Still mostly all good, right?

Let's see, where to go today.  There will be a whole lot of walks down what is becoming a well trodden path in the days to come. Today I think we can veer off a bit, or for a little bit.

Any of you out there catch the discussion Monday night relative to the police staffing for the dispatch position?  Apparently there is an prolonged absence due to illness.  This is resulting in a staffing crunch for the position, specifically created in part by new "mandates" required for dispatcher training to actually work as a dispatcher. 

What makes this one particularly interesting from my perspective is the remedy to meet the problem is not, as far as I can ascertain, resulting in a financial crunch for the department.  Furthermore, if you watched the segment, it doesn't seem to be resulting in any actual union grievance, any police departmental unrest, any bugs in the rug for the operations of the police department.

The interesting part is why it was of interest.

The fact that it was a matter addressed at a selectmen's meeting seems to be a bit perplexing.  There is obviously something going on that was missing from the exchange Monday night.

This particular issue actually provides a great insight into the actual and potential good, bad and ugly of our present format and potential TA.

The good: Well can't see any good in this one.  Can't understand the whole exchange.  As a resident I watched and did a whole lot of head scratching actually. Reasonable explanation of problem and solution from the department head.  Reasonable counters by the department head to alternate suggestions based on outdated "policy" that is rarely if ever actually followed, at least for legitimate purposes.

Remind me sometime to discuss a certain hire or two pushed in the past by certain elected individuals.

Anyway, before I digress ...

Absolutely perplexed how such a matter that truly is one of those day to day issues faced in supervision and management makes it to a selectmen's meeting. Remember, we aren't talking about a blown budget or a filed grievance. At least that isn't what I was hearing

Under our TA act to be implemented, you might never hear about this matter. You actually should never hear of such a matter.  Not that I think you should have heard about it under our present method as it presently seems to be an issue only because some people apparently don't like the solution to a problem, not that it was a bad solution.

Even in today's open and transparent society, the fact you would not hear about, or rather should not hear about it is in fact good.  It would be we would have an operational/procedural matter being dealt with in a management level.  It always boggles my mind when we see actual matters addressed seemingly not as a result of what is, but essentially on what if.

Anyway ...

Still, if the alternate solution were implemented, you might very well hear about it because of the alternate problems that would arise. That is where the ugly could rear its head.  

A bit of the potential ugly was reared, and the potential and actual bad exposed by the simple fact the exchange existed.

Going forward however be the only time you will see such matters addressed is when the police chief disagrees with an actual directive.

Our new TA will: "Manage and direct the daily reporting and supervision of all Town departments under the jurisdiction of the Board of Selectmen including the following: ... Police ,,," and "Except with respect to the School Department, the Town Administrator shall have sole authority over the administration of personnel policies for all Town employees." This would certainly negate the immediate control of the department the chief is tasked with under present law.

Could at first glance it appear something was amiss?  Sure.  There seems we have a personnel by-law that might apply, if circumstances today were the same as when the by-law was implemented.  A by-law and policies that have not been reviewed by those in charge for a decade and a half. A by-law that quite frankly when coupled with other legal standards has not in my opinion been violated and at best seems to be bandied about as a means to exercise control and not to solve a problem, not just in this instance either.

If the good should never be sacrificed in the name of perfection, neither should the concept "good enough" be used to kill a better solution. 

You need to watch this segment. You need to pay attention to it, and think it through.  

Then you need to ask yourself if a segment like this occurs pre TA, what happens post TA.

If your first thought in answer to that is the pat "A competent TA won't..." I would suggest you Google "Massachusetts strong police chief town administrator" initially, than do a few other searches throwing in case law, problems, issues, disputes.

Then ask yourself why we would essentially keep in place the "strong fire chief" and neuter the "strong police chief". How in any well thought out plan does that make sense?

Given the fact the strong police chief act is actually weaker than the strong fire chief  statute, and the stronger statute actually removes a great deal of oversight by a TA from a department with a budget that is going to probably exceed the police department in 5 years or less assuming current trends, one might pause and wonder, wouldn't one?

I am not arguing against the vast majority of the provisions of either "strong" statute. If we are going to build a the true pyramid however ...

Anyway ...

Then seriously think about the fact that even if present authority would allow such action on day to day operations, what could happen and does happen elsewhere when actual authority allows it.

We have heard arguments about the experience a TA should have for other Departments needs.  Let's hope you can find one with a background in law enforcement too boot.

This is one area where I would bet the farm you are going to see the conflicts referenced yesterday arise. Quite frankly this is one point I have been kicking myself over, and over, and over again for not high lighting initially.

Never assume the obvious is obvious to others.

Enough for today.  Time now to work on my bell curve to fit this one into the 90% good.

Be safe.