ICMA Police report not yet here
Earlier today, Town Hall gave a status update on ICMAs police report.
It should arrive in a few days. Though it'll probably first be vetted by the Town Attorney to determine if any information should be redacted.
I'm of the opinion that the whole thing should be disclosed. But I won't necessarily argue, if there's a good reason for non-disclosure of certain information.
I doubt anything will be public before next week.
Tim White
12 comments:
this was paid for by public tax dollars, at the request of all affected parties. Having the own attorney "review" seems fishy. it is nothing more than a review - it should all be public. also it should be distributed to all on the same date so that if there is no time for "damage control" measures.
You can opine all you want, but Connecticut General Statutes, Section 1-210 sets forth which records may be accessed and which are exempt from disclosure.
A court gag order also comes to mind as a very good reason to not release something, if anything happened to be covered by such a thing.
Man, this is like waiting for Santa Claus back when I was a kid.
Will the Chief get a present or a load of coal?
mr santa claus you need to get a life-
I hope our general public considers its quite possible the Chief isn't liked because he holds his reports accountable for their actions, doesn't waste money on unnecessary overtime and he can't be bought, in other words he doesn't cave in to possible games of manipulation. Just another perspective to consider.
isn't liked because he holds his reports accountable for their actions, doesn't waste money on unnecessary overtime and he can't be bought, in other words he doesn't cave in to possible games of manipulation.
Fair point. But that also seems to imply that of the 42 officers who voted, each of them are comfortable with at least one of those concerns.
Unions have everthing going for them. They now want to pick their leader? If they were in the Army etc they didn't have a choice and I remember many 1st Sgts and 2nd Lts who were SOBs and it worked. I think some of these people need that type of training and then compare it to what they have now. I'm sure it would be fine.
Unions don't have everything going for them. Management most times has the most control over things. However, bad management probably brought on the formation of the unions in the first place. This town got a police union years ago, because a tight-fisted First Selectman offered a measly 5 cent an hour raise! Public employees who are unionized can resort to binding arbitration, because state law forbids them to strike. There has to be some kind of equity here.
Binding arbitration by state municipal employee unions is nothing but legalized robbery of tax payers. As for tight fisted selectman keeping the town budget in check it's too bad we no longer have a selectman form of government where it would be harder to routinely hike our taxes.
Thanks to the unionization of local police departments local departments are starting down the same road that businesses large and small throughout the state took beginning in the early 20th century. For profit state businesses have mostly completed the journey down that road and of course it led to most of the for profit businesses leaving for greener pastures.
Does anyone really believe it is in the majority best interest to have a police union dictating what department management can or cannot do? Or dictating what type of management personality is required? Or dictating pay requirements?
Clearly no one at the PD seems so unhappy that they have left for greener pastures. They are pretty smart, they know a really green pasture when they find it.
There is a saying the devil you know vs the devil you don't know...if the Chief gets asked to step down, we're more than likely to get a new Chief from outside the Dept (perhaps out of State)& God knows what he'll do.....
If you know the cops, they may not like the Chief BUT they have little concern for each other--only themselves. NO COMARADERIE
Post a Comment