The Select Board voted to appoint Sargeants Rutch, Faria and Zielinski to open slots in the police department command structure at the lieutenant level. This makes way for promotions from the patrol ranks to fill the three sargeant positions vacated by the promotions.
My congratulations to Sargeants Rutch, Faria and Zielinski.
I hope the Select Board will take up the promotions to sargeant soon.
Tuesday, August 25, 2009
Three Sargeants promoted to Lieutenant
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
32 comments:
Information just released from anonymous source, have several cool aid drinks, seen boarding an airplane headed for some unknown Island, off South America. Large envelopes, containing serious allegation of police misconduct, have been processed through the airport ex ray scanner. The envelope, containing large sums of unknown cool aid mix, have caused the airport security to contact the F.B.I. One of the detainees ( J ) ( F ) are being treated for chronic uncontrollable diarrhea, at some near by hospital. Additional information, as received, shall be posted. This information is based on a reliable source, who wished not to be identified, due to the sensitive nature of these unknown facts.
Why did Watson change the motion in order to discuss each appointment seperately, vote against one candidate, and not state his reason why?
Good question to ask him. Hold him accountable.
Good news. the town needed more ranking officers.
I hope now that we have them maybe they can stop the officer who takes his patrol car into New Bedford every day for breakfast at the Symposium. There are plenty of places in the town were you can get breakfast.
Stone and Michaud voted against Rutch without giving any reason. Watson voted against Faria without giving any reason. I have no horse in this race but would like to know why in the name of transparency.
To bird dog.
Watson, wanted to prove a point, and make good on his campaign promises to Joe Da Dope. The attack dogs are working overtime. Anonymous emails, phone calls, and letter writing to all select board members. Twisted facts and false information, were provided to all select board members.
Congratulations, to lieutenant Greg Rutch, Peter Faria, and Mark Zalinski. Now we shall watch the candidates for sergeants.
To all the nasty people, who slither through the halls of the police department, don't throw away your letters, selectmen telephone numbers, and emails. All you need to do is change the names of the candidates. Maybe, with Watson and a little luck, we can all enjoy the next dog and pony show.
8:13-what does your rant actually mean?? And please stop listening to someone who calls themselves Bird Dog.
And, just think, James G., if he stayed in Dartmouth, he'd keep the money in Dartmouth.
Where's that Dartmouth Pride when you want it??
Officers on duty should not be leaving the town. We hear about the department being under staffed. Well how about keeping the cops in town. The Chief needs to get on this guy.
I'm a candidate for sergeant but have not been notified to be interviewed by selectmen on Monday evening. The select board members told the TV land that they want three sergeants to replace the sergeants that were promoted to Lt's. Three vacancies for sergeant calls for seven candidates from the civil service list that past the exam for sergeant. Too bad Joe, should have studied, instead of shooting your mouth off. I can't wait to make sergeant, just so I can tell you what to do. You better find another rock to hide under.
The selectmen will postpone the interviews for another week or two, what else is new. This will give the grenade throwers more time to set up their attack plan. Good luck to all the cool-aid drinkers. We who drink together shall stay together. Now fill your glass and drink it down. A twitch, your spilling the cool-aid.
Only one sergeant. That's all folks. You only have three targets to shoot at. The new sergeant is going on the midnight shift. Don't forget your night vision goggles. Maybe the military surplus officer, Joe the rag man, can find a used pair of goggles, left over from desert storm.
Just curious. Why didn't the SB members voting "no" give an explanation. They certainly explained why they voted "yes" for certain candidates. I think it would be in the public's interest to know why since these officers will be serving the town. Mr. Watson made a motion to change Mr. Trimble's motion because he wanted to take each candidate individually and have discussion. Where was the discussion??? It just looked foolish and left people wondering what the heck was going on.
Mr. Watson's discussion was to make sure that all three were not appointed at once. As you can see, he voted for only two.
That is not a discussion. That is not wanting to appoint all three at once. He made it perfectly clear that he wanted a discussion as well. There was none. I would have liked to know why he did not vote for the third. Was it a legitimate reason or not? The public should not only know what a SB member's vote is but the reason behind the vote. That way they can get a clearer picture of how those serving them think and reason. Since the public isn't always privy to all the information, executive session info for example, just saying yes or no to important issues gives no indication of the rationale of the vote. Since Mr. Watson did not just make a motion to take each candidate individually but made a point of wanting discussion, I was hoping to get some insight from him. The same thing happened with the EA vote. Mr. Watson wanted to eliminate a candidate but did not give a reason. He seemed to be quite adamant about it but did not expand on his reasons. Was it a personal dislike or legitimate reasons? We will never know because he failed to inform us. Mr. Watson ran on a transparency platform. It would be nice if he fulfilled his campaign promise.
8:48...rewatch the meeting. you are on a witchhunt. Watson wanted to dicuss Trimble's motion, which he did. He stated that he would not support appointing all three to lieutenant. He never says he wants to discuss each candidate. The meeting will be replayed on DCTV at 7pm tonight. Enjoy!
Anonymous 8:48 P.M.
You are absolutely correct. I'm in total agreement. Watson ran his campaign on transparency, but like most elected leaders once elected, they throw up the middle finger, at you and me. During the Ex. A appointment, Watson motioned to eliminate a candidate, but gave no explanation. Once again, an elected select board members, without explaining, “no transparency”, take unknown action. I want to know why he decided to motion the elimination of one of the candidates, without explaining his motion. I also want to know why he demanded a separate vote on lieutenant's, but never had a discussion, or how he voted.
Dartmouth taxpayers, in general, are pissed with the large sums of money spent on top salary administrator's. According to the select board, they throw out Gagne, “ because they want to go in a different direction, and appoint a former administrator from Massachusetts town, that told this same appointed administrator, that they want to go in another direction. Dartmouth select board members gave him $125,000 thousand dollars ( 7% ) more then Gagne's salary. Watson voted for the ( 7% ) increase. Folks, we need to have a clause in our town charter, authorizing the recall of elected officials who abuse their authority, or don't act in the best interest of Dartmouth tax payers. Am I wrong, or do you see this in a different way.? Puzzled in Dartmouth.
How about a cap on salaries?
What is going on with a charter commission being established? Any word or happenings at this date? I've only heard talk of one.
Puzzled in Dartmouth. Here's an idea.. Pick up the phone and contact your elected representatives. I have contacted multiple over the years and all have a phone number fopr available contact at the select board office. You want to hold them accountable. Do it. Call the office and get the number. Otherwise, blame yourself and yourself alone. Of course, it would be easier to hide anonymously on this blog.
Anonymous 9:54
I called the selectmen officer, for the phone numbers, as you stated, but they tell me that they are not allowed to give out the home phone numbers. Can you please explain, Puzzled in Dartmouth. You make a good point, but you provide pointless information. Maybe you can give the telephone numbers on this blog, and I'll make the phone calls.
I didn't say you'll get the home numbers. The office will give a phone number/email so way to communicate with the selectman. Or leave your name and number and I am sure who you are looking for will call you back. Naturally, you are not going to get the home number. Who the hell would want you calling them at home.
Wait just one second. Look at your post.
Your post, told me to call the SB office and get the number. Then you post that you didn't say I'd get the home number. What number did you want me to get??Then you state in your second post that the SB will give a number/email “so way” I think you ment some way, to communicate with SB.
When I called for the phone number, I asked for their email address and I was told they do not give out email address. I wish you wouldn't respone again. Now, I'm realy PUZZLED IN DARTMOUTH.
Bad information is no information.
Puzzled in Dartmouth. Here's an idea.. Pick up the phone and contact your elected representatives. I have contacted multiple over the years and all have a phone number fopr available contact at the select board office. You want to hold them accountable. Do it. Call the office and get the number. Otherwise, blame yourself and yourself alone. Of course, it would be easier to hide anonymously on this blog.
August 27, 2009 9:54 AM
I didn't say you'll get the home numbers. The office will give a phone number/email so way to communicate with the selectman. Or leave your name and number and I am sure who you are looking for will call you back. Naturally, you are not going to get the home number. Who the hell would want you calling them at home.
August 27, 2009 2:11 PM
Advise...who the hell ( try using who in hell)better english is good english. I didn't use anonymous.
I could be wrong, but I think being public officials, they are required to provide some way of being reached, and we know they have been because they even say so.
I'd call the SB office and ask again, and tell them that you believe that is your right. Ask for the general town email address. Usually some combination of the official's name followed by the town address will work. Ask for those.
Better yet, go to a Select Board meeting and ask them all outright how they can be reached. They should give you and anyone present and listening an answer.
Board members over the years have been called at home or at their work. I'm not sure, but I think someone was misinforming you. Maybe policy has changed; if so, so much for transparency and public representation!
At any rate, don't let someone in the Select Board office refuse you. Keep asking.
Thank you "puzzled in dartmouth". Watson did ask for discussion and then didn't discuss. I'm glad I'm not the only one who was "puzzled". Apparently there are at least a couple of others on this blog that feel the same way. I'm sure the viewing audience was also left wondering. Don't run on transparency if you choose not to be transparent.
I have contacted multiple select board members over the years without problem. And good point 5:48pm... how about attending a meeting. Where a mask so no one will know your identity and scream at all the board members. You didn't post anonymously, instead you used "Puzzled". That cleared it all up. Negative posters who hide anonymously will never prevail in their points as someone must ultimately make them.
I am not Bill's brother James or James G. from above for clarity.
Anonymous, this is a must read.....Chronologically speaking, let's go back to June 6th at which time the SB announced the calling for a civil service list for sergeant, lieutenant, and captain. Within a short period in time, the selectmen began receiving anonymous letters, emails, and phone calls, from town insiders. The alleged, anonymous allegation, provided the selectmen with slanderous, libelous, misleading information, concerning more then one candidate. This act, was committed to unjustly injure a person(s) reputation. This crime of libel, will not go unpunished. One or more of the officers, have been in contact with an attorney, and legal action shall be taken in the form of depositions. A motion for declaration of facts/ (information) both anonymous and alleged, will be issued, along with emails, letters, and telephone record tracking information from all selectmen. Reports, police recorded information, and all other written, or verbal communication with selectmen shall be introduced into the introductory phase of this illegal act, of slander/libelous, and false information. The plaintiff(s) agree and understand that any conspirator or co-conspirator, who comes forward and joins the plaintiff(s) admitting to having participated, or having knowledge of such fallacious misleading or erroneous acts, shall be given consideration, from prosecution, as it applies to the judicial system. See you in court.
The Select Board office has given out both home and work numbers for Board members in the past.
Character assassination, libelous comments, and unproven allegation, must and shall be investigated. The Dartmouth police brotherhood union, must provide legal assistance, to the injured party(s). The attorney must start by deposing the selectmen, Once information received is processed, charges can be filed with the superior court in New Bedford superior court. Libelous acts/slander, and deformation of character, are very serious crimes. Any employee, if found guilty, will lose their job, and forfeit all retirement benefits. They may also be fined up to 10,000 thousand dollars, with a 2 ½ years committed to the house of corrections. Any official found guilty, as a co conspirator, can be charged with aiding and abetting a perpetrator and subject to the same punishment.
Maybe the accusations are true and there is no lies being told here. I know for a fact that there is a Dartmouth officer who takes his car miles into New Bedford every morning that he is working to visit his wife at the Symposium and have breakfast. This needs to stop. So maybe these other so called accusations are also true. If anyone thinks I am not telling the truth they just need to go to breakfast at about 6:45am to the Symposium to find out.
James G.
Having breakfast, in another town/city is not a crime, or violation of police department rules. This is something you need to deal with, or contact the captain.
This is are not part of a conspiracy to cause harm or slander. Your concerned with a police officer that has breakfast out of town. You want it stopped, and I agree that it should be stopped. As it
relates to your personal need, you want the officer to stay in Dartmouth,. I agree, but it's the captain that is the person you should speak with, not this post.
This blog has been used to slander, cause emotional discomfort, question the reputation of three officers, and deliver emotional stress. The attackers didn't focus on one police officer. The cowards, sent emails, letters, and telephone calls. Personal telephone calls can be traced, and they shall be, emails can be traced, but need a court order, they shall be, person to person conversations can be deposed and they shall be. This is the meat of the anonymous people who made slanderous allegations. When a select board member is summoned to report for a deposition in Boston
do you believe they will lie under oath, I don't think so. They will give the names of each and every police officer who gave out slanderous information. PLEASE UNDERSTAND.....it's not the slanderous information that the jury cares about, it's the intention of the person who provided the information. Was it done to correct a wrong or was it done to discredit the officers reputation, cause them to lose a job, promotion, reputation in the community, and so on. Try to understand, the concern you've stated should be corrected but it's not intended to cause a lost job, reputation, or money. What the attackers did, is a CRIME, it shall be discovered. The selectmen will talk and they will identify the anonymous sources, provide the written letters, and traced telephone calls. This is not over...............
Posting as "James" isn't exactly revealing your identity. You are here calling out other people for being anonymous, yet you post anonymously yourself.
So now are we going to have a posting battle over how posters identify themselves?
Post a Comment