I have read what's on the Police Union's site (http://www.warehampoliceunion.com/10001.html) and crossed referrenced it with Bobo's jeer, and as usual Bobo is way off base.

Bobo says....

George Dionne - It looks like the head of the Wareham Police Union is up to his old tricks again. In a letter to Interim Town Administrator John Sanguinet that has been posted on the police union web site, Dionne asks the ITA not to insert a article into the Fall Town Meeting warrant that would allow voters to chose to remove civil service protection from the police chief position. Dionne closes his letter with a bizarre “threat,” saying “If this action does go forward to be heard at Town Meeting, the Police Union is fully prepared to educate the public as to why we do not support removing the position from Civil Service.”

Prior to that last sentence that only Bobo sees as a "threat,"  The Union states: 
If this is something you feel very strong about, you should at least put this action off until you can properly seek the opinions of those that work for the Police Department, and properly educate the citizens of the Town as to the pros and cons of such an action.

And even prior to that they state:  I am also concerned that the action of taking the Chief’s position out of Civil Service is going forward without any explanation to the Police Department or the citizens of Wareham, as to why it is being done and what the benefits and negatives of the action would be.  This does not seem very responsible.

To me the last sentence in their letter says, if you do not inform the public of the pros and cons (which is seems like the BOS/ITA won't) then the Union will.  Is that a threat?!  Please!

Bobo continues..

Dionne also complained that he did not receive a response from Sanguinet.  This is the perfect example of why Dionne should stop trying to play politics. It just makes the police union look bad. First of all, Sanguinet did not insert the article into the town meeting warrant. The Board of Selectmen did. Why would Sanguinet respond to a letter than never should have been addressed to him in the first place?

Also, Sanguinet has no authority to stop the insertion of a warrant article by the BOS so Dionne’s entire letter is pointless. If Dionne had done some research before putting the seal of the police union on a letter, he would have known who actually authored this warrant article and would have directed his letter accordingly.

Let me direct your attention to the video of the September 1st BOS meeting:  http://takebackwareham86bos.blogspot.co … -of-5.html

At the 24:14 mark John Sanguinet states; "I currently have 5 articles to be included on that warrant. 

At 24:53 Sanguinet again states, "I'm going to be working on those articles."

The Union's letter is dated September 4th.  Three days after the meeting.  Yes, once the warrant was closed, it stated the article was inserted by the BOS, but prior to that, TWICE Sanguinet mentioned he was working on them.

And let's take this a step further....  what if the Union sent it to the wrong department.  You mean to tell me Sanguinet couldn't have contacted them and said, "you need to talk to the Board."  No, he ignored them.  If you read the rest of the articles on the union site, he ignores them all the time.

Second, Dionne is clearly suggesting that the residents of Wareham shouldn’t have a say in the status of the police chief.

Hold your horses Bobo.  Was it the citizens that inserted it into the warrant?  I'd also direct you back to the Union's letter where they state:  I am also concerned that the action of taking the Chief’s position out of Civil Service is going forward without any explanation to the Police Department or the citizens of Wareham, as to why it is being done and what the benefits and negatives of the action would be.  This does not seem very responsible.

And....

If this is something you feel very strong about, you should at least put this action off until you can properly seek the opinions of those that work for the Police Department, and properly educate the citizens of the Town as to the pros and cons of such an action.

Dionne tried to stop the warrant article from even coming before town meeting. Does Dionne have any clue how bad that makes the police union look? Most people in Wareham think democracy is pretty important. Many people in town have loved ones fighting overseas to protect the single greatest aspect of this nation. Maybe Dionne should open his eyes to that.

Classic deflection.  Compare keeping the Chief's position out of Civil Service to not caring about people fighting in the military for your democracy.  If I could steal the classic quote, it would be funny if it weren't so sad. And once again, go back to the last two quotes from the Union letter, sections that Bobo conveniently left out.   

Third, we’re at a loss to understand what weight is behind the “threat” of the police union educating the public on its viewpoint regard the civil service issue. That’s exactly what the police union should be doing. That’s how it works. Both sides present their arguments and the voters decide which way to go. If the police union does not make its viewpoint known to the public it needs a new union head.

Where do I start... they said they ARE prepared to didn't they?  Only Bobo is taking this as a threat I'm sure, under the advisement of Sweet Brucie I'm sure.

Ironically, the Observer is actually leaning toward the police union’s position on the warrant article. A dedicated, professional police chief is in a better position to establish police for his or her department than a Board of Selectman would be.

Another case of Bobo trying to insert HIMSELF into the news.  Who cares what the rags opinion is?  Not even a resident, voter, or source of factual information.  As proven above!

But Dionne continues to cast his union in a negative light through his own lack of research and over-inflated sense of self-importance. It may be time for the union to find a new spokesperson before this one does any more damage.

Funny how the only "Newspaper" with that opinion is the rag....

Last edited by commonsense (2009-09-19 17:13:50)