GilfordGrok

That's what Chief Markland was quoted as saying in the Headline article of the Laconia Sun:

"Chief says no Gilford officer has been injured by Taser"

The article went on to say:

Markland reacted much more sharply to a posting by activist Doug Lambert on his blog GilfordGrok this weekend where he stated that "a Gilford police officer was somewhat seriously injured while certifying for the use of a TASER by a TASER" and asked "why the cover up?"  In reply the chief said "I'm not acknowledging his (Lambert's) charges except to say that they are false, baseless and insulting."

Well, when I read the story, I was struck by nuances in the article.  Not really any outright denials (read the story for yourself) but an impression could made that nothing happened.  Sort of a non-denial denial. 

As it turns out, in denial.  Being puzzled, I went to the the last Selectmens' meeting, Sun in hand, and asked if someone had indeed been injured in or around TASERS.  Heck, why not ask the Town's leaders?  Our new Town Administrator, Scott Dunn, said he'd get me an answer.

And so he has, via the Town Attorney (emphasis mine):

“the town has an obligation to disclose the details of the incident that led to the possible injury, without revealing the name of the officer.  Events since the incident with respect to the officer’s progress, duty and medical condition are private matters and should not be disclosed.”

Accordingly, I can confirm that a police officer was recently injured and that the injury occurred while participating in a TASER training exercise.

I do appreciate his response!  It kinda leads credence to what Doug had in his post.  It also kinda goes against the nuances in the Sun's Headline article:

"...false, baseless and insulting...."

Two vs. One.  It is voting time, right?  Who's right?  Seems like one was demanding an apology; should it now be another (gee, I love nuances...)?

Oh, I guess I still have questions as I again am detecting "careful parsing" of words and phrases:

• What is the nature of the injury (without revealing his current progress, duty, or present medical condition)?  Spinal, limb, neurological, muscle, other?
• Was being tased the root cause of the injury?  Other?
• If so, is the injury solely due to the tasing, or was the injury a result of a secondary event (Example - as a result of being tased, did he do a face plant onto the corner of the table in front of him)?
• Will this increase the cost of our liability insurance in any way?  Cost of health insurance?
• What specific laws or regulations (Federal, state, or local) govern the above statement (note: just saying HIPAA doesn't really answer the question).
  

Why do I ask? Simple - if the town may be on the hook for substantial hospitalization or rehabilitation expenses, I would imagine that it should be a budgetary item open for discussion.

The article mentioned a Safety Committee - will that be a publicly noticed meeting?

Posted by Skip at 07:53 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Well, it is almost time for the Budget Committee season to start again; this will be my third year (and yes, I am contemplating running for reelection).  Economic times are, well, weird - some industries sectors and companies are doing quite well (some well indeed) while others are in the tank.  Some of the overall economic data is showing good trends - and others are also in the tank.  So what to do, what to do?

Many families are angst ridden over "what to do?" as re-examining their family incomes and expenses around the kitchen table (especially the expense).  What would they do if the Economic Grim Reaper materialized at their door ready to ding the doorbell?  What about the families who stare in horror as the fiend has already knocked the door down and is astride the threshold (or invited him in as a result of prior decisions)?

In all cases, all expenses are being re-examined, including that one that is one of the biggest (and normally considered to be "non-discretionary") of each family - property taxes.

Fortunately here in Gilford, YOU CAN make a difference - your voice can be heard.  Call the Selectmen, the School Board, the Budget Committee (I encourage you to email me or leave comments here!), and your fellow residents.  Attend the meetings, write the Letters to the Editors (e.g. Laconia Daily Sun, Laconia Citizen, Gilford Steamer), talk the issues around the watercooler / coffeepot.

Just don't sit there and moan! Do like this person who wanted their voice to be heard - do something!

Side note: Yes, after a bit of back and forth, I have decided to protect the identity of the emailer and family to ensure that there are no repercussions - but the person does live here in town.

Hello Gentlemen,
 
My name is <redacted> and I am a resident of Gilford.
I'm not sure if this is the right venue to voice my opinion and proposal, but I have a proposal that may help the school board with budgeting for the upcoming year.
 
First of all, with Sandy McGonagle and Jim Kemmerer retiring, I see absolutely no need for 3 principals in this district. This would be the opportune time to institute one district wide principal (be it Ken Wiswell or whomever), who would oversee all aspects of each school but which would shift the responsibilities to the assistant principals, Ernest, Sawyer and Lamontagne, who could then report to the person in charge of the district, i.e., Ken Wiswell. Doing this one district wide principal would free up approximately $250,000 (+/-) yearly which would allow for approximately 4 new teachers, or 6-8 new para-professionals, or anything else that needs budgeting for. This would free up monies that the school board could use instead of coming to the budget committee or the town for help.

I just thought I would send this along as an idea that should be brought up at the next school board meeting. Thank you for listening to my proposal.
 
<Gilford Town Resident>

We had a bit of a back and forth about the anonymous part - the writer said "no problem" but my response was "...but <family member> could get hammered......WE hammer people that deserve it, but only those people that deserve it.  We try to limit collateral damage as best we can.".  Thus, I am protecting the writer's name.

I agree with the tenor of the email - one of my questions to the School Board will be one that I had last year "what is the overhead ratio of indirect to direct labor?" and got a lot of hemming and hawing in return.  This year, I will add in the question "And if you tell me that your head count is commiserate with other towns, what about the costs of that overhead, Gilford to the comparable towns (notice I'm not saying "cities")?"

In that vein, my response to the emailer was the following (and tried to correct a couple of things):

Hi <Gilford Town Resident>

Well, Doug and I feel the same way you do - there is a problem with overhead in the District - not necessarily strictly headcount but (as you point out) the cost of that overhead.  I could post, on GilfordGrok, your letter (either signed or not - your choice) or you could call into our radio show on Saturdays (9-11 on WEMJ 1490, streamed from GraniteGrok.com) with your question for a wider audience locally.

In our view, as we have been told that we have wonderful principals of the three schools, why do we need a Superintendent (Dr. DeMinico, who is in charge of  the District)?  Only 3 schools?  Can't 3 highly qualified people run the district without a lot of overhead?

That said, I would rather see any excess monies NOT spent until better results are seen with the programs in place - with the money per student that we spend (well above the state average), we are not seeing commiserate results (NECAP, SAT scores)......return it back to the taxpayers (or better yet, don't take if from the taxpayers in the first place).  Turn out a better product by getting back to basics, show demonstrable results, then talk more money...

-Skip

And yes, I believe this topic has come up before.  I have nothing against Dr. DeMinico (actually enjoy  talking with him, and he IS good at what he does).  That said, I'm looking at costs and looking at the results of the product of the District.

Well, I got a response:

Hi Skip,
Thanks for reading my email. I just thought this would be a good time to look at overhead in the form of eliminating those positions since they are retiring anyways.
 
I don't have a problem with you posting my email on the Grok, but just keep in mind that <redacted> and I definitely see a need to trim that overhead. My figures are probably way off, but think about what could be accomplished with the salaries of these two retiring principals and not going to the town for help.
 
Thanks again,
<Gilford Town Resident>

My final email to that person included the datum that I would post up the email thread.  I also want to include this:

I encourage ANYONE to do the same - the more voices, the more that officials are kept in line (including Doug and I as elected officials on the Budget Committee).

So, to all readers - it is your town.  It IS up to you to do something about it - get moving.

I think you guys are doing an excellent job of making sure the officials of this town are doing what they are supposed to do.

And humble thanks!

Posted by Skip at 05:05 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Of course, you could make a case that "There is no factual information that indicates that a TASER caused an injury." You see, it was the sudden stop...

Here's the story, as reported by WCBS TV:

NEW YORK (CBS) ― Community activists are calling on authorities to fully investigate the death of a Brooklyn man who was tasered by police in front of a crowd of onlookers.
 
The last moments of 35-year-old Inman Morales's life were spent naked and perched on a ledge in Bedford-Stuvyesant. Dozens of people watched, while some took photographs as the apparently emotionally disturbed man jumped up and down on top of a 10-foot high roll-down gate swinging a florescent light bulb towards police officers who were trying to grab him on a nearby fire escape.

An officer on the ground then raised his taser stun gun and fired a five second jolt of 50,000 volts of electricity immobilizing him. Morales then fell head-first to his death.

"He wasn't hurting anybody, witness Racquel McDonald said. "They could have just grabbed him and bring him down, but they tased him instead and he fell to his death and it was real wrong."

Man falling after being tased...

Added a witness named "Kyle:" "The man was isolated for minute … and then he just fell to the floor. They had about eight cops that could break the fall. They just moved back."

Morales's mother was standing just a few yards away when her son fell. According to other family members, she called police because her son had a chemical imbalance and she believed he was suffering from a bad reaction to medication.

"The mother was screaming he's gonna fall and they said ma'am step back. They wouldn't allow the mother to talk to him," said Charlene Gayle-Gordon.

Community activists called on the city to investigate.

"We're not holding the whole NYC police department at fault, but we are questioning the actions of the supervisor of the Emergency Service Unit who took and who shot this young man, not one time but twice," Sharonnie Perry said.

I wonder if that's like a SWAT team? I'll bet Morale's mother is sure glad she called the public safety people...

Posted by Doug at 10:44 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Today's Daily Sun ran a front page story regarding the rumored Taser injury of a Gilford police officer. As reported by Mike Kitch in the Sun, Chief Markland says:

"There is no factual information that indicates that a TASER caused an injury."

And yet there's verbiage about training and one surmises that an officer was indeed injured sometime in the recent past.

Sounds like the SOP we heard about on the budget committee last year-- that all injury cases involving TASERS are found to have other causes, being merely agitated by the device.

Question: Do we have an injured officer unable to perform his normal duties, or have we recently?

Did the injury occur in an exercise in which a TASER was in use at some point?

The Gilford taxpayers (rightfully) spend a lot of money to ensure the utmost safety of all its employees, especially those in the public safety departments. TASERS were okayed, in fact, as a safety measure. The taxpayers have a right to know the circumstances causing an employee an on the job injury so they can evaluate the effectiveness of the measures for which they pay.

If revealing the nature of an on the job injury using town owned equipment and techniques is private and therefore unknowable, according to law, why did we learn Officer Bredbury broke a finger in a motorcycle week cruiser crash-- one that wasn't known publicly for an extended period of time?

What's the difference?

And what if a policeman had been accidently shot. Would the public be barred from knowing the full story?

I'm not suggesting there's been a "cover up" to hide wrongdoing. Perhaps bad publicity about an event everyone wished hadn't happened?  Well...

Posted by Doug at 06:38 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Here is a video of the TASER demonstration given for the Budget Committee's benefit last year during the debate over whether or not to fund their purchase by our town:

As you can see, the effects are rather intense. Despite the obvious fitness of the officer, he is no match for the device. The question at the time was, and still is, whether such a weapon is really needed by police officers in our tiny hamlet? Is this something we want used upon our citizens? At the time of the vote, I was one who voted yes, feeling that the device would ultimately enhance the safety of our officers as they go about their business.

So, what has transpired since the decision was made? Have TASERS been deployed in Gilford? If not, why not? Could it be that something has happened that might change some peoples' minds on their usage here in our town? GilfordGrok has been sitting on information for some time now regarding an injury involving this device. 

Much like the cruiser that got wrecked motorcycle weekend, the question is,

"At what point will the news be made available to the citizens and taxpayers of Gilford? Why the coverup?"

Is there something to hide? Inquiring minds want to know. The GilfordGrok staff does not wish to make mountains out of molehills, and therefore has kept this quiet, in the hopes that the town would eventually share the news at a time convenient for them. For the length of time that has now passed, we are beginning to wonder if they were ever going to tell us what happened. Perhaps with this posting, they'll now have to.

Are you wondering what I'm talking about? Don't you think it is noteworthy that a Gilford police officer was somewhat seriously injured while certifying for the use of a TASER by a TASER? We sure do!

We're waiting... (still)

Posted by Doug at 11:08 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Gilford student prepping for the SATs at the "library"?

Am I the ONLY person in Gilford that has a problem with what's going on in our 14,000 sq foot library day care center?

At the risk of facing the wrath of the librarians camp counselors and their numerous water-carriers, let me be the first taxpayer in town to rain on the brand new library day care center parade...

Heralding Gilford's own version of Bizzarro World, the Citizen had the story:

No 'shhhh!' at this library event

The Gilford Public Library was anything but quiet Thursday afternoon with its return of the monthly "Rock Band Jam."

The monthly jam sessions with the popular videogame "Rock Band" started last February during the school year with an overwhelming response. The library held the sessions once or twice a month to keep youths busy after school and in the evenings.

And you thought that libraries were about books and reference materials! Not in Gilford! Why, we're WAY beyond that. No, we don't need no stinkin' books! It's movies, music and video games for us.

The Citizen story continues, explaining that it's about getting the teens into the library day care center:

"It gives the kids something to do," said Tasha LeRoux, children's librarian. "I haven't found anything to draw teenage boys into the library, but this seems like a success."

Why stop there? Why only offer video games for the teenage boys at the library day care center? If the mission is to get the boys into the place (gotta get the "usage" numbers up to justify additional staff) why not hire some of the dancin gals from Cocomo's? With the end of tourist season, the dancers must be in need of jobs-- it's kinda like a twofer, when you really think about it. Teenage boys ALWAYS like that kind of stuff. Maybe we could offer cigarettes and beers, too. Heaven knows THAT will entice a few teens. And for those who still refuse to come to the library day care center after school, a little reefer, maybe?

If more people keep showing up after school, the children's department plans on having jams every week. Right now they are only scheduled once a month.

Oh good-- as a taxpayer and budcom member, I can't WAIT to pay for more of these activities. Especially if it gets the teenage boys into the place. After all, if we get everybody hooked on the library in the young years, hopefully they'll grow up to love the library day care center and eagerly fork over large chunks of their paychecks to continue funding the place. Oh, and let's not forget, today's library day care center can easily be added onto in order to accomodate a future senior center (another 10,000 square feet ought to do it).

I'm sorry, but for me and my family, we can find our own entertainment, thank you very much. When my children, escapees from the government "school" system, needed REAL reference materials, they knew they needn't bother with the Gilford library, as we learned what a joke it is a long time ago. We don't need the helping hand of government to raise our children... no shhhhhh*tttt. No, really!

And to the "generous" people that gave the money that foisted this perpetual money pit on our town after the voters said NO, please, STOP! No more "gifts".

Posted by Doug at 04:12 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)