Quoted Text

Secret meeting in Rotterdam?

    Rotterdam Supervisor Frank Del Gallo has scheduled a special town board meeting for tomorrow to discuss the county’s centralized dispatch plan. Nothing inherently wrong with that, except for the fact that the board voted 4-1 two weeks ago to approve the plan and it now looks as if somebody or group would like to unapprove it. Adding to that suspicion, and especially troubling for those who value open government, is that the meeting, where the plan will be discussed with members of the police department, will apparently be held in “executive session” — i.e. in secret.
    Getting the municipalities to go along with this plan really shouldn’t be that difficult; it is not, after all, like consolidating police departments. The county has a $1 million state grant for equipment to implement centralized dispatch, which will save every municipality money by reducing the number of dispatchers through attrition and improve emergency services by allowing for better communication and coordination.
    County officials seemed to be making progress last week in getting everyone on board after a meeting with Glenville Supervisor Chris Koetzle, who has been the most visible critic of the plan. At that meeting the county made several concessions — actually, several more concessions, since it had already agreed to give a 10 percent discount to all the towns based on information provided by Koetzle and Rotterdam police officials. And Koetzle afterward said he felt better about the plan, while still not quite supporting it.
    Now it looks like the plan’s chief critic in Rotterdam, Deputy Supervisor Bob Godlewski (the lone nay in that 4-1 vote), is trying to stir things up there. We can’t imagine what the police are going to say at the meeting that they haven’t said before. Or why they care, as long as the dispatch calls are quick and accurate — particularly since the civilian dispatchers are represented by a different union than theirs.
    And we may never know, since it appears the meeting will be secret, even though the state Open Meetings Law exempts only “matters which will imperil the public safety if disclosed.” These are not highly sensitive anti-terrorist operations we’re talking about here — simply who is going to dispatch emergency vehicles. Nothing would be imperiled, except the ability to criticize the plan anonymously and unchallenged, by making this meeting open.

http://www.dailygazette.net/De.....r00501&AppName=1

whats the big secret????
is some one planning a town complex???

this meeting is secret because if it wasn't the planners of the meeting believe their safety
or the safety of a nest egg would be in peril

just keep voting those party lines, Rotterdam

remember July 14 1789 - Bastille Day
"With the taking of this prison, the movement to replace a two-person government with
a representative government began."

Godlewski will need some of Malozie's pastries to keep the crowds back - a reference to Marie Antoinette
 as written by Jean-Jacques Rousseau on the quote "Let them eat cake"

Tippy, you summed it up perfectly.  This admin is a joke!
The voters need to realize that the merry band needs to be split up.  Starting with this November, we must keep the Dem candidate out...then in 2011, we'll say bye,bye to ND and FDG.   Clean out the barn!

"Nothing would be imperiled, except the ability to criticize the plan anonymously and unchallenged, by making this meeting open."

Bob G. specifically outlined the issues he had concerns with regarding central dispatch.  The main issue was the formula that the county used to compute each municipality's cost share.  The other main issue is the "illegality" of entering into a 20 yr. contract because no Town Board supposedly can enter into a contract for longer than five years.  He obviously was the ONLY board member that did any homework on this issue.  He moved to table the resolution until better information became available and many of these questions could be answered.  No one seconded the motion!  Now after the vote, it is apparently a problem, ie. Secret Mtg..  So the people the Town elected to represent them, how did they fair in this process?  Not necessarily a fan of anyone on the Board, but kudos to Bob G. for at least looking into this and trying to do the best thing for the Town.  Surprised GP didn't evaluate the situation more thoroughly, he generally puts some thought into it.  The others, well, it is what it is . . . . .

I remember clearly a year or so ago, he sat and derisively mocked and laughed at one district 4 legislator's voiced concerns at the county meeting. He was all giddy and chuckling while he sat there and he just thought it was the nuttiest thing when one of them had the audacity to actually propose questions about it! he must have changed his tune or started to take those questions the legislator had, and asked them himself. Wow, it is nice when some one finally figures out what is going, even if it is a year plus later! Welcome to the inquiring mind's society, Bob.

Quoted from GrahamBonnet

I remember clearly a year or so ago, he sat and derisively mocked and laughed at one district 4 legislator's voiced concerns at the county meeting. He was all giddy and chuckling while he sat there and he just thought it was the nuttiest thing when one of them had the audacity to actually propose questions about it! he must have changed his tune or started to take those questions the legislator had, and asked them himself. Wow, it is nice when some one finally figures out what is going, even if it is a year plus later! Welcome to the inquiring mind's society, Bob.

The problem is that on any given vote, there appears to only be one thinking, and it varies who that one is.  Don't these people communicate important information to each other before votes come up?  It's like the informed always gets voted down by the uninformed.  Seems A$$ backwards to me, and counterproductive to the Town.  How hard can it be to cast one's vote on issues based on what positively or negatively impacts the Town?

A big "secret" meeting? That's why the Gazetto editorialized on it?

     Bravo to Chris Koetzle, BG and anyone else that stands up to this County power grab. Let the County hacks eat the stale cannolis.

If it was so secret, how did the gazette get hold of this info? Who spilled the beans?

I agree with avon on how this town board communicates. This merry ship clearly does not have a captain. But I must say that even though information should and must be shared with the entire board so they can make an informed vote, it is quite refreshing to see them evolve into the thinkers/individuals (agree with them or not) that they are. Now we can begin to form our opinions of them!

I also agree with GB's assessment of BG regarding the issue of central dispatch. BG's opinions of today regarding central dispatch are clearly not the same opinions he shared about a year ago. He was and may still be the 'good puppet' of his party and will promote and support whatever they propose.He always did. So even though he asked the pertinent questions at the last meeting, I tend to tread very lightly on whatever he says. Time will tell.

Why is central dispatch a party issue? If it's gonna save the people money and it's going to improve public safety what's the problem? Union issues? Contract disputes? Sounds petty to me!

If central dispatch ISN'T going to improve public safety, shouldn't that be dealt with in public? Why would they want to hide this from the public!? This reeks of Soviet Union type antics and it doesn't belong in our town!!!!

the doors to Townhall should be WIDE open

This would keep all elected and appointed officials in line

Our town officials can have an open debate at the dais  - a board member may have a differing opinion from that of their constituents and then vote representing their constituents or they may voice the opinion of their constituents which may differ from that of their supporting party - whats the big deal

On the Dispatch issue

why not have a distributed data(911 + GIS ) and phone system
this would build in failover and proper billing based on personal and equipment costs on a per call basis, town to town, town to city or town to county let the 911 database do the billing(debits and credits) -the Popes blessing would require more work - unless those appointed are ID10T's

why not have the office of Emergency Management coordinate Radio Freq's, radio and phone systems allowing for inter-town, county, and state communications

Use proper technology and already used communication locations to save $$, create multiple command post locations

keep the 50,000 sq ft bldg on the tax roles we don't need any more non-taxed property

we are nearing a point where there is a diminishing return on the amount of money spent

Transparency - it's a trickle down issue. There's no open govt in Washington, none in Albany and obviously none in Rotterdam. Wait, they're all democrats. 'nuff said.

Quoted Text

ROTTERDAM
Closed session may be illegal
Board plans to talk dispatching
BY MICHAEL LAMENDOLA Gazette Reporter

    The Town Board will discuss police union concerns about central dispatch in an executive session scheduled for tonight . However, the proposed session may be in violation of the state’s Open Government Laws, according to Robert Freeman, executive director of the Committee on Open Government.
    “It should be open unless and until it is clear the discussion would imperil public safety,” Freeman said.
    Supervisor Frank Del Gallo notified board members of the meeting Monday. In the notice, he said he called the meeting at the request of Rotterdam Police Benevolent Association President Rich Dunsmore after the union raised concerns about central dispatch. Del Gallo did not elaborate on the PBA’s concerns.
    Del Gallo added in his statement that “I feel that sensitive material concerning public safety of the town of Rotterdam will be discussed during this meeting and thus, on the advice of counsel, believe it would be best addressed in executive session.”
    Dunsmore said the PBA’s concerns center on how central dispatch will affect police officers and their jobs.
    “One of our concerns is offi - cer safety. It has not been made clear to us how this dispatch center will work,” he said. “Everything the police offi cer does on the street hinges on communications.”
    Further, Dunsmore said, the PBA is concerned about the loss of dispatchers in Rotterdam.
    “Dispatchers do other duties beyond dispatching, which assist officers in their day-to-day duties,” he said. “If they are removed from this building, there is a concern over who will do their jobs.”
    Dunsmore said the PBA is not against central dispatch: “I want to be on record as saying that the PBAs are not against this process. We want to be part of it, but there were a whole lot of other questions that have to be addressed.”
    Attorneys for the town did not return phone calls for comment.
    Freeman said there are eight grounds for entry into an executive session. “The only case that comes close deals with matters that will imperil public safety if disclosed. The remainder of the discussion should be open,” he said.
    Public safety would be imperiled should the board, for example, openly discuss police patrol and staffing patterns, Freeman said. .................>>>>...............>>>>.................http://www.dailygazette.net/De.....r00902&AppName=1

If bobby g wants to cut costs he should start with the chief and asst chief

They will never be able to cut taxes in Rotterdam. When will they ever do the math?

Quoted from 527

Why is central dispatch a party issue? If it's gonna save the people money and it's going to improve public safety what's the problem? Union issues? Contract disputes? Sounds petty to me!

If central dispatch ISN'T going to improve public safety, shouldn't that be dealt with in public? Why would they want to hide this from the public!? This reeks of Soviet Union type antics and it doesn't belong in our town!!!!

Central dispatch was promoted as saving all the Towns money.  It was projected that it was very nominal for Rotterdam, about $40,000 - $45,000 dollars per year out of the $800,000 dollar budget.  Now, on the other hand, REMS is projected to cost the Town tax payers about $250,000 dollars per year in added taxes.  So the Town Board, responsible for the welfare and protection of the residents, votes to approve a negligible Central Dispatch Resolution, but continues to ram the REMS special tax district which is an expense to taxpayers.  One step forward, 10 steps back . . . . . .