DeLibero On The Move?

I got a tip that our favorite Town Manager, Bill DeLibero, is a finalist for the job of Town Manger in Charlestown.    Seems odd to me, that he wants out of Hopkinton so badly.  However, considering the Scuncio/Mauti lawsuit (more details to follow), I guess I am not surprised.  Anyone have any more info on this or is it just an unsubstantiated rumor?  FYI, my source is generally pretty reliable.  I guess we’ll have to wait and see how this shakes out.  My source also says that the official announcement of the finalists is scheduled for May 6th-ish. 

Aside from Mageau, I never paid any attention to Charlestown, I didn’t even realize they were without an Town Manger.  I suspect that without one, their Town has never run more smoothly….

Ishmael is Batting .500

Not a big deal, I do have some more important stuff to post when I get around to it, but I thought that I should mention that I correctly guessed that Chariho would cut a token $200,000 from the budget before submitting it for another vote.  I think the actually amount is something like $238K.  What a joke, har har har.  Unfortunately, the joke is on us.

But I incorrectly guessed that Felkner would return to the School Board.  They picked Georgia Ure instead. She will certainly be contrarian but I doubt it will make much of a difference.  Chariho is impervious to whining and complaining.

Like I said, lots to talk about regarding the HPD and our former building inspector’s suit against them, just enjoying the warm weather for now.

Better Late Than Never (or the Transparency Train Derailed)

I just couldn’t pick a title.

“Better late than never” because the Sun finally got its butt in gear and reported on the Hopkinton ticket quota.  ”The Transparency Train derailed” because Felkner is full of  proverbial “no comments” for this story; which is funny because he can’t shut his mouth when it comes to the School Board.  Perhaps he is educable!  Has he learned how not to say the first thing that comes into his head?  Or perhaps he is just angling for a bigger political career and doesn’t want to ruin it by saying something stupid?  Again.

Anyway, the point of the Sun’s article is that the Town Council insists that they did not request the policy, it is the Police Department’s business and the Council knew nothing about it.  I happen to believe their excuse.  I suspect that the Manager did have something to do with it, after all, he is the Chief’s boss, but the Town Council doesn’t have a freaking clue about what is going on in Town, nor do they care, so they are automatically off the hook.

Some delightful quotes from the article:

DiLibero, who is out of town for the week, told The Sun Monday on his cell phone, “I just don’t want to comment on it any further.”

Bad time to go on vacation, eh Billy?  Don’t worry, the cops are actually all over the place all the sudden so I suspect this will fester for a few more months.

Councilor Beverly P. Kenney said that, prior to learning of the leaked policy, “I believe the police department was doing their job.”  She also declined to elaborate on the matter, saying, “I have not had a chance to investigate it.” She said she plans to speak with DiLibero first as “that’s the chain of command for us.”

Excellent.  I am ever so comforted when Delores Umbridge speaks.  Call out the High Inquisitors!

Capalbo declined to say what she thought of the policy because of conflicting statements from Baruti and Police Chief John S. Scuncio reported in the Journal story on why it was implemented.

I’m sure she was thinking, “colossal stupidity”.  I know I am.

Thompson said she is confident the issue will be resolved internally by the department, saying — like Capalbo — it is a personnel matter to be dealt with administratively, not by the council. She said she does not plan to tell the police department what to do with the policy.

It is a good thing we didn’t elect these people to actually do anything!   The Town Council cannot interfere in an investigation, they can tell the Police Department to cut it out with the quota.  But that would require some  testicles, figuratively speaking.

Although Thompson noted she has yet to read the email on the policy, she said, “As a resident, I find it distasteful.”

I am glad someone does.

Scuncio and Baruti did not return repeated phone calls seeking comment. 

Smart move, their first one so far.

And life goes on.  Keep you eyes open, in the past 3 days I have seen more Hopkinton cops than I have seen in the past year.  They are diligently working on their quota and they are coming for you!

It’s Official, The Hopkinton Police Department Sucks

From today’s Providence Journal (see the Projo for the whole article, I’ve just taken excerpts from it):

 Police have ticket ‘target’ in Hopkinton

By Bruce Landis, Journal Staff Writer 

If you drive through Hopkinton, keep this in mind: The officers you see are each required to write 20 traffic tickets per month, “more or less,” under a new Police Department policy.

Excuses, like being busy doing something else, or having taken vacation days, “are not acceptable,” Lt. Daniel C. Baruti said in a March 3 internal e-mail that spells out the policy.

The point of a police department is to enforce laws, not generate revenue for the town coffers.  But instead of cutting the Town budget and reining in spending, we’re trying to bilk the public out of more cash.  I guess we need to make sure the Municipal Court pays for itself!

The e-mail says, in bold, italic type, “Do not forward this e-mail.”

Clearly, the HPD is also stupid because if you put anything in an email, it will end up becoming public knowledge.  And the juicier it is, the more likely it will end up in the papers.

Baruti, Police Chief John S. Scuncio and Town Manager William A. DiLibero acknowledged Hopkinton’s policy after The Journal obtained a copy of the e-mail.

However, they denied that it amounts to a ticket quota. Instead, the lieutenant described the numerical goal as a “target.” He said he was surprised that the term “quota” has popped up. “I didn’t even think of the word ‘quota’ ” until a sergeant brought it up, he said.

A rose by any other name is still a rose.  So is a duck…

Baruti and the other local officials said that the policy is a management tool intended to make the police more productive. Although it has drawn some criticism, Baruti said, the policy is legal and that they have no intention of abandoning it.

Making up crimes and giving out unnecessary tickets is not an indicator of productivity.  Making up crimes to charge people with is criminal.

Baruti’s e-mail said that the department’s “production level” has fallen and that the town manager and some members of the Town Council “are very dissatisfied with our numbers.” He said he thinks a decline in the department’s ticket production reflects a lack of motivation.

Uh, duh.  We have too many goddamn cops and there is not enough to do.  It appears to me that the HPD is trying to justify their existence when in fact, there is very little justification for having 16 officers on the HPD.

The e-mail also looks ahead, saying, “The plan is to focus on traffic tickets to start. We will look at arrests and incidents later.” Baruti said that doesn’t mean setting targets for arrests.

Well that’s good!  I would hate to have the police show up to arrest me because they needed to arrest SOMEONE!

Baruti said it isn’t aimed at individual officers. DiLibero said, similarly, that he and some council members were concerned about a “lack of activity” by the police in general.

Once again, because there is nothing for them to do.

Scuncio, on the other hand, said the policy is aimed at a single officer who does practically no work. One example of his lack of effort, the chief said, is that month after month, the officer writes no tickets at all. The chief said the officer’s inactivity “really creates problems” because new officers “see this guy doing nothing.” He didn’t identify the officer, saying he didn’t want to single the officer out.

And this is not grounds for dismissal?  But then again, when the police chief is actually a member of the police union, things tend to a get a little “cozy”.

Chief Scuncio said the new policy hasn’t had the desired effect. “He still hasn’t written any tickets,” the chief said. “Nothing’s changed.”

And so you continue to promulgate the policy?  That’s pretty dumb, don’t you agree?

He said he’s reluctant to try to discipline the officer because of the difficulty under the legal and contractual protections provided to Rhode Island police.

Perhaps the Town should more aggressively negotiate police contracts in the future?  To prevent this from happening?  

Capt. David A. Ricciarelli, assistant director of the Rhode Island Municipal Police Academy, said he knows of no similar policy in other departments. He gave several reasons why ticket quotas should be avoided. They are “publicly distasteful,” he said, and give the public a negative impression when the police depend on the public’s help to enforce the law.

Well, I guess Hopkinton is just special that way.

“A quota policy can only generate disrespect for, and cynicism about, law enforcement,” Brown [the RI ACLU Executive Director] said , and it suggests that “police enforcement is more about making money” than enforcing the law.

That’s OK Mr. Brown, we don’t have much respect for the HPD anyway.  This just gives us another reason to consider cutting their budget.

Thanks to Bruce Landis, this was a great article.  Someone is finally shedding some light on the crap going on in Hopkinton government.

Next Moves

I have been thinking about how the Felkner/Chariho Budget issues are going to be addressed and I have some predictions.  Mind you, I don’t have a lot more insight into the decision making processes of the people involved than anyone else, but there are some options which are strategically more sound than others.

Felkner:  Felkner won’t be able to accomplish much or make much noise on the Town Council.  They don’t really do much.  The Town Manager runs the Town and he is a status-quo-type guy.  The Town Council is a giant rubber stamp.  So Felkner will probably resign the Town Council and be appointed to the School Board.  The Town Council will get along just fine without Felkner (they can usually muster at least a 3 vote majority anyway) and they want someone on the School Board who will make some noise: that’s Felkner.  Until his ego got the better of him and Felkner decided to take two elected positions, I had some respect for him.  I have a lot less now but he can still fight windmills effectively, or as effectively as anyone can fight a windmill.

Chariho:  I’m not sure if they will sue until the next budget gets busted.  I suspect that Ricci will make some token cuts, maybe $200K worth, and send the budget back to the voters.  And it will probably pass the next time around.  I don’t think Ricci expected it to fail and I don’t think he and the School Board “got out the vote”, so to speak.  They will the next time around.  The budget failed by 1 vote.  People who voted “no” last time are satisfied but those who voted “yes” are pissed.  Anger can work miracles.  Look at the 2006 and 2008 elections, the Dems won on the basis of angry people.  I may be wrong but I think all the “no” votes have been cast, we’ve seen all those angry people.  Now it is time for the rest.

Wow, a Tuesday Twofer!

It’s not Tuesday anymore, but both of these things happened yesterday:

1.  As you probably know, the Chariho budget failed by one vote, 526-527.  Town by town:  Charlestown was 224-142, Richmond was 142-125 and Hopkinton was 160-260.

2.  The RI Supreme Court says that Felkner cannot be on the Town Council and the School Board.  Thus he can keep his Town job but has effectively resigned the School Board.

I’m not so surprised about the Chariho vote.  I expected Richmond to stomp the budget but they did not.  They did have a lot of “no” votes relative to “yes” votes and they likely pushed it over the line.  Now we get to watch the fireworks.  Will they sue or will Chariho fix its budget?  I’m betting on a lawsuit.

I was, however, extremely surprised by the Felkner decision.  I expected him to win although it seemed that the RI SC was somewhat antagonistic during the hearing.  They used the Town Charter and the doctrine of incompatibility against him.  I still can’t see using the Charter.  The damn thing is so full of holes you can argue either position and I think the stronger position is the one that allows him to do exactly what he was doing.  But that was because of the technical language.  The court made a point of interpreting intent.  It is a harder thing to do but I think they got that right, the framers of the Charter never envisioned allowing someone to serve on both the Council and the Board.  Regardless, I am honestly pleased to see the decision which was ultimately produced.  In the end, it may have been a political decision but I’m not sure we’ll ever know.

Personally, I think that the conflict of interest between sitting on the Town Council and the School Board is significant.  No one has attempted to do this since Chariho was founded.  It’s just common sense to most people, you don’t take 2 elected positions, especially two that are so likely to be in conflict!

Thanks for all the fun, Bill.  I guess your life will be a lot quieter sitting on the Town Council (they don’t really do all that much but complain about Chariho- you fit in perfectly).  But you could always start hacking away at the municipal budget if you get lonely and want to see your name in the papers some more!  Heck, why not rewrite the Charter to let yourself serve on two elected positions?  Now there is an idea, provided you show up to some of the meetings….