At this week's Select Board meeting, the Board discussed appointments within the police department and that we would launch a search for a Deputy Police Chief to include those outside the department. The Dartmouth Police Department employees with the exception of the Chief work under the civil service law. Promotions are based upon civil service tests and other factors which add up to give candidates a score. The top three scorers are presented to the Select Board for appointment. The top scorer must be appointed unless a valid reason for selecting another candidate is given.
The department has proposed a new structure in which a position of Deputy Police Chief is created. That position would join the Chief in not being a civil service position. The proposed new structure is graphically represented in this link
The board agreed to appoint ...
... a new captain at our next meeting on August 3rd. Since some candidates for captain also appear on the lieutenant's list, the choice made may affect the candidates list for lieutenant., the selection made for lieutenant may affect the available choices for sargeant. So we decided to take the positions one at a time, captain first, then lieutenant, then sargeant.
Thursday, July 23, 2009
Police Department organization and appointments
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
52 comments:
Civil service, also known as the state department of human services, provides protection to all police officers who serve within a city or town that have accepted civil service law. Dartmouth accepted civil service protection laws for all it's police officers. It's the reason why the town has an outstanding caliber of police personnel. This protection is provided so that politicians will not, can not, abuse or punish police officers, for performing their legal duties. It falls back to the spoils era, a time when Polly's provided police jobs for person(s) that help them during their campaigning. Give me a gun and a club. BAM,BAM,BAM, had enough?? BAM!
If PREZ “OBAMA” can BAM a Cambridge police officer for acting in accordance with department rules and regulations, just think what the local Polly's will do to you.
In recent years, the Dartmouth town selectmen supported removing civil service protection for the chief, and the deputy chief. It appears, but not necessary so, that the select board is attempting a return to the not so good old days.
As it stands, the select board members may chose a candidate, for the above mention positions, from any city, town, or state. Anyone can obtain advanced degree's in law enforcement or police science, but it takes a qualified person, with police knowledge and town understanding, to become a deputy chief, or police chief. Officers, chosen from within a police department, have a proven track record.
With no civil service protection for police officers, Dartmouth will return to the spoils era. A time when top administrators were chosen by the Polly's.
Another reason Obama has got to go.
Imagine that. It may be perceived to be excessive AND STUPID to arrest a man at his own home after he proves to you that he is AT HOME. Why not just leave and let the man alone?
Hi Bill
Where will the town find the money to appoint additional police captain, lieutenant and sergeant? Can you tell me how many lieutenants are on the department ? Also the number of sergeants. Your command structure shows one deputy chief, one captain, three lieutenants and unknown number of sergeants. Will you appoint one captain and one lieutenant at the next meeting and at what time will this be done. One more question please. If you must appoint the police person with the highest score why are you having three police officers at the meeting? Why not just appoint the policeman with the highest score??
Mike...Get a clue.. I watched the meeting and the select board is going to hire a quality police officer for the deputy position. They are going to lolok not only at Dartmouth's pd but also other police departments. Maybe that's the part you don't like.
Anonymous 6:33 A.M.
Clueless:
I don't give a rats ass where they find the deputy chief, but I do know the difference between a snow job and a blow hard. Dartmouth police officers are protected by civil serve law. Before the SB can appoint a police officer, the person shall pass a state civil service test. Candidates are chosen by highest mark or test results. All Dartmouth deputy chief's and police chief's have been appointed from within the police department. This appointment is based on the result of a written test, number of years served on the department and time in grade. Dartmouth police officers are the envy of our local cities and towns. Why did the Dartmouth SB petition the state law makers to remove the deputy chiefs/ chief of police position away from civil service?? Try to think before you answer this...or maybe your one of the SB members who voted to make the position a political appointment.
One must learn to spell before (lolok) being able to understand.
What would the difference between a snow job and blow hard be?
Mike..I agree with the spelling part, but you got me here ????
Anonymous 1:36 P.M.
Maybe this is the part you don't understand.... “Snow job” (slang) expression of covering up or taking advantage of a situation, pretending to mean something that is not. Someone who is lying. “Blow hard” is(slang) a loudly boastful person. In my opinion, the chairman of the select board is giving the town of Dartmouth a snow job. I consider him to be a blow hard.
Is their something else you don't understand or are you a member of the select board??
Why can't we all just get along???
Mike I am not a member of the select board. I just don't think we should rush to judgement. It doesn't solve any problems.
I was at the Umass concert put on by the police department last night. The hot topic of conversation was the upcoming promotions being made. All the cops I talked to thought it was a farce. Supposedly the making of Lieutenants is a “payoff” because to promote the person they want to Captain they have to pacify someone who scored higher than him. The worst part is that they guy they have to pay off was the reason the Town just got sued and had to settle a case because of a roadside strip search. I was also told that this isn’t the first time this guy has had documented perverse incidents with young women. They also said that the second guy they want to promote is hated by everyone but his father not only hunts with the Chief but is also a former Selectman in Town and is calling in favors he is owed, so they have to promote his little boy to Lieutenant too. Guess it’s still business as usual in the Town of Dartmouth. This isn’t why I voted for the override for the police department. Hope the Select board gets to the bottom of this scam.
Anonymous July 26/ 12:11 P.M.
WOW, you must be off your meds. In your posting, you have succeeded in rambling through several serious issues from perverted candidates for promotion, to people hating one another, calling in of favors owed, and insulting the chief of police. You must be one stand up guy, hiding behind the name anonymous. You appear to be the author of some sleazy tabloid.
According to Bill Trimble, the candidate with the highest score from a civil service test, must be promoted.
The cops you were speaking with, are they college campus cops, or Dartmouth cops?
Also, if you have been drinking with your friendly campus buddies and taking meds at the same time, this may cause a serious reaction, resulting in death or some other serious conditions.
1 lieutenant is retiring (75000)
2 captains retiring or already retired. (200,000 plus)
1 lieutenant is being promoted to Captain. at a lower pay than previous captains savings of 15,000 or so
2 maybe 3 Sgt's promoted to LT. 7500 raise each (22500) for 3
2 or 3 patrolman promoted to Sgt. 7500 raise each (22500) for 3
Deputy Chief hired for around 95-105,000.
Savings from retiring positions 290,000.
Expenses for new positions 145,000.
town savings almost 150,000, not including healthcare. Great management by Chief Pacheco and the BOS.
The Police Department has been mismanaged for years and this year is no exception. Before all this rank is added why not wait to see how the fiscal crisis plays out, once rank is made it can not be reduced the Town owns the positions. The department is obviously surviving at the present time with the present rank structure. The savings boasted in the last post are false the increases are much more than $7500.00. Let us not forget that the town is also obligated to pay for the 175,000 + for the states short fall in the police officers education incentive. This issue was discussed by Ed in a selectboard meeting, lets pay attention.
7500 is correct. The pay raise for SGT is 15% above patrolman. Patrolman currently make 49,000. The raise is actually closer to 7350 not 7500, but in the interest of making it easier I went with 7500. Lt's make an extra 15% of base pay, if they are given 15% on top of SGT pay the amount is 15975 total, minus the 7500 they are already getting as Sgt's so roughly 8500 to make a LT.
How can you say the PD is mismanaged? Chief Pacheco has held the line on his budget. He has kept costs BELOW inflation, while providing Top Notch services to the town.
How can you explain being nestled between Fall River and New Bedford and our crime rate is very very low and violent crime well below the state average?
March Pacheco and the staff are doing a GREAT job in very trying times.
2 captains and 1 Lt. have retired in the last 6 months. That is why there is a need to make rank.
Boy there sure are a lot of cops on this blog!
Boy there sure are a lot of cops on this blog!
Not enough to outnumber the cop haters. Just trying to keep things real!
Hey Dave F. glad to see you have the time to plug for you Son to make Lieutenant on this blog. The bottom line is that before more rank is made the town needs to see if they can afford what the chiefs wants. You never mentioned how the town is going to pay for the 175,000 + for the current officers college incentive, that the state short changes the cities & towns this year. Take a look at the chain of command structure attached on this blog,and tell me when this town has ever had a lieutenant on the mid night shift, the answer is NEVER. The bottom line is the Town can not afford to make all the wanted positions, even though people are calling in old favors. Only one captain has retired, one is going in late September, and the lieutenant you speak of has plans to retire but has not finalized his plans YET.
Allow me to make an attempt at straightening this issue out. According to the SB, several promotions will take place within the police department. This action is being taken to maintain staffing, as it relates to supervision.
Where did the candidates come from? What part of this procedure did the chief of police take, if any?
Who decided to take the test for promotion, and where did the test take place? Was it a surprise test? How is the test/mark a factor in making a promotion in rank? Is it a written or oral test? How will the selectmen vote for a candidate? Will everyone come before the SB to be interviewed?
This is what I've been able to determined. A lot of want to be candidates, don't want anyone promoted. I just wonder, if in some dark deep seated place, a twisted mind of a want to be candidate, is sucking his thumb and sitting on his mothers lap, still holding a small piece of his torn blue baby blanket. Hmmmmmmm! I can hear the mother singing a sweet lullaby “ not to cry my little one, some day you too will grow up to be a policeman.”oops and maybe you can work at the UMD college.
Oh my this is getting ugly. Seems like the cops really like to duke it out when it comes to promotion time. What a shame.
I found this article while reading the paper online this morning.
http://www.heraldnews.com/homepage/x488824092/Police-settle-strip-search-lawsuit-for-70K
It seems like the only thing that is true is that the Town just settled a lawsuit. I would hope it isn't true that they are now going to promote this person if he has a history of this. The chairman is obviously an educated man who is an excellent attorney, so I'm sure he wouldn't promote someone with a bad history out of fear of being held personally liable if he causes another suit like this. Seems to me like a bunch of jealous cops blowing off steam. I just wonder if the settlement thing is true how much else is.
cops are sued every day without doing anything wrong. Can anyone say Cambridge Officer Crowley?
Just because someone was sued and the town settled, DOES NOT mean that person did anything wrong. It simply means it is cheaper for the town (15,000) than it is to dispute a completely false telling of the alleged facts.
I am SURE in the settlement, the town admitted no wrongdoing. If the town accepted no finding of fault it is IMPOSSIBLE for them to hold that against a promotional candidate at this point.
You are correct when you say police are sued for frivolous reason, but it does not happen ever day though. Any cop can be litigated against, but when the same cop is sued or complained about for the same reasons a light should go off some place. These issues should be known by the selectboard before promotions are made and let them be the judge, these issues should not be swept under the rug, just because he has friends in high places. Read the news article, it was admitted that the young lady was stripped searched on the road side, this was done at the request of the dartmouth police, i find this very inappropriate, remember this could be your daughter this pervert runs into.
In a time when many Hollywood stars served their country in the armed forces often in rear echelon posts where they were carefully protected, only to be trotted out to perform for the cameras in war bond promotions, Lee Marvin was a genuine hero. He won the Navy Cross at Iwo Jima . There is only one higher Naval award... The Medal Of Honor!
If that is a surprising comment on the true character of the man, he credits his sergeant with an even greater show of bravery.
As a Marine in the initial landing at Iwo Jima and that during the course of that action you earned the Navy Cross and were severely wounded.
'Yeah, yeah... I got shot square in the bottom and they gave me the Cross for securing a hot spot about halfway up Suribachi Bad thing about getting shot up on a mountain is guys getting' shot hauling you down. But, Johnny, at Iwo I served under the bravest man I ever knew... We both got the Cross the same day, but what he did for his Cross made mine look cheap in comparison. That dumb guy actually stood up on Red beach and directed his troops to move forward and get the hell off the beach. Bullets flying by, with mortar rounds landing everywhere and he stood there as the main target of gunfire so that he could get his men to safety. He did this on more than one occasion because his men's safety was more important than his own life.
That Sergeant and I have been lifelong friends. When they brought me off Suribachi we passed the Sergeant and he lit a smoke and passed it to me, lying on my belly on the litter and said, 'Where'd they get you Lee?' 'Well
Bob... If you make it home before me, tell Mom to sell the outhouse!' Johnny, I'm not lying, Sergeant Keeshan was the bravest man I ever knew
The Sergeant's name is Bob Keeshan. You and the world know him as Captain Kangaroo.'
Do you suppose, Prez Obama and Professor Gates, could be so brave as Lee Marvin? Instead of seeing the American flag erected, Prof. Gates and Prez Obama, would be raising the white flag for surrender. Come to think of it, would they be called races, for raising a white flag?? I may have just raised a red flag. Thanks to people like Lee Marvin and others, we have the liberty to speak out.
Who was it that said,” never in the history of man kind, have so many, owed so much to so few”.
Read the news article, it was admitted that the young lady was stripped searched on the road side, this was done at the request of the dartmouth police
NOT true, she was searched at the request of the Sgt. He did not ask for her to be strip searched. It was also noted that the vehicle smelled of marijuana and the female was in the back seat of the vehicle with her pants unbuttoned. When questioned about why her button was undone,and half unzipped she said she was "full from eating dinner." I would have asked for her to be searched to, not strip searched but searched for illegal drugs.
I know it is hard for you to accept that new articles can be WRONG, but rest assured at no time did the Sgt. ask for a strip search. He called MSP and asked for a female trooper to conduct a SEARCH of a female in a vehicle smelling of drugs who was so "STUFFED" from eating dinner that she unbuttoned her pants to fit more food.!!! Does that sound reasonable?
Does that sound reasonable?
Anything is possible, remember searches are for weapons to protect the officers present not for a dime bag, or a joint. The female could have been asked to turn her pockets inside out, not call a female officer/ trooper to start looking under the young female garments without PROBABLE CAUSE, that is not only reasonable but is the standard in this state under the Massachusetts constitution. When you start searching a person other than for weapons, you need PROBABLE CAUSE not reasonable suspicion. The smell of marijuana in the car is only reasonable suspicion not probable cause to start searching the vehicle occupants, for contraband.
Of course it is, an officer is allowed to search for fruits or instruments of the suspected crime. IE illegal drugs.
Perhaps some recent SJC decisions will inform you on the real law, not what you watch on television.
Commonwealth v. Washington, 449 Mass. 476, 486-487 (2007) (permitting search of passengers after traffic stop based on exigency and probable cause to believe evidence of crime was present; no arrest necessary to justify search); Commonwealth v. Correia, 66 Mass.App.Ct. at 177 (odor of burnt marijuana emanating from vehicle gave probable cause to search vehicle's occupants as well as vehicle for evidence of marijuana use and possession, whether or not police had probable cause to arrest any particular occupant); Commonwealth v. Skea, 18 Mass.App.Ct. 685, 700 (1984) (search of defendant's person constitutionally justified by "probable cause to believe he carried marihuana or other controlled substances, coupled with exigent circumstances" inherent in unanticipated encounter in parking lot). However, such a search of the occupants of the car, justified by probable cause to search and the exigent circumstances of the unanticipated stop, "must be limited in scope to those areas of the person and his clothing which could reasonably be thought to contain the items sought." Id. at 701.
Hey CDM nice research but next time site the whole case, especially when you speak of Commonwealth v. Correia, if you chose to read on you will see that Commonwealth v. Correia, 66 Mass.App.Ct. at 178 that the search was justified by the observation of a roach, giving probable cause which allowed the police to order the occupants out and search their person, you need more than smell to search, the occupants. I further state that a search of a person means grabbing and feeling their outer garments not looking into a groin region just because somebody had their pants no fastened. By the way how much contraband was found on the young lady who STRIPPED searched, and was she arrested?? was any marijuana found in the vehicle or on any of the occupants??? if so what was the police file number documenting same.
Big deal the town paid out a little money because some supervisor made a poor decision. Look at the ambulance chaser of a lawyer she had. Has to say something about her character.
Oh but lest we forget "a history of problems with young women"
07-422-AR
07-423-AR
07-424-AR
07-425-AR
Can you say "dismissed at arraignment"....
Guess you dodged a few bullets there, now didn't you?
Then there was good old 02-103-AR
likewise dismissed
See if you can figure out what all the defendants had in common?
Please tell me, I'm chomping at the bit, and no way of finding out. When they pulled down the panties, they saw a pair of colongs...portuguese for a male.
Nah!!! cross dressing is a whole other issue. That could put you right at the top of the food chain.
Of course feeling the crotch is acceptable. If not every drug dealer would stash is drugs in his undies.
You said police can search for weapons not a dime bag. Here is exactly what you said.....
"remember searches are for weapons to protect the officers present not for a dime bag, or a joint. The female could have been asked to turn her pockets inside out, not call a female officer/ trooper to start looking under the young female garments without PROBABLE CAUSE,"
I showed you case law that says exactly the opposite, yet you nit-pick my answer and start talking about needing more than just smell. Smell of marijuana is PROBABLE CAUSE.
Smell alone is probably cause to search, Cf. Commonwealth v. Moses, 408 Mass. 136 , 144 (1990) (officers who observed defendant duck beneath dashboard after his vehicle was stopped could conduct interior search of automobile "confined in scope" to discover any weapon that could have been concealed beneath dashboard). Moreover, the permissible scope of the search in this case extended not only to the passenger compartment of the vehicle, but also to its occupants, particularly in light of the fact, found by the judge, that the smell of marijuana was coming from their clothing. See Commonwealth v. Washington, 449 Mass. 476 , 486-487 (2007) (permitting search of passengers after traffic stop based on exigency and probable cause to believe evidence of crime was present; no arrest necessary to justify search); Commonwealth v. Correia, 66 Mass. App. Ct. at 177 (odor of burnt marijuana emanating from vehicle gave probable cause to search vehicle's occupants as well as vehicle for evidence of marijuana use and
Page 51
possession, whether or not police had probable cause to arrest any particular occupant); Commonwealth v. Skea, 18 Mass. App. Ct. 685 , 700 (1984) (search of defendant's person constitutionally justified by "probable cause to believe he carried marihuana or other controlled substances, coupled with exigent circumstances" inherent in unanticipated encounter in parking lot). However, such a search of the occupants of the car, justified by probable cause to search and the exigent circumstances of the unanticipated stop, "must be limited in scope to those areas of the person and his clothing which could reasonably be thought to contain the items sought." Id. at 701.
Notice the end, clothing which could reasonably be thought to contain the items sought. LIKE INSIDE THE PANTS OF A PASSENGER WHO HAD HER TOP BUTTON UNDONE and stated she unbuttoned it to eat more food.
Deputy Chief position should have never been taken out from civil service protection. It's just another branch from a larger objective. SB member/chairman stated that big changes are coming to Dartmouth. The SB chairman announced that the deputy position is open to all people with advanced degree's in criminal justice. The SB traded one captain position for a deputy chief. I've heard of a deputy sheriff. Everyone in the sheriff's department is a deputy.
What is a deputy? Why are the SB members so willing to open this position to the unknown or less known?
The question of the day is, “do you need to see the skunk, to know it's in the mix?”
Once upon a time, all Dartmouth police personnel where covered by the state department of civil service. This was done to protect police officer, from the influence of politics. Over the past several years, we have witnessed the dismantling of the Chief's position, and now the deputy chief, away from civil service. Who's next??
There are two ways of cutting down a tree. You can cut at the base, or start remove one limb at a time. Anyway you do this, the limbs will be cut off. So, while some people are promoting hate and discontent, a much larger plan is moving forward. This is not the time to be airing your dirty laundry in public, it's time to keep your eye on the politics of town governing. Devide and concur.
Of course feeling the crotch is acceptable. If not every drug dealer would stash is drugs in his undies.
YEAH feeling the crotch is acceptable under the plain feel doctrine, but having a superior officer tell a female trooper that the young lady stuffed dope down her shorts is not acceptable, when nobody made the observation, just because somebody made the assumption the young lady possessed drugs because her button was not fastened, and the car smelt like pot. The trooper acted on Sergeants words believing he was credible,i agree that a frisk of clothing can be made but making the young lady remove her clothing to find a joint or a dime bag is to EXTREME. Do you think she stuffed a bail of pot down her shorts. When you read the cases you cite look at what gave the probable cause two things are mentioned, furtive movements, in the vehicle and observations of a roach, with the smell of marijuana, gave probable cause no mention of unbuttoned pants, and the smell of marijuana. But on the other hand you are always right, and everybody else is wrong. You never answered my question what is the police file number that justified the officers actions to tell the trooper to remove the young ladies pants to look for a joint? or when you guys are in the wrong you just drive away a chalk it up as a bad experience. How much marijuana was found in the car? how many people were arrested? By the way did these officers get disciplined for these actions? Or are actions like this condoned by the higher ups in the police department? Also does dartmouth pd have a strip search policy, and was it followed correctly by the superior officer on scene? is this the first time the pd was sued because of a BAD strip search?
The search according to what I read was for ILLEGAL DRUGS. 14 grams of heroin, cocaine, or crack is trafficking. Should police never check suspected persons for drugs for fear of getting sued? If that was true there would be NO COPS LEFT.
14 grams fits easily into the waistband of underwear, so take that for what it is worth.
Caselaw is SPECIFIC, no one needs to be under arrest to be searched. Ask the officers there if they found anything, but refer above that smelling something is the reason for the search, the PROBABLE CAUSE to search was the smell. Finding something or not does not make the search legal, it already was.
Let me write this again. MERE smell of Marijuana is probable cause to search the occupants and the vehicle. The open pants or observing a roach add to the probable cause but do not create it.
Check with the PD to inquire about past incidents of being sued, as well as policies regarding strip searches. I don't have that answer.
The only answer I have is to stop people like you from making up laws and passing your false information off as FACT.
Oh so you admit the cops were on a fishing expedition, first frisk for pot, now talking about heroin shoved down the little girls pants, what were the cops looking for pot or heroin? The point being was it really worth a law suit to find a joint stuffed down the little girls pants? probably not, The reason the insurance company settled is because you could have never convince a jury or a judge why a young ladies pants were removed roadside to look for a small amount pot. Again i will state that a search is for clothing covering the body, not looking under the clothing to find contraband, unless you are on a fishing expedition. If you look at Commonwealth V. Thomas 429Mass 403 (1999) you will see that you need probable cause to conduct a strip search. Other than seeing somebody shove an item down their pants, or a large bulge you have No PROBABLE cause to remove clothing, especially pants ROADSIDE just because her pants were not Fastened does not mean she was a drug mule. It is a good that a ambulance chaser like Brian Cunha, had this case and was looking for a quick settlement, a real Attorney would have owned this town.
All this legal mumbo jumbo back and forth trying to justify a strip search. No one cares. Give it a rest. What seems to be getting ignored by these battling law school Lenny types is the accusation that the person involved has a history of problems. What do those numbers posted earlier mean. Is it some secret code. Is the police department trying to cover for one of their own that is a constant problem. I'd love to know the rest of the story. Seems to have some credibility to it given the specifics of the accusations.
I never said fishing expedition. I showed case law from the SJC allowing such searches. The roadside strip search I never agreed with.
You started this by saying police can only search for weapons, not a dime bag. I showed you the error of your ways and since then you have been nit picking.
I am saddened you choose to accept a written statement by an ambulance chaser with no cross examination to make your stand. I think if all the facts came out you might change your tune ( I might too). Perhaps I am wrong, you may be involved with one of the "principles" in this case.
That is the last I will say on this subject.
Write those numbers down, I believe they are police file numbers, if you request the report its a public record, would be nice to see the dirt first hand. I hope the selectboard knows what they are doing? sounds like some bad apples in the cart, better promote them quick before they rot.
Anonymous Anonymous said...
I never said fishing expedition.
KNOW I ASKED IF THAT IS WHAT THE COPS WERE ON, BASED ON THE FACT NO DRUGS WERE FOUND AND THAT NOBODY WAS ARRESTED, AND NOBODY DOCUMENTED THIS VERY "INTRUSIVE ROADSIDE SEARCH"
I showed case law from the SJC allowing such searches.
I SHOWED THE CASE LAW WHICH CURTAILS STRIP SEARCHES, YOU CHOSE TO PUT A SPIN ON YOUR SEARCHERS, IN THE CASES YOU SITE IT WAS FOR OUTER GARMENT FRISKS. NOT PULLING A LITTLE GIRLS PANTS DOWN ROADSIDE.
The roadside strip search I never agreed with.
AND NEITHER DO I
You started this by saying police can only search for weapons, not a dime bag.
I TRIED TO EXPLAIN THAT YOU NEED PROBABLE CAUSE TO RIP DOWN A GIRLS PANTS ON THE ROADSIDE TO LOOK FOR DRUGS.
LIKE PUTTING COMMONSENSE IN POLICING.
I showed you the error of your ways and since then you have been nit picking.
ERROR IN MY WAYS YEAH RIGHT, YOU THINK IF YOU WOULD HAVE TYPED UP YOUR SO CALLED PROBABLE CAUSE IN A SEARCH WARRANT INDICATING THAT A CAR WITH THE SMELL OF MARIJUANA EMANATING FROM IT,AND FEMALE PASSENGER IN THE CAR WITH HER PANTS UNBUTTONED, A JUDGE OR A CLERK MAGISTRATE WOULD HAVE GIVEN YOU A WARRANT TO PULL HER PANTS OF ON THE ROADSIDE, I THINK NOT.
I am saddened you choose to accept a written statement by an ambulance chaser with no cross examination to make your stand.
NAH NOT A STATEMENT I READ, I BASE MY FACTS ON THE DEPOSITIONS OF THE OFFICERS WHO WERE DEPOSED, VERY DAMAGING TO THE POLICE, LIKE I SAID GOOD THING THE AMBULANCE CHASER SETTLED THE CASE
I think if all the facts came out you might change your tune ( I might too).
IT SHOULD HAVE COME OUT AND THIS PROMOTION ISSUE WOULD BE ON HOLD FOR SURE.
Perhaps I am wrong,
YES YOU WERE WRONG FOR SUPPORTING PERVERTED AND DEVIANT POLICE BEHAVIOR.
you may be involved with one of the "principles" in this case.
THANK GOD I DO NOT WORK WITH PERVERTS LIKE THAT I CAN ONLY SAY THAT I WILL NOT SLEEP WELL, KNOWING SUPERVISORS LIKE THIS RUN THE SHIP AT NIGHT.
That is the last I will say on this subject.
THANK GOD BECAUSE ANYBODY WHO SUPPORTS ROGUE POLICE TACTICS LIKE THIS SHOULD NOT BE GIVEN CREDENCE.
SEE YOU AT THE GYM, ENJOY YOUR RETIREMENT.
The last poster seems angry. If he/she saw the depositions I dare say he/she is involved in some respect and anything He/she says should be taken with a grain of salt. I also think by slandering police officials who are in line for promotion you could be open to a lawsuit yourself. How would that feel? The best part would be all of us laughing as you were the person on the wrong end of a frivolous lawsuit.
Just so you know you can purchase deposition transcripts from the stenographer, they are public records. Just remember the truth will set you free, i have no problem disseminating what i know because it is the truth. Have a nice day!
Yes..Yes.. Tell us what you know...But never tell us your name :)
As we all know, people are not perfect, and as long as police officer are chosen from the ranks of human beings, you'll always find the occasional employment hazard. As I read the above postings, I've come to a conclusion, that like most people, police officers have their share of employment concerns. The fast majority of police officers are good decent people, who enjoy their work, love their family and want to do what is right for this town. However, this is not the forum to make allegations, discredit fellow officers, all this in the name of promotions.
You have the right to make your allegations known. At the Monday night select board meeting, you must make your concerns known to the right people. Go to the meeting, stand up like a man/woman point to the person you feel is not qualified for promotion, and explain to the select board why you believe this person shouldn't be promoted. Bring your prove, documentation, and a lawyer. Bring all your fellow officers, who agree with you, but this truth be known, you stand alone.
Just because of the color of a persons skin, a police officer stops a person driving a BMW, the officer is called a racist. If a person, uses this forum to make statements true/ false, is called a discredit to himself and their attachment to the human race. Stand up like a man, bring the prove, attended the meeting, and let everyone know that you are not a coward.
I love it when an anonymous person claiming to have all the facts, leads us to believe he purchased transcripts of a deposition. If you are so brave when throwing out this "information" as you called it, be man enough to put your name on it or I will discard it as hogwash.
Go to the meeting, stand up like a man/woman point to the person you feel is not qualified for promotion, and explain to the select board why you believe this person shouldn't be promoted.
THE BOARD SHOULD DO THEIR HOMEWORK THEMSELVES! ALL THEY NEED TO DO IS ASK THE RIGHT QUESTIONS.
Bring your prove, documentation, and a lawyer.
LIKE I WOULD SHOW UP AND HAVE ALL THE COPS IN TOWN AFTER ME,AS FAR AS A LAWYER IT IS NOT NECESSARY I HAVE READ FACTUAL EVIDENCE, AND DISSEMINATING THIS IS NOT A CRIME.
Bring all your fellow officers, who agree with you, but this truth be known, you stand alone.
REMEMBER I TOLD YOU I DO NOT WORK WITH THESE OFFICERS,I JUST KNOW ABOUT CERTAIN ONES, AND NEXT TIME YOU TYPE OUT YOUR QUESTIONS DO IT AFTER YOU SLEEP A WHILE NOT AFTER LEAVING A OVERNIGHT SHIFT, YOU MAKE NO SENSE.
lots of anonymous postings..i guess i'll join in. See, we should all listen to these anonymous people telling us what to do. They have no shame...and probably no agenda either.
I HAVE READ FACTUAL EVIDENCE, AND DISSEMINATING THIS IS NOT A CRIME.
Alleged factual information. Lets remember a deposition is ONE side asking questions. There are no counter questions or elaborating on the actual facts.
Reading a deposition is no different than reading exactly what the lawyer wants you to know.
Hardly factual, hardly fair and hardly honest.
Yet, you do all your bashing behind a veil of security. Stand up, be a man, or get off your soapbox.
10:13...aren't you writing anonymously as well.. why not sign your name???...
I am writing anonymously, but I am not accusing police of crimes. I am not naming police officers and calling them "deviant" and "perverted".
I am not claiming to have read depositions and blaming police for something they didn't do. If I were doing those things and felt so strongly about it, I would write my name 10 times.
The truth is things read here by some people are actually believed by those writing them. If you are going to "slander" as one poster put it. Put your name on it or don't say it.
When anonymous people call our police department corrupt, deviant and perverted we need to call them on it. Either prove it or shut up.
BTW you are posting anonymously too.
Promotions are based upon civil service tests and other factors which add up to give candidates a score. The top three scorers are presented to the Select Board for appointment. The top scorer must be appointed unless a valid reason for selecting another candidate is given.
Bill,
The above statement is taken from your blog. I'd like to know the valid reason for selecting a candidate who is not the top score. Sergeant Rutch, clearly stated that he is the candidate with the highest score, however, the SB unamiously motioned and voted for a candidate with the second highest score. According to civil service rules/laws and the publics right to know, shouldn't the valid reason for this obvious bypass have become public information?
It appears to me, but not nessarily the case, that the select board failed to follow civil service law.
Please responed.
ps...this is also posted with the promotion blog announcement.
Post a Comment