Well done, George.

Letter: Wareham Police Union asks voters
to keep chief's position under Civil Service
Mon Sep 21, 2009, 04:12 PM EDT

To the editor:

The Wareham Police Union is made up of 46 members of the patrolmen, detectives, and sergeants division. Thirteen of these members have 20-30 years of experience on the job, and 20 of them have 10 to 20 years experience. That’s a total of 33 members in the Police Union that have devoted a decade or better of their lives to the community of Wareham. Over these years we have worked hard to serve the community we were sworn to protect. We have seen politicians come and go. We have seen town administrators come and go.

Some were good, and some were not so good, but none were as destructive, vengeful, inept, and self-serving as the current Board of Selectmen and the interim town administrator, in our opinion. For the last two years or so, the board, in conjunction with the ITA, have tried everything in their power to paint the men and women of the Wareham Police Department in a bad light and make our working conditions frustrating and deplorable.

Collectively, they’ve accused us of excessive force, acting on racial bias, arresting citizens without just cause, and using Tasers without policy or training. None of the claims were based on fact, but on conjecture and opinion. Despite all their accusations and attempts to discredit us, the Police Department was absolved of any and all claims by providing THE FACTS. In addition, the town has refused to bargain a contract in good faith (which expired in 2007), forcing us into arbitration, and has slashed the police budget significantly over the last three years (details can be found on our Web site, www.warehampoliceunion.com).

The Police Union believes that the board’s intent with most of the actions above were to actually discredit former Police Chief Thomas Joyce and his ability to run the department, but what they failed to realize was they were using the men and women of the Wareham Police Union as pawns in their goal of taking out the chief, thus creating a more hostile working environment for us, greater tensions between the public and police, and bringing morale to a crashing low. We issued a vote of no confidence against the board in January of this year (again, details can be found on our Web site).

Certain members of the board have claimed that their issues were never with us, but with Joyce. They want to repair any damage between the town and union. Well, Joyce has been gone since June, and we haven’t heard a peep from the board or the ITA on this matter, or any other matter. At the Sept. 1 Board of Selectmen’s meeting, Interim Town Administrator John Sanguinet delivered yet another slap in the Police Union’s face: he announced that there was to be a warrant article that intends to remove the police chief position from Civil Service at the Oct. 26 Fall Town Meeting. After the warrant was closed Sept. 11, it was discovered the Board of Selectmen inserted this article.

Why is this a slap in the face? It basically says that the town has zero faith in its current police force to lead the department. It says no matter how much we have learned through experience, no matter how much we have studied, no matter how much blood, sweat, and tears we have given to the department, none of us are good enough to be chief. The union sent a letter to Sanguinet asking him to reconsider, but we received no response (the letter is available on the union Web site).

Civil Service protection allows police officers and police administration to perform their duties without political interference. It allows us to disagree with town officials without the fear of losing our job. It allows for promotions from within, which is how it should be. Who knows more about the Police Department and understands local issues more than the men and women currently working within it?

By removing the chief of police position from Civil Service, it will give the town administrator (and ultimately in this town, the Board of Selectmen) total control of who is the police chief and what his duties and the duties of the department should be. Based on the current flux of temporary appointments in town, vacancies on many boards, and employees hired without proper credentials, the Police Union has zero faith in the board’s and ITA’s ability to hire a competent, experienced, and able police chief.

The Police Union is urging the citizens of the town Of Wareham to reject the Town Meeting article that will take the chief of police position out of Civil Service. It is not in the best interest of the town, and certainly not in the best interest of the Police Department. The current Board and ITA have never had the best interests of the Police Department in mind, and that is evident by the examples cited above, as well as ignoring our repeated requests for information.

We strive to protect and serve you, the citizens of Wareham, with the utmost respect and professionalism, no matter what political garbage is thrown our way. We are now reaching out to you; please strive to protect us.

We will be reaching out to you again in the upcoming weeks leading up to Town Meeting. If any citizens have any questions, feel free to contact us through our Web site.

George Dionne, president

Wareham Police Union

What a wonderful letter!!
He's a future Selectman.
Now, the cops can go to Town Meeting without fear of reprisal, because they have issued their position, and everyone will expect them to defend it on Town Meeting floor.
It's going to be hard to say no to a bunch of cops.

great letter.. support our police dept.... they look out for us 24/7 365..... its time we support them...

What an excellent, well thought out and "on point" letter. It's a shame that we have "leaders" that need to be called out like this. But, such is the case.

PShooter

Great letter mr Dionne and I urge all to support the police department and vote to keep the chiefs position in civil service

The acceptance of Civil Service for both the Chief of Police and the "regular or permanent police force"  occurred in 1938 under articles #43 and Aricle #52. The operation of the police department under Civil Service rules and regs  worked without any major controversy until the late 60's ('69) or early 70's (I'll need to go back and look at the exact year) when the Town voted in the Strong Chief's Law (because of interference by the then Board of Selectmen into the operation of the police department). In the years following since the Strong Chief's Law was passed, I don't remember any other major contorversies or issues that became profoundly public with regard to the police dapartment. Certainly, there have been greivances filed by the rank and file over the years, but you will find that in any public or private work force. Someone is always unhappy about their work conditions , their performance expectations and/or the way management handles operations. In recent years I can only think of one major situation that the public has been aware of where one officer who was terminated, appealed to civil service and got his job back, but for whatever reason known only to the Chief, the Chief refused to issue him back his gun and kept him on desk duty because Chief felt strongly that whatever this officer had done, he was a risk to the department if he were put back out on regular street patrol. Because this was a personnel issue, we will never know the exact details. But the point is Civil Service has worked in this town for over seventy years. Plain and simple, it has prevented the Board of Selectmen from running the day to day operations and from inducing politics into a public safety entity.
It hasn't been until this Board of Selectmen have taken office that Civil Service has been an issue. Once agian, it's obvious, it's all about control, not what is in the best interest of our town.

Hamatron5000 wrote:

A good quote:

By removing the chief of police position from Civil Service, it will give the town administrator (and ultimately in this town, the Board of Selectmen) total control of who is the police chief and what his duties and the duties of the department should be. Based on the current flux of temporary appointments in town, vacancies on many boards, and employees hired without proper credentials, the Police Union has zero faith in the board’s and ITA’s ability to hire a competent, experienced, and able police chief.

This quote jumped out at me also. It clearly shows the Police Union's belief, which I share, that the BOS have over-stepped their authority, as spelled out in the Charter, and continuously interfere in the day to day activities of the TA/ITA. Sanguinet is complicit because he's "playing ball".

PShooter

TBL wrote:

The letter from the union president is a perfect example of the importance of civil service. A non civil service police chief would never be able to voice such displeasure with town officials without fearing for his job. Sure a non civil service chief has some job security from a contract but if a non civil service chief spoke out like this then they are just about guaranteed to not have their contract renewed. If something is wrong with the town's leaders then the police chief needs to be able to speak up about it without fear of shortening their career. Civil service helps to keep politics out of the chief's position.

We all know that contracts can be broken and we've seen it here before.  A non civil service chief working under the BOS could most definately voice his complaints to the BOS.  Of course, one of two things will happen:  his contract will be broken or not renewed or, they will eliminate his powers of authority and every bit of police work will go through the selectmen via radio or phone.  Perhaps one of them will choose to sit in the chief's chair all day.

It must be hard to be a BOS lackey.  You apparently are required to write a 10 page tirade to argue FOR something that you are admittedly AGAINST.  Very weird.

Bobo the Halifax Spokesman of a Covert Wareham Group says he is against taking the police chief position out of civil service.  But I suppose to be nice to his BOS masters he gave an argument for it anyway.  (Lord knows the selectmen never will.)

QUOTH THE HOBO:

Claims that selectmen would become actively involved in police investigations if civil service protection were removed from the police chief position have no basis in fact. It would be illegal for selectmen to do so.

This went up five minutes yesterday after I asked people to consider how crappy a Wareham would be if selectmen were overseeing investigations.  Way to go on that ignoring the blogger pledge, Bobo!

So here's a thought.  You're a lackey police chief beholden to the selectmen for your continued employment and you have no civil service protection.  You've seen, with John McAulliffe, how willing this board is to break an employment contract and challenge the employee to spend years and tons of money suing to get your job back.

You, as this hypothetical lackey chief, hear that one of the selectmen or one of their best pals is doing something illegal.  But you also want to keep your job.   What do you think you'd do?

Yeah, that's what I thought.  No control over police investigations, my ass.  (Keep in mind they already try to take control by inviting every criminal into the BOS meeting room to hold Kangaroo Court appeals).

Yeah, it's "illegal for selectmen to do so," but when has that ever stopped them?

Claims that current officers would be excluded from becoming police chief in the future are also unfounded. The hiring of a new police chief would be in the hands of a town search committee and could include the hiring of somebody from outside the department, but it would not inherently exclude anyone from consideration.

The selectmen have made it clear they are against the department or promoting anyone from within it.  Bypassing Lt. Wallace for a part-time chief was a clear sign of that. 

Bobo, I was proud of you for a second.   You grew a spine and took a position against the selectmen's.  So why the hell are you arguing their position for them anyway?  They're big boys and girls.  Why don't you let them speak for themselves this one time? Did Sweet Brucey crack the whip?

Last edited by Hamatron5000 (2009-09-23 07:45:37)

FILE UNDER - "It Must Really Suck to Be a BOS Lackey and Have to Argue For Things That You Are Against Because the Selectmen Can't Speak Unless You Speak For Them Part 2"

Let me get this straight.  Last week, Bobo jeered Police Union President George Dionne, saying that if he did not present the Police Union's view on the BOS article to remove the police chief position from civil service, that Dionne should be removed as Police Union President.

This week, Dionne put out the Police Union's view.  What did he get for it?  Another jeer.  Bobo, you clown, how do you jeer someone for doing what you said he should?  He should be removed if he doesn't present the union's view.  Now he should be removed for presenting the union's view.  Jesus, Bobo, make up your damn waffling mind.

Let's debunk some Bobo stupidity:

George Dionne – No, this is not a recording. For the second week in a row we feel obligated to rescue the Wareham Police Union from its alleged leader.

Oh yes, Bobo.  The police department feels the love.  Feel free to rescue it from the personal biases of the selectmen (especially Sweet Brucey) anytime you like.

Again, the Observer agrees with the union’s position that the police chief should be protected by civil service. We understand that selectmen want to avoid a repeat of the Tommy Joyce situation, when the former police chief didn’t seemed to think he was accountable to anyone.

Bobo, how do you know anything about what the selectmen think about this?  They have yet to utter one single word publicly to explain why they want to do this.  Oh wait, they don't need to when they have you as their personal public relations lackey...

The Observer doesn’t think changing a policy that’s been in place for 60 years is the answer.

Bobo, that's nice to hear you say Civil Service has been in place for 60 years.  When will you retract your articles saying Brenda was right when she claimed to have dug out some 1930's crap that supposedly said the chief was not civil service?

Dionne, however, is being completely disingenuous in his arguments. He’s claiming that removing civil service status from the police chief will prevent current officers from consideration. That’s nonsense.

This board and its inner circle of supporters openly blast the police department at every turn, doing everything they can to paint it in a bad light.  They brought in an out of town part time chief to keep Lt. Wallace from being the interim chief for a year.  Town wide, they have made it clear that any town employee hired before they came into power is on the proverbial "hit list."  No current officer will become the police chief under this board.

The most egregious thing Dionne does in his letter is to turn a legitimate debate into a personal attack against town officials, bringing up past issues that have since been addressed under the new interim police chief and have little to do with the issue at hand.

They haven't been addressed and they have everything to do with the matter at hand.  This board has made it clear that they are ready, willing, and able to turn the selectmen's meeting room into a Kangaro Court of Appeals where any criminal can waltz in and "try" police officers in the court of public opinion.  Not to mention, they take every opportunity to bash the police department that they can. 

The selectmen have caused irreparable damage to their relationship with the police department.  It's up to the selectmen to fix it.  Frankly, the BOS' behavior toward the police department has been so egregious that I doubt there is anything they can do to fix it short of resigning and allow new selectmen who are actually going to provide leadership to sit on the board.

The Observer made a subtle suggestion last week. We won’t be so subtle now. The Wareham Police Union should remove Dionne from a leadership role. The Bourne resident continues to prove he is just a loose cannon now, one that is undermining the positive steps the interim police chief has toward healing the wounds of the past. It’s time to move Wareham forward.

Where to begin with this one?

1) Should I even bother asking who the hell the "we" are anymore?

2)  Bobo, you're going to actually sit on your fat ass on your Halifax couch, chewing on bagels, and pretend like you have a clue about what the police union should and should not do?  Let the cops decide who their Union President is, not a bagel biting dumbass.

3) You're really going to talk about someone else's residency?  Really?  Bobo, you live in Halifax.  You do not live in Wareham.  You do not own any property in Wareham.  You do not even have an office in Wareham.  You're a Halifax resident with opinions on how Wareham should be run, opinions on things that have nothing to do with you.

Meanwhile, Dionne's residency doesn't matter.  Let me help you, Bobo.  Dionne is a Wareham Police Officer, and as a member of a group, he qualifies to be that group's president. 

Bobo, I'll tell you what.  If they ever create a group called "The Wareham Douchebag Union," you will have my full support in your bid for the presidency of that union.  Because even though you are not from Wareham, you do more to bring douchebaggery to this town than 100 douchebags combined.

Bobo, you are truly a douche and an idiot.

Hamatron5000 wrote:

Bobo, I'll tell you what.  If they ever create a group called "The Wareham Douchebag Union," you will have my full support in your bid for the presidency of that union.  Because even though you are not from Wareham, you do more to bring douchebaggery to this town than 100 douchebags combined.

Bobo, you are truly a douche and an idiot.

I second this motion Ham.