Robert Sharples has a letter in today's Standard Times in which he sharply criticizes Select Board members Dias and Carney. His conclusion is that perhaps the town would be better served if the two of them would be recalled.
I do not support the recall of elected officials for any reason other than criminality or immorality. Taking unpopular positions on votes or issues, being ineffective, or other failings can be addressed in the normal election process.
I hope that this will be done in April and ...
...that Mr. Gracie and Ms. Gilbert are elected to the board. I don't think I could state a case more eloquently than Mr. Sharples has.
One additional point I could make is that Ms. Dias said it was the intention of the former Select Board, on which she and Mr. Carney served, to give all town management employees what are essentially lifetime contracts. That statement still has me flabbergasted.
Tuesday, January 6, 2009
Mr. Sharples on recall
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
10 comments:
Dr. Sharples makes many very good points. I don't see the point in stooping to their level by trying to recall Carney and Dias though. Let's just vote them out when they come up for re-election.
Governor Patrick spoke about direction in the S-T today. While advocating for the local meals tax, he said local governments need help. "The reason is we have an over-reliance on property taxes, and that puts enormous pressure on local communities to raise property taxes, and that is not the direction I feel we should be moving in." Gov. Patrick said.
The governor feels property tax increases are the WRONG direction.
Lets shut off the street lights again you dopes!
Turning off streetlights was a plan initiated and carried out by Mike Gagne. It was approved by the old Select Board. As we all know full well by now, Mr. Gagne's plan was a complete and utter failure.
I've always wondered why the police department alone couldn't check out the lights. Why did MG have to do all this checking, too? I would think the police have far more knowledge than he does to determine which lights should stay on, based on police activity in the areas, and which lights could go off. And it's pretty obvious which intersections, bad curves in the road, etc., need lighting. Most of us could probably have done some of this checking ourselves, as much of it is just common sense. The police obviously know the areas that invite crime that would need lighting.
I guess it's just one more thing he can add to his resume. But it would have been better, in my opinion, if he had used his time more productively and transcribed Executive Session minutes instead.
Here's why - the police department is short handed as well and I would rather have them doing police work than changing light bulbs.
The police department is fully staffed thanks to the citizens of Dartmouth choosing to increase their funding at the last election. Traffic safety is a basic function of their department. Nobody suggested that they change the light bulbs. To assess which street lights could be shut off and which ones were crucial to traffic safety would be well within their perview. Again, blame for the whole street light fiasco should be placed squarely on the shoulders of Mr. Gagne. That was his "plan" to balance the budget last year.
They were not fully staffed when the lighting issue was going on. They are staffed now more adequately for 1 maybe 2 years, then some will have to go, again.
Anonymous 5:26, I know they were short-handed at that time. I just stated that I would imagine that the police department could do that job without needing any assistance from Michael. They and the fire department, I would think, know the Dartmouth streets far better than you or I do (unless you are a police officer or firefighter.) They wouldn't even need to actually go out and physically inspect all the street lights. They would know where the trouble spots would be, as well as crime areas that needed to be kept lit. For that matter, we all could contribute our suggestions for street lights in our neighborhood or on roads we frequently drive on. I can't see how that becomes a major undertaking that necessitates the executive administrator's assistance.
No, I think Michael's doing that was totally inappropriate. And I didn't say he was changing light bulbs. I think that is Con Ed's job, no? If not, we could all go up and change the light bulbs, and be heroes at the same time.
The question is safety. Michael could sue the town if he got hurt while up on that ladder changing a bulb when he was supposed to be doing the things he is being well paid for to do. "Changing" light bulbs is not one of them, although it does sound good, doesn't it? It certainly does add to his image of dedicated town employee.
Changing the bulbs was contracted out to a local company, so the term was used probably too loosely since Michael did not actually change any bulbs himself. The exercise was in fact a debacle and I do not disagree with you there. Michael did work with the police dept in identifying trouble spots, be they high crime areas or traffic safety areas in determining which lights could or should be shut off.. My understanding was that given the age of our system as lights were turned off or turned on other, costly problems were identified that were then fixed. This added to the already too costly 'solution'. I was never a fan of the idea and the numbers that ultimately were reported back to the FinCom and SB bear out that it probably cost more money to have the lights off than to have kept them on in the first place.
Post a Comment