Maybe Urbon will contact the people mentioned in the letters and do its own story.  We can  hope.

Just an FYI - if the volunteers are performing duties normally performed by the police, the town has an obligation to bargain the impacts of that under MGL Ch. 150e. If the town fails to properly bargain and the union chooses they can file a charge of prohibited practice against the town. If they prevail they are entitled to damages, plus interest. Damages can be determined by how many hours of lost work, etc. I have personally seen awards that would stagger the mind. Obviously the police can use some help, so I doubt they are opposed to the concept, but it is well within the unions right to ask these questions and they deserve an answer.

I am not arguing against the police receiving overtime pay.  They deserve overtime for working an extra shift on a holiday.  I don't know the salary for each individual Wareham police officer or EMT in order to determine overtime.  However, the rate for state police doing overtime traffic detail is $40.00/hr ($116,000) per year.  Using that as an example, each policeman in Wareham would receive slightly above $300.00 for an 8 hr shift of overtime.  That means there were about 40 EXTRA police personnel assigned.  Do we even have that many EXTRA policemen?  My concern is that local businesses that rely on tourists are already hurting due to the recession and bad weather.  As a town, we need to find ways to keep businesses open, thriving and hiring locals.  We do not need to create an anti-business atmosphere.

The line that we're discussing from the union's letter is:

How can the Town justify holding a fireworks display that will cost the town upwards for $12,000 plus when you factor in Police, EMS, and Municipal Maintenance.

They're not claiming that the police cost $12k.  The claim is that the whole event costs $12k.  I'm not privy to the actual numbers, but I'd be surprised if it's that low.  The cost of the fireworks themselves, public safety, cleanup, etc has to be significant.

TBL
Thanks for the statistics.  It still seems that there must be a way to control the costs and yet allow fairs, festivals and fireworks.

First, if there is another Mr. McDonald, I apologize. I haven't appeared before the Selectmen to talk about the Crime Watch. I do agree with the rest of your letter. I am not sure how it can be a private organization and write tickets. The town benefits from the tickets (in theory), so Crime watch would have to be directed in some way by the town. You would think it was the Police Department, as the act of writing tickets falls in that area, but it appears the BOS is running the show. It's amazing to me that a policy and procedural group is so involved in day to day activities. At some point, the involvement of the BOS in the daily activities of Wareham needs to be addressed. It's almost like having 5 TA's plus an errand boy.

As far as the legal issues from this confrontation, it's another feather in the dufus cap we call BOS. They keep making a mess and stepping in it. The voters and residents should take notice and attend the meeting to TAKE BACK WAREHAM.

Regardless of what your town charter or other rules say, the BOS must abide by the Massachusetts Open Meeting Law Chapter 39, Section 23B which deals with executive sessions.

Here's an excerpt:

Executive sessions may be held only for the following purposes:

  (1) To discuss the reputation, character, physical condition or mental health rather than the professional competence of an individual, provided that the individual involved in such executive session has been notified in writing by the governmental body, at least forty-eight hours prior to the proposed executive session. Notification may be waived upon agreement of the parties. A governmental body shall hold an open meeting if the individual involved requests that the meeting be open. If an executive session is held, such individual shall have the following rights:

(2) To consider the discipline or dismissal of, or to hear complaints or charges brought against, a public officer, employee, staff member, or individual, provided that the individual involved in such executive session pursuant to this clause has been notified in writing by the governmental body at least forty-eight hours prior to the proposed executive session. Notification may be waived upon agreement of the parties. A governmental body shall hold an open meeting if the individual involved requests that the meeting be open. If an executive session is held, such individual shall have the following rights:

for both (1) and (2)

(a) to be present at such executive session during discussions or considerations which involve that individual.

  (b) to have counsel or a representative of his own choosing present and attending for the purpose of advising said individual and not for the purpose of active participation in said executive session.

  (c) to speak in his own behalf.

What isn't addressed in the statue, and isn't clear to me, is the meaning of the word "individual". Does the board have the right to hold an executive session to addresses any of these concerns about anybody regardless of whether they work for the town?

We still don't know exactly what Coleman and the other Crime Watch volunteers legal status is vis à vis to town.

No apology necessary, I agree with your post, just wanted to make sure you gave credit where it was due!

THE TOWN HAS GON E TO HELL.

Last edited by ihateliz (2009-07-21 20:22:43)