http://www.rutlandherald.com/article/20150306/NEWS02/703069933
Policy calls for timely police response By Susan Smallheer Staff Writer | March 06,2015 SPRINGFIELD — The town now has a formal policy for residents who want to report everything from criminal activity to unsafe buildings The goal of the new policy is to increase the public reporting of crime to the Springfield Police Department, said Kristi Morris, chairman of the Springfield Select Board, and to turn some complaints, such as public health problems, into the correct channels. Retired Vermont judge Paul Hudson, who had lived in Springfield until recently, had suggested the policy last fall as a means of addressing citizen complaints about inaction by the police department. Hudson had suggested the town adopt specific deadlines for the police department to respond to complaints, but Morris said the deadlines were found to be impractical. Hudson himself did not suggest specific deadlines, Morris noted. “He left that blank,” he said. He said no other police department in the region, including the Vermont State Police, have policies with specific deadlines. Morris said he and Select Board member Stephanie Thompson, Town Manager Thomas Yennerell, Springfield Police Chief Douglas Johnston and Springfield Police Lt. Mark Fountain came up with the final policy, which was adopted last week by the Select Board. Instead of a deadline, the new policy called for a response “as timely as possible.” He said the policy calls for residents to be treated with “courtesy and respect” and for people to receive a return phone call or follow-up call. “They do that a lot now,” said Morris, who said the policy now puts it in writing. Morris said the policy calls for people with concerns about unsafe health conditions to call the town health officer, which is Springfield Fire Chief Russell Thompson, rather than the police department. Likewise, people with concerns about unsafe buildings should call Yennerell, the town manager. While the policy doesn’t have a specific deadline for police or other town officers to respond to public concerns, it does call for a response within a reasonable period of time, Morris said. “Judge Hudson was looking for an immediate response with a time frame, but that can’t always happen for various reasons,” Morris said. Morris said there was concern raised by the police department that the police would be caught in an bind if one drug dealer called in a criminal complaint about another drug dealer, and expect to be updated by the police department’s investigation. “There’s a perception out there that people are not hearing about resolutions, that was one of our concerns,” he said. But, he said, there were some cases where the information will have to remain confidential, such as cases involving juveniles. The policy states: “not all citizen reports are eligible for a status update.” The policy calls for people who report a criminal of suspicious activity and don’t receive an update should contact the investigating officer via the police department dispatch center. Morris noted that the Springfield Police Department website now has forms available for people to request a police report or to even file a complaint against a member of the department. And the policy concludes that the public should contact the police chief or lieutenant regarding the police policy for an explanation for those citizen complaints or reports not eligible for updates.
This is meaningless tripe. Either you have faith in your Chief and PD or you don't, but converting the hot air of a retired judge with an agenda and too much time on his hands into a banal formal policy is a fool's errand. Then again, I guess Springfield has enough fool's to run its errands for the next decade, at least. This ridiculously laughable stunt carries about as many teeth as the Abominable ("The Bumble") after Yukon Cornelius got done with him! Pity the town and its shallow leaders.
ReplyDeleteWas that a unanimous vote?
ReplyDeleteWould it matter if it was?
DeleteIt might matter. If it was a 5 to 0 vote no it doesn't matter, if it was a 4 to 1 vote, no it wouldn't matter, but if it was a 3 to 2 vote, well the vote could change.
DeleteIt was a 4 to 1 vote, or rather one Boardmember moved to table and have the deadlines reinserted and failed to get a second. At best, the election would only change that to a 3 to 2 vote. There is no will on the Board for meaningful change with the Police Leadership. That issue is a lost cause. Boss Hogg's sarcasm pretty much tells the tale.
DeleteThe policy was written because of the "inaction by the police department"? So now because there is a policy everything is going to change and the "inaction" is going to be "action". OK, sounds like a plan to me. I'll bet that policy will get stuffed somewhere and collect a lot dust in the future. Too Funny!!
ReplyDeleteWhy it's a wonderful policy, I was just chatting with Ma about how wonderfully that Kristi Morris and Stephanie Thompson did in drafting a policy like that. It's not often that you see such dedicated public servants take a proposal by a former conservative criminal court judge and render it completely toothless. Why just cannot understand why that judge thought it was necessary for police to be required to get back with the public. Terrible idea, it might inspire the public to turn in tips regarding those wonderful young men and women entrepeneurs who keep our economy humming. Why of course the judge left blanks in the amount of time to respond so that the two most intrepid defenders of our police leadership could remove the deadlines altogether, why could anyone have not understood that intent.
ReplyDeleteSo...30 minutes or it's free?
ReplyDelete