Rather than recap what the Union said in there press release (which Slager probably copies from a real newspaper), I'm going to focus on his commentary...

Police Union dives into dirty water

Look out below Bob, Bruce, Brenda, Jane, James, and John.

OK. I’ve caught my breath. Have you?

I am shocked there was no, "Oh my head"

Well, it seems our local police union has now become a full-fledged political action committee. How charming. And George Dionne, who we once filed a harassment complaint against after her accused us of defrauding our advertisers without a single shred of evidence (the police department "accidently deleted" Dionne’s e-mails to us), is leading the charge. Shocking.

Was this "harassment" similar to Mr. Wheeler's, Icarus?

As usual, Mr. Dionne is exercising his talent for distortion and leaving out some inconvenient facts. The biggest fact he left out in the actual reason the release was sent.

Because YOU would know the real reason somehow Carnac the Magnificent. 

The police department has been under investigation for several months by a special investigator hired by the town.

Won't there be egg on your face when it comes back clearing the department.  Word out of Bristol DA's office is, they were cleared for the thing in Onset.  Will the Selectmen announce that?  Or will they cry another conspiracy theory?

One officer was reportedly placed on administrative leave earlier this week for running a private business out of the police station.

Get your facts straight.  If you go back to the Selectmen's Meeting where they were discussing cutting the budget with Mr. McAuliff, you'd know that it wasn't an Officer. 

Police Chief Thomas Joyce is hanging on by a thread following the fourth claim of discrimination against him by a police department employee in five years.

Shocking, there were NONE before that.  When did Bruce and Brenda take office? Oh and did anyone mention one of the accusers is best friends with Donahue?

I almost fell off my chair when I read Dionne’s claim that the selectmen are acting like dictators. If Dionne’s wants to see what a dictator looks like, I’m sure he has plenty of mirrors in his house.

Can you back this up with an example?  The example he gave was that the Selecetment were trying to destroy all the department heads in order to control all the departments.  Well, at least his claim is verifiable:  Pillsbury, Joyce, Whalley, Bliss, Mizerak.  How is the Dionne guy a dictator?

No, this is about power. This is about a town department that was granted such complete autonomy for so long its employees not only got used to it but began to see it as their god-given right.

I think you have the Police Department confused with the Board of Selectmen.

This is about silencing criticism.

Wait, I thought it was about power?

It’s about denying the First Amendment rights of private citizens to speak out against police. It's about smearing anyone who speaks out.

Aren't you smearing the Police about speaking out RIGHT NOW?

Let’s get one thing out of the way right now. The vast majority of Wareham police officers are fine, upstanding people dedicated to serving and protecting Wareham. But a few are not. A few are police officers because of the power it brings them, power they would not find anywhere else.

I wonder what you "inside informants" have in their closet?

These are the facts: Selectmen have offered "citizen’s participation" at the beginning of their meetings for nearly two years. The practice began under a different Board of Selectmen, and frankly, it’s a wonderful idea. Every resident is given face-to-face access to their elected officials. That is about the purest form of democracy imaginable.

True, but it's not Police complaint hour.  And I didn't see anything in that press release about the Police having a problem with the citizens.  Just the Selectmen entertaining their claims.

On a couple of occasions (and it has only been a couple of times despite Dionne’s claim) residents used the opportunity to voice complaints about police conduct.

So by your logic, they should wait till 10? 20? 30 times?  I'm sure they want to nip it in the bud.

That’s what has the union up in arms. They don’t want to be publicly criticized because they want a new contract. So they are sticking to their talking points. They insist that all such criticism should go through proper channels - the police department.

They'll get a new contract year after year whether there is pubic criticism or not.  So your claim is bullshit.

The problem with that is many people in the community don’t have faith in the police administration. During two widely reported claims of excessive force last summer, the police internal investigation was woefully inadequate. In one police never interviewed a key eye-witness. In the other the police chief issued a press release supporting an officer without bothering to conduct an internal investigation at all.

And what you omitted was that the "victim" refused to be interviewed for the investigation.  If you've ever been to court, and we know you haven't based on your other claims, you'd know without a victim there is no crime.  Case in point, a battered woman that chooses not to testify against her husband.  The witness statement alone cannot put them away.  Only the victim.  Isn't this on Law and Order Bob?  That's where you get your Police information, isn't it?

Clearly the union has issues with selectmen Bruce Sauvageau, and some of them are valid. Sauvageau should never have verbally berated an officer whom he had a history of personal animosity.

Now I'm falling out of my chair.  However, there must be a BUT...

But many of Dionne’s claims are simply not true. The board as a whole has not taken the word of "known criminals" over police officers.

Didn't Mr. Andrade admit he had a "checkered past?"  How about Mr. Kelly?

The police investigation Dionne’s refers to is far more extensive than just Sauvageau’s arrest. The investigation was called for in executive session because it concerned town employees.

I don't see those minutes anywhere.  How do you know about it?

As for selectmen "lying" about the circumstances of Sauvageau’s arrest, I don’t recall a single word regarding that issue ever coming up at a selectmen’s meeting.

No?  You don't remember Brenda mentioning that she knows someone here that could sue the town, but didn't when referring to those people that signed the Oceanside petition?  Did you skip that part in the tape?  Did you fall asleep?  Oh, and Bruce joking that he needed a ride.  And Brenda saying we should at least follow you so you don't get ambushed.  Selective memory.

Selectmen aren’t trying to turn the public against police. That’s absurd. What would possibly motivate them to do that?

Doesn't it say in the press release you re-printed that it was because they were trying to control all the departments in town?  Seemed pretty clear to me.

No, selectmen are doing what selectmen are suppose to do. They are representing the residents of Wareham by investigate claims of impropriety.

By interfering in the day-to-day operations of town, plus creating and soliciting claims of impropriety.

It’s also interesting to note the timing of this release. Sauvageau’s arrest happened nearly six weeks ago. The recall effort will begin in the next week or so. Why did the union have this vote now?

Would there have been a time that Mr. Slager wouldn't link this to some other event?  That's your MO.  We're used to it.  It holds no water at this point.

The police union wants to play politics to deflect attention away from the investigation. Sometimes the best defense really is a good offense.

I wonder why your the only newspaper that always sides with the Selectmen when stuff like this comes out.  How much are they paying you?