVER — Police Chief Richard Stanley is taking on a second job this summer — interim police chief in Wareham on Cape Cod.

Stanley, 53, said yesterday he will serve as both North Andover's chief and Wareham's part-time interim police chief over the next several months.

Stanley said he will work 20 hours a week in Wareham on top of his full-time duties in North Andover. Wareham is at least an 80-mile, 11/2-hour commute from the Merrimack Valley.

Stanley started this week.

The assignment could last two months to a year, as long as it takes Wareham to find a permanent chief, Stanley said.

North Andover selectmen voted 3-1 this week to let Stanley take on the side job.

Stanley, who has been police chief for 23 years, said yesterday that he will have time for both jobs. He said he will use vacation days, nights and weekends to work in Wareham.

Stanley said he will have more of an administrative role in Wareham, leaving day-to-day operations to superior officers.

"I'm very excited about this new project. I will help them with critical issues and ready them for a new chief," Stanley said yesterday. "This will be on my own time. There will be no mixing of the two."

Stanley will likely use one vacation day a week to go to Wareham, Town Manager Mark Rees said.

Rees made the announcement at Monday night's selectmen's meeting, after members had discussed it and voted in executive session.

Selectmen's Chairwoman Tracy Watson and selectmen Rosemary Smedile and Richard Nardella voted in favor of letting Stanley take the Wareham job. Selectman Dan Lanen, a police officer in town, recused himself from the vote.

Selectman Bill Gordon was the lone dissenter.

"I don't see any benefit to North Andover when the police chief has a part-time job an hour and a half away," Gordon said yesterday afternoon. "It's nothing personal. The chief has done a good job. But the position of police chief is the kind of job that is 24 hours a day, 7 days a week."

Selectmen said they will review the situation in 60 days. If they feel the chief's work in North Andover is suffering, they will pull the plug on his Wareham job.

"We believe helping out a fellow community is the right thing to do," Watson said. "As long as his first priority is and always will be the town of North Andover. After 60 days, we'll see if the arrangement is working for us."

Stanley emphasized that the Wareham job will not cost North Andover taxpayers a dime.

His North Andover-issued vehicle will sit in his driveway when he is commuting to Wareham, he said.

"Wareham is giving me a cruiser to use to travel back and forth," he said.

Stanley also made it clear that he is not seeking the Wareham job on a permanent basis.

"Am I interested? Clearly no," Stanley said. "I am not a candidate nor do I intend to be a candidate. I have the best job in the world as police chief of North Andover. I intend to retire here."

When asked when he will retire, Stanley said he doesn't know when he will step down. Technically, he could retire later this year. He was appointed a police officer in North Andover in 1977. He became chief in 1986.

His name was floated around two years ago as a successor to former Methuen Chief Joseph Solomon. He had said at the time he would be interested in applying.

Stanley said he became aware of the interim Wareham job through the Massachusetts Chiefs of Police Association. Wareham police Chief Thomas Joyce abruptly retired in early June, amid a townwide computer "audit" ordered by the Board of Selectmen.

"They were kind of in a flux and needed someone to fill in for a while," Stanley said. "They wanted someone to come in from the outside and help out on a part-time basis."

It is not known how much Wareham will pay Stanley. Wareham Town Administrator John Sanguinet did not return calls yesterday.

Last year, Stanley made $132,546, with stipends, in North Andover.

Rees said there are conditions to Stanley being allowed to serve in Wareham. Besides only working in Wareham on his own time, and providing his own transportation, he has to provide Rees with a schedule of when he'll be working in Wareham ahead of time.

He also will discontinue his role with the North Eastern Massachusetts Law Enforcement Council.

Stanley has served as control chief of the regional response team and SWAT for NEMLEC for two decades. The teams handle critical incidents in Essex and Middlesex counties.

"That will free up time for me," Stanley said. "It's unfortunate that I will have to step down, but it's time to move on."

Stanley said he has always had projects on the side, and it's never affected his work in North Andover. Earlier in his career, he taught classes at UMass Lowell and UMass Medical Center. In his position with NEMLEC, he controlled 160 officers in his teams.

"I want to assure residents of the town of North Andover as well as staff of the Police Department I will not shirk my responsibilities here," Stanley said.

Watson said she voted to let the chief take on the Wareham job because she saw it as more of a consulting role than a day-to-day job.

"The board recognizes that the chief has an excellent command structure," Rees said. "He's gone out of town before, for conferences and vacation, and leaves behind a well-qualified staff."

Offline

 

#30 2009-08-17 10:39:11

I think the description of the "Part-time Chief" is best as a consultant.
A competent Chief, a leader, has to be on the job 24/7 and available to his men and women officers and to the people of Wareham.
This whole concept is ludicrous.
Bad management personified.

Offline

 

#31 2009-08-17 11:53:21

Does this mean , Crime Watch
can no longer write tickets ?


09-21830 1126 DISTURBANCE/GENERAL
Location/Address: LONGWOOD AVE + FIRST ST
Unit: ZB1
Unit: 10
Narrative:
BIKE PATROL OFF WITH CRIME WATCH WITH A DISTURBANCE
REGARDING PARKING.
OFFICER FLUEGEL SPOKE WITH TWO PARTIES FROM OUT OF STATE
ABOUT TICKET ISSUED:
JOEL MCMULLEN (05-18-54)
Wareham Police Department Page: 5
Dispatch Log From: 08/16/2009 Thru: 08/16/2009 0000 - 2359 Printed: 08/17/2009
DAWN ELLIS (01-08-66)
SPOKE WITH HOWARD KAPLEN OF CRIME WATCH AS WELL. TICKET
TAKEN BY OFFICER. SERGEANT WAS ALSO ON SCENE.

Offline

 

#32 2009-08-17 12:54:17

PinkPanther wrote:

I think Wallace may be a good choice.   Maybe lunch sometime??

Every one of us has a quirk or two in our personalities.  That's what makes us unique.  Same as hair color, skin color, height, and education. What a boring world if we all looked, thought, & dressed alike.  Where I'm going with this is that:
         #1 whatever Tom Joyce did or didn't do is over.
         #2 selectmen in town are voted in by the people of Wareham in good
              faith that they would represent the majority of our voices.
         #3 selectmen in Wareham are not even listening to the good people
              of Wareham who want or Need to be heard. We are dismissed and
              told to sit down--embarrassing!
         #4 We are asking for Lt. Wallace to be Chief of Police in Wareham,
              because he knows the people, the community, the good and bad
              residents, the trouble spots, his police officers as a whole and sep-
              arately as individuals.  He is approachable. He is intelligent and 
              extremely well educated and is a great spokesperson.  If asked
              a  question and he If he isn't sure of an answer he will research it.
         #5 If there was a true "Tommy Joyce era", it left when he did.
         #6 Why are the good people of Wareham being punished for the       
              unique quirks of Tommy Joyce.
         #7 Why aren't we going to be able to have the Chief of Police that the
              majority of us want and move forward.
         #8 What are we giving our patrolmen, and Sgt.s to look forward to in
              their future on the WPD.  No promotion past LT.  All chiefs will come
              from a list of applicants from any other town in Mass., except here.
         #9 All chiefs will answer to a BOS that have no legal background - "If we
              want it, Chief, you will do it - even if it's on the edge of being illegal
              or else - they can just sue us".
       #10 Lt. Wallace hasn't even been given the chance to show how he
              would change things in the WPD or how he would work with this
              shoestring budget they are given.

Okay, so the above have some quirks and unique personalities.  Not just the BOS, the former chief, our Lt. Wallace and the officers of the WPD.  Are these things bad?  Not neccessarily.  But, when their quirks and uniqueness under-mine the peoples choices in Wareham - it can be very dangerous.  The majority of the BOS and the brazen insolence of the ITA and the Town Moderator are pulling Wareham into a dark and dismal hole.  I can't see a ladder to climb out of this hole unless we get LT. WALLACE as CHIEF OF THE WAREHAM POLICE DEPARTMENT (which will bring a better morale to every one in town) and to totally REMOVE THE CURRENT BOARD OF UNSELECTMEN.  If they would announce a meeting that would be about how we feel and what our concerns were for Wareham as a whole - not a regular selectman's meeting, but maybe a betterment meeting - and if they would REALLY listen to us, it could be a ladder long enough to climb out of the black
hole. This would have to be without Jane's ums and uhs and Bruce would have to turn off his sarcastic comments and the others need to LISTEN and SPEAK INTELLIGENTLY and the ITA could be put in a plexiglass booth, with airholes, but not be allowed to speak.  He's already done enough damage to this town.  Like I said in the beginning, we all have quirks and we are all unique, let's work together to save the beautiful, charming Town of Wareham.

Last edited by bornofwareham (2009-08-17 22:54:18)

Offline

 

#33 2009-08-17 13:02:36

Just in from David Smith's editorial on the police chief found in wicked local online:
Huh?

The choice of North Andover Police Chief Richard Stanley as the town’s interim police chief is just odd, and there seems to be some puzzle piece missing.

Stanley plans to come down to Wareham a few days a week and use his vacation time to do so. This is not in any way disparaging his character or ability, and the papers in North Andover did not express any criticism of his overall performance, although editorials there on the appointment have been critical of both that town’s Board of Selectmen for authorizing the move, as well as the chief’s decision to accept the position.

How effective anyone can be in such an important job when he or she is only in the town a few days a week is a legitimate concern. It also further highlights how committed the town’s administration is to not promoting from within, a demoralizing policy to say the least.

The appointment is just the latest example of departmental jerry rigging at town hall. A COA director named as acting library director, an accountant who does not meet all the qualifications and certifications, a town planner who came and went before ever really starting, and now a police chief 80 miles away making twice-weekly pop-ins. Be afraid, folks, be very afraid.

Perhaps there are reasons for this most recent appointment that residents are not aware of. Maybe he was brought in to address or fix a specific problem, who knows?

Just don’t hold your breath waiting for answers.

Offline

 

#34 2009-08-17 13:06:36

Larry McDonald wrote:

Born,
I see how it can all go wrong, but maybe with some direction from the New Chief, they can reel this back in and make it a more effective operation. This shouldn't be a pet project of the Selectmen. This should be an arm of the WPD. You are right, they don't need the car or any of the "police" equipment, what they need to do is to contact the police. It just got out of hand.

How can the WPD control it when it is a legal corporation?  This takes it out of the police dept's hands, wouldn't you think?  The selectmen must be giving this corp. their tickets - unless they have their own printed up by Slager's printer.  I think they have filed for a non-profit organization.  It's going to take a Washington lawyer to get us any anwers.  How sad.

Offline

 

#35 2009-08-17 13:21:34

urneighbor wrote:

Dan,

I'd expand this and add "who works full-time as a chief in a town 85 miles away which he owes his primary loyalty to".

You use of "ludicrous" is being kind.

If anything he should have been hired as a consultant, but that would be based on the asusmption that the Wareham Police Department had problems which justified bringing in an outside consultant.

From my information aside from not being able to control a rogue Crime Watch (through no fault of their own) and some personnel issues and use of force questions many departments have to remedy, your department was doing just fine.

Every department needs to take a fresh look at how they police their towns when they grow and change.

Chief Joyce was there long enough to see numerous changes in Wareham and you all have observations and opinions as to how well he adapted police policy and procedures to deal with them.

With a limited budget and fewer officers than I'm sure are needed to cover a town with two city centers and a huge retail strip on the heavily traveled Route 28 and another retail strip on Route 6, plus miles and miles of residential neigborhood is no easy logistic problem to solve.

Hopefully Chief Stanley can bring some fresh idea about that, but then he could have done this as a consultant not that this would be the best idea.

If anything Stanley can present ideas to the selection committee for the new chief as to what changes he thinks would benefit the department and the town so they can ask more cogent questions to the job candidates.

You could have waited until a new permanent chief was hired so he or she could work on these problems on their own.

Is Stanley going to present ideas to the BOS or as Chief can he just move ahead and apply these changes.  They said he was trained in the "issues" that are the same "issues" Wareham has. That is so broad a statement.  What in hell does it mean?  It could be something as stupid as how the officers cut their toe nails, for all I can tell.  WHAT ARE THESE ISSUES - WE DESERVE TO KNOW!    Also, what NEW DIRECTION do we need to be taking?  All I can see from where I sit is down hill.

Offline

 

#36 2009-08-17 13:28:41

Molly wrote:

Just in from David Smith's editorial on the police chief found in wicked local online:
Huh?

The choice of North Andover Police Chief Richard Stanley as the town’s interim police chief is just odd, and there seems to be some puzzle piece missing.

Stanley plans to come down to Wareham a few days a week and use his vacation time to do so. This is not in any way disparaging his character or ability, and the papers in North Andover did not express any criticism of his overall performance, although editorials there on the appointment have been critical of both that town’s Board of Selectmen for authorizing the move, as well as the chief’s decision to accept the position.

How effective anyone can be in such an important job when he or she is only in the town a few days a week is a legitimate concern. It also further highlights how committed the town’s administration is to not promoting from within, a demoralizing policy to say the least.

The appointment is just the latest example of departmental jerry rigging at town hall. A COA director named as acting library director, an accountant who does not meet all the qualifications and certifications, a town planner who came and went before ever really starting, and now a police chief 80 miles away making twice-weekly pop-ins. Be afraid, folks, be very afraid.

Perhaps there are reasons for this most recent appointment that residents are not aware of. Maybe he was brought in to address or fix a specific problem, who knows?

Just don’t hold your breath waiting for answers.

I AM VERY AFRAID.

Offline

 

#37 2009-08-17 13:39:03

bornofwareham wrote:

How can the WPD control it when it is a legal corporation?  This takes it out of the police dept's hands, wouldn't you think?  The selectmen must be giving this corp. their tickets - unless they have their own printed up by Slager's printer.  I think they have filed for a non-profit organization.  It's going to take a Washington lawyer to get us any anwers.  How sad.

I have no idea why anyone would want a rogue organization performing functions that could result in:
1. Bodily injury (if mistaken for a police officer)
2. Lawsuits against the town, because they are acting as agents of the town.
3. conflict with the WPD, because they are authorized to operate outside the control of the WPD

This does not sound like a neighborhood crime watch! Again, I am at a loss when it comes to the actions of the Selectmen. They seem to tie up the hands of every department, then offer a solution that is less than adequate. Sigh, we are slowly sinking into the swamp.

As far as the acting Police Chief, I'm sure this is a good gig. He may be a successful Chief with good ideas, so I would welcome his input, but as a consultant! The morale of the WPD is taking a beating I'm sure.

I have heard rumblings about how the Selectmen want to remove the appointment of a Police Chief from the ranks of civil service. ( i don't have all the facts, but this the basic idea). Does this mean they could actually appoint whomever they want, even if they don't have a background as a police officer?

Offline

 

#38 2009-08-17 23:13:27

Larry McDonald wrote:

bornofwareham wrote:

How can the WPD control it when it is a legal corporation?  This takes it out of the police dept's hands, wouldn't you think?  The selectmen must be giving this corp. their tickets - unless they have their own printed up by Slager's printer.  I think they have filed for a non-profit organization.  It's going to take a Washington lawyer to get us any anwers.  How sad.

I have no idea why anyone would want a rogue organization performing functions that could result in:
1. Bodily injury (if mistaken for a police officer)
2. Lawsuits against the town, because they are acting as agents of the town.
3. conflict with the WPD, because they are authorized to operate outside the control of the WPD

This does not sound like a neighborhood crime watch! Again, I am at a loss when it comes to the actions of the Selectmen. They seem to tie up the hands of every department, then offer a solution that is less than adequate. Sigh, we are slowly sinking into the swamp.

As far as the acting Police Chief, I'm sure this is a good gig. He may be a successful Chief with good ideas, so I would welcome his input, but as a consultant! The morale of the WPD is taking a beating I'm sure.

I have heard rumblings about how the Selectmen want to remove the appointment of a Police Chief from the ranks of civil service. ( i don't have all the facts, but this the basic idea). Does this mean they could actually appoint whomever they want, even if they don't have a background as a police officer?

The majority of the Wareham Police Officers say that the morale has hit hard.  But, worse than that is the anger of these men that the one person they expected to be their chief isn't even in the running. They have absolutely no say in this, even though they are the ones putting their lives on the line for us every single day, 24 hours a day and 7 days a week.  This is not a popularity contest.  This is a job that you need extensive experience to run.  They tell me that Wallace is the man for the job.  Why aren't they polled?

The article is already on the warrant for town meeting.  The BOS want to make the Chief's job non civil service.  If this happens, the BOS choose whoever they want to be chief.  Do they have to have a background as a police officer, I'm not sure.  But....what scares me is that what will stop them from making Brucie or George Coleman Chief of Wareham's Police Dept.?

Offline

 

#39 2009-08-18 08:51:19

That is why we have an interim chief. They want to wait until after the town meeting to put their plan in place. This is why we MUST organize and get everyone on board. It's warrants like these that will shape the town and not in a good way. Is this a common practice in other towns? If so, how well does it work? I would think it would benefit Wareham (or any city) to have the chief come through civil service.

It's time to do research.

Offline

 

#40 2009-08-18 15:14:54

All the clowns had to do was order a Chief test for civil service, Plymouth did it last year, this is ridiculous.

Offline

 

#41 2009-08-18 17:40:28

TBL

Make no mistake about it. The only reason the selectmen want to take the chief of police position out of civil service is so they can have full control over the police chief and to appoint whoever they want. A big reason for the creation of civil service is to keep politics out of government jobs. Do you want a police chief, or do you want a political hack?

Offline

 

#42 2009-08-18 21:37:42

Here's a thought: Mr Moderator went to Law School (couldn't pass the Bar Exam), and he's looking for a job (fired from courthouse)..If they can't make him Mayor, maybe Police Chief??..civil service is a must..

Offline

 

#43 2009-08-18 21:46:31

Fired from the Courthouse ?  No one gets fired from the courthouse.
Why ?  What did he do ?  How come that never made it in The Wareham Observer ?  Let me guess...the character of our elected officials should never be questioned.

Offline

 

#44 2009-08-18 21:52:35

hes not a very good organizer of peaceful protest or answewring my question i cant see him as chief let alone mayor....

Offline

 

#45 2009-08-18 22:16:47

I couldn't see him as dogcatcher let alone moderator...

Offline

 

#46 2009-08-18 22:38:06

BOB I TALKED WITH ONE OF THE PEOPLE AT THE COURTHOUSE AND HE WAS GIVEN THE (RESIGN OR BE FIRED) OPTION. HE WAS NOT FOLLOWING UP ON CASES HE HAD. HE HAD NUMEROUS CHANCES AND HE DID NOT DO A DAMN THING. THE PROBABTION OFFICER I SPOKE WITH SAID THAT IN HIS 17 YEARS HE KNOWS OF NO ONE THAT HAS EVER BEEN LET GO AS A P/O EVER EXCEPT JOHN D.

Offline

 

#47 2009-08-18 22:41:18

I TRIED TO GET THE WAREHAMOBSERVER TO WRITE ABOUT IT. I SPOKE ABOUT JOHN D BEING LET GO MONTHS AGO AND BOB WOULD NEVER WRITE ABOUT IT. JUST LIKE WHEN THE POET WHO WORKED FOR HIM STOLE A CAR HE NEVER WROTE ABOUT IT OR WHEN THE POET WAS ARRESTED FOR PRETENDING TO BE A MEMBER OF HOMELAND SECURITY AND SHOWED UP AT A BOURNE PUBLIC SCHOOL. WEIRD SO MUCH NEWS AT BOBO'S FOOTSTEPS AND HE NEVER WRITES ABOUT IT. I ALSO REMEMBER THIS BLOG TALKING ABOUT BRUCIE OWING TAX MONEY. IN ONE ARTICLE BOBO WROTE THAT THE HATEBLOGGERS WERE LYING (THIS ARTICLE WAS ABOUT A YEAR AGO) AND THEN WHEN THE S-T COVERED IT BOBO CLAIMED HE KNEW ABOUT IT FOR YEARS BUT IT WAS NOT RELEVANT NEWS.

Offline

 

#48 2009-08-18 22:51:53

IHATESLAGER wrote:

BOB I TALKED WITH ONE OF THE PEOPLE AT THE COURTHOUSE AND HE WAS GIVEN THE (RESIGN OR BE FIRED) OPTION. HE WAS NOT FOLLOWING UP ON CASES HE HAD. HE HAD NUMEROUS CHANCES AND HE DID NOT DO A DAMN THING. THE PROBABTION OFFICER I SPOKE WITH SAID THAT IN HIS 17 YEARS HE KNOWS OF NO ONE THAT HAS EVER BEEN LET GO AS A P/O EVER EXCEPT JOHN D.

IHS, Thanks for that.  I never knew.  I guess I'm a bit out of the loop.

Offline

 

#49 2009-08-19 11:09:38

TBL wrote:

Make no mistake about it. The only reason the selectmen want to take the chief of police position out of civil service is so they can have full control over the police chief and to appoint whoever they want. A big reason for the creation of civil service is to keep politics out of government jobs. Do you want a police chief, or do you want a political hack?

I agree.  But......does this mean that everytime we get a new BOS, we are likely to get a new chief?  Would he have a contract with the town for X amount of years?         I wouldn't be so frustrated if I had answers.  Who do you go to, not the selectmen - that's for sure.

Last edited by bornofwareham (2009-08-19 11:20:52)

Offline

 

#50 2009-08-19 11:18:00

bbrady wrote:

IHATESLAGER wrote:

BOB I TALKED WITH ONE OF THE PEOPLE AT THE COURTHOUSE AND HE WAS GIVEN THE (RESIGN OR BE FIRED) OPTION. HE WAS NOT FOLLOWING UP ON CASES HE HAD. HE HAD NUMEROUS CHANCES AND HE DID NOT DO A DAMN THING. THE PROBABTION OFFICER I SPOKE WITH SAID THAT IN HIS 17 YEARS HE KNOWS OF NO ONE THAT HAS EVER BEEN LET GO AS A P/O EVER EXCEPT JOHN D.

IHS, Thanks for that.  I never knew.  I guess I'm a bit out of the loop.

Aren't we all!  What other things are going on that we don't know about?  I don't care if he got fired or resigned.  Most importantly is the fact that HE WAS NOT DOING HIS JOB, so of course that makes me feel that his job here meant nothing to him either.  I think we both just missed the bus on that one.

Offline

 

#51 2009-08-19 11:20:25

Civil Service is PROTECTION for a Chief, Capt., Lt., Sgt., or Patrolman.
It is designed to PROTECT against arbitrary political interference.
The removal of Civil Service for ANY position on the Police Department would be catastrophic, in my opinion.
Cops need to be protected too.
That's one way you can thank them for their service to you everyday...protect them. Support them. Respect them. Expect excellence of them. They won't let you down.
They just need to know that people are behind them.

Offline

 

#52 2009-08-19 11:26:26

danoconnell wrote:

Civil Service is PROTECTION for a Chief, Capt., Lt., Sgt., or Patrolman.
It is designed to PROTECT against arbitrary political interference.
The removal of Civil Service for ANY position on the Police Department would be catastrophic, in my opinion.
Cops need to be protected too.
That's one way you can thank them for their service to you everyday...protect them. Support them. Respect them. Expect excellence of them. They won't let you down.
They just need to know that people are behind them.

Thank you.  I've been trying to find this info, you made it clear.  I like the part

-IT  IS  DESIGNED  TO   PROTECT   AGAINST   ARBITRARY   POLITICAL   INTERFERENCE.

I think that describes why the BOS have put this artical on the warrant for town meeting.  Ya think?

Offline

 

#53 2009-08-19 11:27:53

Yes..I do think. I also think you had better work hard to fill Town Meeting to stop this issue plus a few others it looks like might be shoved down your throats.

Offline

 

#54 2009-08-19 11:42:10

What really needs to happen is to cut off the head (The Selectmen) of this dysfunctional clow act. We need Selectmen that do NOT try to run the town. That is the job of the TA. They need to perform the duties as laid out in the Charter and bylaws. That's it. They are not the town managers, but continue to act like they are.

We need to make sure that any resolution or warrant to change the status of the Police Chief is voted down.

Offline

 

#55 2010-01-27 19:56:11

GWB

Thought it might be relevent to bring this thread forward in light of the recent goings on in North Andover. Now I understand,respect and appriciate,what Interim Chief Stanley has attempted to do here since he came to Town. If he had come to Town as the full time Chief then I might have actually been supportive of the hiring decision. My gut tells me LT. Wallace could have done the job but alas none of us have control over who gets hired for the job. That being said one concern that I had when I first heard that the BOS would be choosing to go this route was how any one man could take on the role of police chief for two departments and do it sucessfully. To be a chief of police is a huge responsibility and to undertake that role in two communties is a daunting task to put it mildly.

  Now there is no real way to know whether or not what happend in North Andover could have been avoided if Chief Stanley was focusing only on that department but my opinion is that it may have helped. Now he finds himself listed as a named defendant in a federal civil rights lawsuit brought by the family of the man who died. I can't help but think that he may have to focus on that. At that point I would have to ask will this issue effect his abilty to focus on Wareham as much as he has to this point.
   
  Also what I would wonder is that the BOS in North Andover has retained the right to review this arrangement periodically and to end the agreement if they feel it interferes with his abilty to be Chief there. My feeling is they will be looking at it very closely now. Especially since the Town of North Andover itself has also been named in this suit.

  It should be interesting to see how this plays out.

Offline

 

#56 2010-01-27 20:19:47

Thanks for the information and the insight, GWB.

Offline

 

#57 2010-01-27 20:39:03

GWB

No problem Mr. Oconnell. Here is Another thought I had. Now Mr. Slager claims to print Wareham News but I'm willing to bet Chief Stanley's troubles in North Andover won't make his paper especially in light of the fact that Mr. Slager just named Chief Stanley his man of the year. However I'm Willing to bet that if the roles were reversed and it was chief Joyce who was serving in a dual role while chief here it would be front page news.

I am not as computer savvey as some here so I had to research this the hard way by typing in North Andover Police and clicking the links. Since it is current news it was easy to find.

Offline

 

#58 2010-01-27 21:22:45

GWB wrote:

...the BOS in North Andover has retained the right to review this arrangement periodically and to end the agreement if they feel it interferes with his abilty to be Chief there..

I was thinking of that too. A few on that board have expressed reservations about the arrangement already..and if this costs them a bunch o' money, maybe they'll end it.

I believe he's planning to retire (from North Andover anyway).Brucey gushed all over him (again) last time he (iChief Stanley) spoke to the BoS..saying "I'm ready for you to be full time", or something like that..I agree with your opinion GWB, It's the arrangement that I have the most problems with. There was a vote taken at TM, remember?? Call for a test, it's been three months since Article 5 failed. I want a full time Chief who's only focus is Wareham. If he's done a good job, great! Pick a solid replacement (or at least get the process going)..and let them pick up where he leaves off..or if he's eligible (and willing), make him one of the candidates.

Just like I wouldn't give Bill Belichick (hi Larry)..ALL the credit for any success the Patriots have, or had...I like to think iChief Stanley's men, and women deserve an equal share in any accolades given the Wareham Police force.

P-SPAN
TAKEBACKWAREHAM
April 6, 2010

Offline

 

#59 2010-01-27 21:26:03

P-Span is the MAN!!

Offline

 

Board footer

warehamwater.cruelery.com