Announcement

The warehamwater.com domain name will be going away on December 5. Please update your links and bookmarks to point to the new domain, https://warehamwater.cruelery.com/. New user registrations have been disabled. Also, all forums will be set to read-only mode soon, probably by September 1.

#1 2009-09-01 21:19:54

ITA Butt monkey announced tonight they're putting on town meeting agenda an article to do away with police chief civil service (get rid of the strong chief, replace with a weak lackey chief).

Wouldn't it just be easier for Sweet Brucey to take a driver's anger management course than to rewrite the town charter to create a lackey chief?

Offline

 

#2 2009-09-01 22:05:58

Another item we need to vote down at town meeting. This will weaken the WPD and reduce the power of the police chief.

Offline

 

#3 2009-09-01 22:17:07

I didn't catch the meeting - did they give a reason for wanting to do this?

Offline

 

#4 2009-09-01 22:31:26

They gave no reason, just said they'd be doing it.  Obviously, because they want to control everything and be able to get themselves and their buddies out of trouble if they need to.

Offline

 

#5 2009-09-01 22:41:29

What it does is give them the ability to appoint WHOMEVER they want as police chief. Civil service no longer has a say in the decision. It also give them complete authority of this position.

It is a desperate move by a group of people who care little about the quality of a department head and more about the ability of that person to take orders from them. In other words, it's about control.

This serves as an example of this group of Selectmen. Who cares about qualification and job performance? We only care about helping out our friends, having lackeys that do our bidding. The heck with the town!

Geez, what a bunch of losers this group is. Hopefully people have had enough of them and want to Take Wareham Back.

Offline

 

#6 2009-09-01 22:42:36

So in other words, they could hire a person who is not a cop to become police chief.

Offline

 

#7 2009-09-01 22:44:27

I Told You Soooo.. I Have Been Saying This For Months Now That This Would Be An Article On The Fall Town Meeting.. I Told You Sooo..!!!

Offline

 

#8 2009-09-01 22:47:25

Bruce S Campaign Slogan-

I Was A Client(arrestee) Now Im The Chief(arrestor)..

Offline

 

#9 2009-09-02 00:20:56

Hamatron5000 wrote:

They gave no reason, just said they'd be doing it.  Obviously, because they want to control everything and be able to get themselves and their buddies out of trouble if they need to.

iT IS MY UNDERSTANDING THAT IF CIVIL SERVICE IS REMOVED.  THE SELECTMEN ARE ABLE TO CHOOSE WHO THEY WANT TO PUT IN AS CHIEF.  IT COULD BE SLAGER.  AKA BOZO.

Offline

 

#10 2009-09-02 09:21:53

I am so sick of this BOS.  What happened to representing the citizens who voted for them?  They just don't care.   We knew that they had submitted an article for the town meeting that would, if passed, remove civil service from the qualifications needed for Chief of Police (may include other officers-not sure). According to Hamatron5000, a great example of the pompous asses on the BOS wanting this article to pass:   "THEY GAVE NO REASON, JUST SAID THEY'D BE DOING IT".  Other towns and cities will set up a phone line or an email address that you can contact and let them know your feeling on whatever particular subject they are discussing or trying to change.  This is done to get the pros and cons from their community, helping them to make the right decision.  This BOS denies us this opportunity.  What ever happened to open discussions?  What happened to having approachable leaders in town?  From where I sit, there is not one single word that could penetrate their brain to remind them of how they got to be in the position of selectmen.  I wonder if the sting from a taser gun could bring them back to reality?  Probably not, it makes me feel so helpless.  I can only keep asking people to attend town meeting and vote against this.

Offline

 

#11 2009-09-02 09:45:07

bornofwareham wrote:

I am so sick of this BOS.  What happened to representing the citizens who voted for them?  They just don't care.

I agree. They seem to talk alot about input from the community, setting up meetings where citizens can voice there concerns, etc.. But they never follow up. They want to APPEAR that they are doing due diligence, as they forward their agenda. They'll use this as evidence that the public does not feel as though they are represented properly, because of the "system" of government. They'll use this in pushing the Mayoral form of government on Wareham. There own incompetence will be evidence to support the change. Of course, they wouldn't phrase it as such. They'll contend it's the current form of government. I think I'll take as my slogan for this "leadership", DON'T BUY ANY OF IT!

PShooter

Offline

 

#12 2009-09-02 10:35:48

No place to post this but just so everybody is up to day, "Rhode Island man who charged at officers tased and arrested in Wareham"

Not that we need to be reminded but there are some bad and dangerous people in Wareham. The police are serving and in this case protecting at considerable risk to themselves.

Kudos to the Wareham police.

Keep them professional from bottom to TOP. Keep politics out of the department.  Keep the chief civil service.

(edited to add last line.)

Last edited by urneighbor (2009-09-02 10:37:54)

Offline

 

#13 2009-09-02 11:39:48

Bobo tossed up a quoteless, byline-less version of this story on his site right after it was posted above. 

I wonder if Bobo sent Paul Shooter with a bag on his head to protect his identity to interview the people involved.

I wonder if Sweet Brucey will gripe about this one this one too.  No, the police shouldn't taze people that throw shotguns out of their cars.  They should try to talk and reason with them.

Another reason why you don't want the Selectmen running the police department.

Last edited by Hamatron5000 (2009-09-02 11:53:45)

Offline

 

#14 2009-09-02 11:46:01

Disregard This One And Read The Next One, Please.

Last edited by bornofwareham (2009-09-02 12:06:12)

Offline

 

#15 2009-09-02 12:00:36

bornofwareham wrote:

I rec'd a call on my way home from work and was told what was going on.  I went right to my scanner when I walked in the door.  I don't know if my wording is exactly as what was said on the scanner.  Apparently, in front of Stop and Shop (9:00 pm ish) a Jewish man was being yelled and sworn at.  I believe the store mgr. called WPD.  I was told he had swastika's tattooed all over his body (I don't know what all over means).  He "ran" to his car and sped off.  Description of car and direction of travel were given to police.  WPD said he threw a gun out of the window. (Comforting!)  He and a woman in the vehicle - unknown if driver or not- were arrested.  The man was tased.  One or both were from Arizona.  I DON'T KNOW WHETHER THE ARIZONA WAS ABOUT THIS INCIDENT, IT COULD HAVE BEEN A TRAFFIC STOP AT THE SAME TIME.  When they arrived at the WPD they said over the scanner to bring in and process the woman first and leave him in the paddy wagon until she is out of the way.  Probably so they couldn't talk to each other-who knows.

What I do know?  THE MEN AND WOMEN OF THE WAREHAM POLICE DEPT. PUT THEIR LIVES ON THE LINE EVERY SINGLE DAY FOR US - YOU AND ME!  IF THAT GUN WAS NOT THROWN FROM THE VEHICLE THEY MAY HAVE USED IT ON THE OFFICER STOPPING THE CAR.  AND NOW THE BOARD OF SELECTMEN WANT US TO GET RID OF CIVIL SERVICE STATUS FOR OUR "NEW" CHIEF.   I WANT  WAREHAM POLICEMEN AND WOMEN GUIDED BY A THOROUGHLY TRAINED, INTELLIGENT POLICE CHIEF.  HE MUST HAVE A BACKGROUND IN LAW ENFORCEMENT AND CLIMBED THE LADDER FROM PATROLMAN TO OFFICER.  THIS IS WHY WE NEED LT. WALLACE AS CHIEF, NOT SOME BOZO LIKE GEORGE COLEMAN.  LT. WALLACE HAS WALKED IN THE SHOES OF CHIEF AND WE NEED TO PUT HIM BACK IN THOSE SHOES - NOW.    WE COULD BE MOURNING AN OFFICER THIS MORNING.  PUT THE PROFESSIONAL, LT.WALLACE IN THE TOP POSITION AND ALLOW HIM TO MAKE THE CHANGES HE WAS NEVER GIVEN THE OPPORTUNITY TO.

Offline

 

#16 2009-09-02 14:59:51

Bornof:
You are absolutely right about what Police Officers face every day.
Every time a Police Officer puts on his, or her uniform, they are entering a combat situation. Every minute on patrol is a combat situation. Every second of their watch is under a combat situation.
The must be protected and supported so they at least feel that the risks they take are worthwhile and appreciated by the people they serve.
I am a cop.
Once a cop, always a cop.
Every time I see a cop here, I thank him or her for their service. I do the same for Firemen and Emergency personnel.
They are the backbone of our communities, and we should never forget it.

Offline

 

#17 2009-09-02 17:27:06

TBL

From what I heard about the skin head story there just happened to be a couple extra police officers working last night so backup was close by. This is not always the case, backup is usually a few minutes away for Wareham police officers. If the skin head had seen only one police car in his mirror instead of three or four, he probably would have come out of the car blasting away with his powerful shotgun. Everything fell into place in this situation but if adequate backup had not been nearby then we could be writing about a dead police officer today.

Last edited by TBL (2009-09-02 17:31:50)

Offline

 

#18 2009-09-02 17:32:23

I agree TBL.
Cops don't get paid to get killed.
I am sure, as TBL is, that the "skinhead" would have wasted any Police Officer acting alone and waiting for a back up.
Protect our cops.
Support them, and protect them.
They are your first line of defense, and they must be supported.

Offline

 

#19 2009-09-02 21:34:48

So can somebody help me understand the issue here?  I tried to do some web searches to figure out the pros and cons of the chief being in or out of civil service, but everything I found was strictly political posturing from people in towns where this has previously been an issue.  Supporters of the chief being IN civil service say that not having him/her in C.S. politicizes the position and the appointment, potentially allows non-qualified applicants to be made chief, and potentially decreases confidence that the rest of the officers would have in the chief. Supporters of removing the chief from c.s. say that it increases accountability.  So I guess I have three questions:

1.  To what, or whom, is a chief accountable when he is in Civil Service?  If the chief does something wrong, is he not accountable to the town now?  Wasn't Chief Joyce suspended by the ITA?  To be completely honest, I don't understand this particular argument, but I'm hoping someone can help me.
2.  Is there a way to have a non-civil-service appointment procedure that ensures we have a qualified chief, and doesn't allow for politically-motivated appointments?
3.  What are other towns doing?  Do towns in the region of similar size have a chief who is in, or out, of civil service?  Is the trend moving towards more being added in, or removed?

As usual, I'd appreciate it if responses to these questions could be kept civil and informational.

Thanks!

Offline

 

#20 2009-09-02 21:51:38

acasualobserver wrote:

So can somebody help me understand the issue here?  I tried to do some web searches to figure out the pros and cons of the chief being in or out of civil service, but everything I found was strictly political posturing from people in towns where this has previously been an issue.  Supporters of the chief being IN civil service say that not having him/her in C.S. politicizes the position and the appointment, potentially allows non-qualified applicants to be made chief, and potentially decreases confidence that the rest of the officers would have in the chief. Supporters of removing the chief from c.s. say that it increases accountability.  So I guess I have three questions:

1.  To what, or whom, is a chief accountable when he is in Civil Service?  If the chief does something wrong, is he not accountable to the town now?  Wasn't Chief Joyce suspended by the ITA?  To be completely honest, I don't understand this particular argument, but I'm hoping someone can help me.
2.  Is there a way to have a non-civil-service appointment procedure that ensures we have a qualified chief, and doesn't allow for politically-motivated appointments?
3.  What are other towns doing?  Do towns in the region of similar size have a chief who is in, or out, of civil service?  Is the trend moving towards more being added in, or removed?

As usual, I'd appreciate it if responses to these questions could be kept civil and informational.

Thanks!

www.mass.gov search civil service also MGLs chapter 31 alot of info those 2 places...

Offline

 

#21 2009-09-02 21:56:42

Under our current form of government the chief, whether civil service or not is still accountable to the administration (not the BOS).  My suspect for this play is so that if, let's say, the BOS want to continue to interfere with day to day operations and reprimand the chief for not doing what they instruct him to do (like crime watch), he or she would have NO recourse.  Under civil service, he or she would be allowed a grievance procedure.  That's my layman's assessment of a simple arguement.
Now look at the option of a non civil service position where the administration is responsible for the appointment.  He or she wouldn't necessarily need to meet a specific standard, which could cause animosity within the department for those who might be better qualified.  So it would be all about control of both operations and staffing.
Now just imagine this "compliment" of leaders being responsible for oversight of public safety operations; more dysfunction.  Maybe Marcia Griswald to act as chief ?  Or maybe Sweet Brucey ?  Hell, maybe Bobo.
All scary thoughts...

Offline

 

#22 2009-09-02 22:08:59

casual heres some more info..

POLICE CHIEF APPOINTMENTS SUBJECT TO CIVIL SERVICE      
IN THE FOLLOWING CITIES AND TOWNS    
 
Acton    Malden    Southbridge      
Acushnet    Manchester    Swampscott      
Andover    Mansfield    Taunton      
Arlington    Marblehead    Tewksbury      
Attleboro    Marshfield    Uxbridge      
Auburn    Medford    Ware      
Bellingham    Medway    Wareham      
Beverly    Milford    Watertown      
Billerica    Millbury    Webster      
Bourne    Montague    W. Bridgewater      
Bridgewater    Natick    W. Springfield      
Charlton    Needham    Westfield      
Chicopee    New Bedford    Westford      
Clinton    Newburyport    Weymouth      
Danvers    North Attleboro    Whitman      
Dracut    North Reading    Wilmington      
Easthampton    Northbridge    Winchester      
Easton    Norton    Woburn      
Fairhaven    Orange    Worcester      
Foxborough    Oxford    Wrentham      
Gloucester    Palmer          
Great Barrington    Peabody          
Holbrook    Pembroke          
Holden    Pittsfield          
Hull    Plainville          
Ipswich    Plymouth          
Lancaster    Quincy          
Leicester    Randolph          
Leominster    Raynham          
Lexington    Rockport          
Lowell    Salem          
Ludlow    Sandwich          
Lynn    Saugus          
Lynnfield    South Hadley

Offline

 

#23 2009-09-02 22:10:16

Thanks for the info Bob.  I didn't catch Tuesday Night Live, but if they're argument is going to be similar to most other towns, it will be the whole lack-of-accountability issue.  That seems to be a non-starter, as the chief is currently accountable to the administration.  This is probably a rhetorical question, but what's the point?  Maybe I'm just naive, but it seems like even if their motivation is to get their own "lackey" into the position, they'd have to have some kind of "cover story" that would purportedly have a benefit to the town.  What's the selling point?  Am I missing something, or is it really that transparent?

Offline

 

#24 2009-09-02 22:22:32

www.policelaborlaw.com/Massachusetts-Civil-Service.html


this site has good info on it also..

Offline

 

#25 2009-09-02 22:25:07

I don't think they care about cover stories any more. They are no openly defying the voters and residents of this town. Case and point is the form of government. Even if the voters are against it in the town meeting, they have a backup plan to make sure it happens. This is no longer a government for the people, it's about their personal agenda.

They may be on borrowed time, so they are rushing to get their ducks in a row before anything stops them.

Offline

 

#26 2009-09-02 22:32:34

Now look at the option of a non civil service position where the administration is responsible for the appointment.  He or she wouldn't necessarily need to meet a specific standard, which could cause animosity within the department for those who might be better qualified.  So it would be all about control of both operations and staffing.



This is where favoritism comes to play.  The administration can hire or fire on a weekly basis if the chief doesn't agree with them.  Non civil service positions leave the Officers with no protection.  I want a police department that operates without the fear of stepping on the wrong toes so they don't lose their job.  Even down to "do I write a ticket or not - do they know the town idiots?"  Keep civil service.   If it ain't broke - don't fix it!

Offline

 

#27 2009-09-02 22:53:07

acasualobserver wrote:

Thanks for the info Bob.  I didn't catch Tuesday Night Live, but if they're argument is going to be similar to most other towns, it will be the whole lack-of-accountability issue.  That seems to be a non-starter, as the chief is currently accountable to the administration.  This is probably a rhetorical question, but what's the point?  Maybe I'm just naive, but it seems like even if their motivation is to get their own "lackey" into the position, they'd have to have some kind of "cover story" that would purportedly have a benefit to the town.  What's the selling point?  Am I missing something, or is it really that transparent?

You are not naive.  This BOS want absolute and complete control of everything.  As Hamatron5000 said earlier about the article (re:civil service) being put on the warrant for town meeting, "They gave no reason, just said they'd be doing it".  What they want is to remove the civil service at town meeting.  At that point, they can get rid of Chief Stanley (who is probably just here for show) and appoint anyone they want as chief.  I would dare say they probably already have someone picked - Kevin Walsh's name came up on that thread.  Then, if they get their way with no civil service, Lt. Wallace would not be able to fight for his right to the chief's job, even though it could take many, many months.

And as for a cover story, we know nothing about the audit, "THEY GAVE NO REASON, JUST SAID THEY'D BE DOING IT.''     So, more than likely the cover story for a new chief and how he/she would be benificial to the town would be the same, "THEY GAVE NO REASON, JUST SAID THEY'D BE DOING IT."

Offline

 

#28 2009-09-02 22:56:43

Larry McDonald wrote:

I don't think they care about cover stories any more. They are no openly defying the voters and residents of this town. Case and point is the form of government. Even if the voters are against it in the town meeting, they have a backup plan to make sure it happens. This is no longer a government for the people, it's about their personal agenda.

They may be on borrowed time, so they are rushing to get their ducks in a row before anything stops them.

What is the backup plan and how does it work?  Is this the mayoral crap?

Offline

 

Board footer

warehamwater.cruelery.com