From the Eagle Tribune;
Atkinson creates panel to study emergency communication issues
By Eric Parry
eparry@eagletribune.com
ATKINSON — The town hopes to finally solve its emergency communication problems.
Selectmen have decided to form an ad hoc committee made up of four technical experts and three emergency management personnel.
For years, police and firefighters have had difficulty communicating with dispatchers on their portable radios. Once they step away from their vehicles, they have trouble communicating in the many dead spots in town.
Selectmen also have debated having the town's Technology Committee solve the dilemma. The group's main job is dealing with computer network problems.
Last year, a committee studied the same emergency communication problems and suggested a cell tower be built in the center of town.
A warrant article was presented to voters at the 2008 Town Meeting but it failed.
Selectman Bill Bennett said yesterday he wants the new committee to be mostly made up of engineers or people with experience in radio communications.
Once given a specific task, the group of engineers should be able to come up with a solution, he said.
The problem with past committees, Bennett said, is that laypeople were trying to solve the problem and not experienced engineers.
Bennett said the committee should be open to all options but cautioned that a cell tower in the center of town would encounter a lot of resistance from residents.
"I'm guessing there is a solution that doesn't involve a tower in the middle of town," said Bennett, a retired mechanical engineer.
Any residents interested in joining the committee should call Barbara Snicer in the selectmen's office at 362-5266.
Atkinson Town Hall
The Norman Rockwellian picture of Atkinson
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
48 comments:
Now, let's make sure that Mr. Critic doesn't have to post all day all by himself like he did on the last topic. He was a one man army, for a second I thought that there were lots of people in our town that joined him in supporting the chief, HAWC water withdrawals, and business as usual in Atkinson.
But then I realized that Mr. Critic uses some ninja gateway that hides his IP address; that means that he might not even be local! Mr. Critic might live in Amesbury for all we know!
C'mon Mr. Critic, don't forget your hobbies too, one person doing all that posting just isn't healthy!
Only one person has the ability to determine a persons IP address on this Blog. The would be the moderator.
He can dish but can't take it.
Mr.Critic here. The moderator will already know I posted the previous, and he is right. I come in through an anonymous gateway so that my comments cannot be tracked to my home IP address.
This should serve as a caution to everyone. Your entries are being tracked. So much for anonymity.
So, do what I do and we all become one.
www.ninjacloak.com/
Already do. And three questions just gave away that they're also the blog administrator.
May 22, 2009 9:17 AM
You got it. It is what I've been trying to say for months, but once he said "ninja", BINGO. Proof positive.
He's matching entries with IP addresses. He's playing Big Brother.
The emperor has no clothes.
Do you really know what residue remains in the Address packet header? It would surprise you. All that is required is a cross ref. sequence and translation table.
Have a good day.
Okee Dokee - What is my real IP address then?
Did I hit a sore spot "K" ? If so don't try watching when I'm on the computer. Its an invasion of privacy issue that I will pursue . the reason I ask is that as soon as I tried to answer the other person and your question I was stopped.
Side note to above - If you continue to bother me I will publish your address as I got it from a warning given me on my computer. Your choice not mine to make.
I'm the one that mentioned the ninja gateway.
I'm not the moderator.
So how did I know Mr Critic used a ninja gateway?
Because he said he used it in the last post, so calm down the overheated paranoid ramblings you goofy twit.
Trusting the chief and Hampstead Water Co. is bad enough; let's not add paranoid delusions to your disorders...
I'm guessing that all of your prior commenters agree with the decision to create a new committee for Atkinson's communication problems.
If you didn't, I gather you'd mention it instead of the juvenile bickering I've just read.
The subject should relate to the article. It doesn't.
To 3:08 Where you refering tome ? I'm the poster at 2:56 and 2:59. I'm not a goofy twit if you are making your comment to me If I were what you describe then what does that make you ? I see it as an insecure person that is trying hard to cya and is less intelligent than that of a "twit" . If I'm wrong about this and your not the person I think you are, but, if my assuming you are then it doesn't change my thinking of you. Oh well!! denial is one thing and truth another ,we'll see in time wont we?!!
May 22, 2009 3:15 PM
The first poster, the moderator, started it.
All this childish and inane talk is a waste of time and energy.
I do not know who these people are and could care less.
I do know that they are not a help to our problems but a hindrence.
May 22, 2009 2:59 PM
Okee Dokee - Fire away.
It's baseless claims with no proof. At least the blog admin had some level of guilt publishing hear say when he pulled the Lt Baldwin accusation. It's too bad that the same person would just admit that they are posting baseless claims.
May 22, 2009 7:26 PM
What the hell are you talking about?
Sorry to burst your speculation, gentlemen, but Blog administrators and moderators, post under their own psuedonyms, rather than anonymously.
This is the first comment that I have posted since this article went up, but enjoy the speculation, and have a GREAT memorial day weekend, and Do not forget to take a moment to give thanks to those who have sacrifices so much for us.
The town could sure use some volunteers to help with all of the stuff we need fixed in this town.
Anyone interested should contact one of your Selectmen.
Perhaps you could help affect change and improvements by getting involved and donating 1 or 2 hours a week. If 10 people stepped up it would make a huge difference.
PLEASE ACCEPT FOR SUBMISSION
While surfing the web i found this and discovered we are not the only ones having this problem....
Albany chief credentials in question
Comments 0 | Recommend 0
May 24, 2009 - 10:44 PM
The Times Union is reporting that Albany Police Chief Jim Tuffey is not a certified police officer.
According to state law, that does not prohibit him from serving as chief -- but he legally cannot make arrests or carry a department-issued weapon.
It's still unclear whether he's broken that law.
Tuffey has not been a sworn police officer since retiring as a city detective in 1996.
He worked in three civilian posts until 2005, when Albany Mayor Jerry Jennings appointed him as chief.
Once again, that is permitted by state law -- but it's not clear whether the city requires its chief to be a sworn, certified officer.
It's also not clear whether whether Tuffey has a valid pistol permit for his personal handgun.
Now it is an election year in the city of albany, and Common Council President Shawn Morris -- who's running against Jennings -- is demanding that Jennings remove Tuffey as chief until certain questions are answered.
Morris insists she would make that demand regardless of the election, saying this issue raises serious concerns about the management of the city.
The police department has indicated that it's reviewing the matter, but it's directing all questions to the mayor's office.
A Jennings assistant told us to stand by for a statement but we haven't received one as of yet.
The claims are not baseless. I am in Law enforcement in a neighboring town. I will not reveal my name because it would have repercussions in my job, but the story is true to the best of my knowledge. Not being able to get people to go "on the record" to verify a story, doesn't make the story "baseless".
In Atkinson, would YOU go on the record to tell something embarrassing, even if true about your police chief or LT.?
I don't think so.
No, I wouldn't go on record either. However, without verifiable proof, it is just a story, nothing more. And saying "is true to the best of my knowledge", doesn't make the case one bit stronger
If you work in Law Enforcement, then you've probably been to court. What would a judge do with the evidence as it has been presented to us? You know very well what he would do.
Why then, when we are presented with the same evidence supposed to believe it? All we have is Atkinson-Reporters word, and frankly, he's got somewhat of creditability problem at the moment, and he's anonymous also.
When it appears in the Eagle Tribune or the Carriage Town News, then we can believe it.
For now, it is just an ugly rumor.
The beauty of the ugly rumor position is it can't be 100% confirmed because his employer won't ever come out and say it. Trying to use the standard of what holds up in court is humerous because you can try and establish whatever standard you want for proof. But the problem is we ain't in court. Ugly rumors are beyond your spin and control and take on a life of their own. Good luck trying to stop an ugly rumor. People LOVE ugly rumors and they love to gossip. Numerous publications thrive on rumors like the Enquirer. Your persistent defense only makes the rumor harder to resist. Heck your promoting it. Ugly rumors like this one have damaged people's career plans to, oh I don't know, become a full time police chief perhaps? Now I'm not one to talk about rumors, but this is a juicy one!! Thank you for making it extra juicy. But of course it can't be proven and we all understand and accept that fact. Ya know, you should stop spreading ugly rumors.
"The beauty of the ugly rumor position is it can't be 100% confirmed because his employer won't ever come out and say it."
Why not?
When you know more about employment law, you come talk to me.
I'll start studying right away. What's your name and phone number?
May 28, 2009 2:13 PM
You make about as much sense as Bozo on speed. But, it is an interesting rant.
The problem with issues like this is that the LAW, in the Statute RSA91-A:3 deems the investigation and disciplining of employees to be matters for non-public sessions. The aspect of this law that most towns do not recognize or adhere to, is that FINAL DECISIONS must be made in PUBLIC.
So, for example, if the selectmen were going to issue an employee a letter of reprimand for something, They should discuss it and arrive at their decision in non-public, but come into public session to vote on issuing the letter. Both meetings should have minutes describing decisions made.
However, most towns, Atkinson included, do not do this, they simply refuse to divulge their action, claiming employee exemption from disclosure.
This is wrong, but you would have to take it to Court to get this policy corrected, and is it worth $175.00 filing fee and a year or two out of your life to do that?
Back to the original submission, is Bennett saying that there is a new "volunteer" committee of mostly engineers looking at the communications issue?
I think it is very civic minded of people, in this case Bennett, if they can bring their professional carrer experience to the table as a benefit to the town, however who's to say that the outcome winds up as a political based opinion rather then giving the fire, police or highway department the proper tools to do their job without pissing away our tax dollars on studies and a system with too much redundancy.
I'd like to see a solution to the problem, however at some point a location will need to be named for the tower to be built, then the "not in my back yard" argument resurfaces from the property owner's. Good Luck - I can't wait to see how much more this will cost us!
May 28, 2009 11:39 PM
Please keep in mind these new volunteers will be Atkinson residents, likely as concerned about their tax bills as anyone else. And, who knows, they may be resourceful enough to find other means of funding. I would hope they would come up with the most reliable, and cost efficient solution possible.
And as far as political influence, I believe Mr. Bennett and the BOS have set up a committee that would probably take a considerable amount of influence to convince them not to do what is right. And who would this political influence come from? The PD. Seems to me they want a long standing problem solved and probably don't care how it gets solved, just as long as it gets solved. Previous committee members? What kind of influence could they hope to muster? I think this concern is not as much a concern you think it might be.
Considering the taint of the previous efforts it is OK to have these concerns. But, you will have a new team in town. As one previous poster put it, don't hit the panic button yet.
The idea to have 4 engineers with expertise in the field on this new committee is based on the notion that engineers in the field do not need to spend money to study such a common problem, they come with the expertise to address the problem without spending money for another study. This is the best approach the town has come up with so far. The 3 emergency members will provide input, requirements, and the problem definition. Engineers work this way, Bennett was spot on with his assessment.
Because of the last effort to solve this problem, it is politically highly charged. You should give some credit to anyone volunteering for the new committee given what has gone before them. I might even venture to say, anyone volunteering has guts.
The old plan is dead and buried. Let it rest in peace.
For all the griping people do about the BOS, I agree, Bennett's approach is a good one.
We don't need a tower. Where is the Grant money the Town got for repeaters for the Police cars? When will they be installed to see if the "Made Up" Communcation problem is solved? When will Consentino and Selectmen "Fess Up" to where that money went?
Just my opinion.
What communication problem? There is none. Has any taxpayer taken a ride in a police car and seen the problem for themselves? Five taxpayers (not associated with town officials) should be shown all the "dead areas" and another ten should be at the police station to listen to the transmissions. There is no problem that inexpensive repeaters wouldn't solve.
Get you "Facts Straight" Consentino, then everyone will see that this is another one of your scams.
The taxpayers have spoken to this problem. No need to make them speak again. It’s a waste of time and money.
The only communication problem we have is Consentino. He hides the facts.
May 30, 2009 10:17 PM, May 30, 2009 10:30 PM
And the basis for all of your informed opinions are? You're sure any grant monies available were specifically for mobile repeaters, right? You've been to one of the dead spots with an officer and saw for yourself the hand held could not be heard by Plaistow, where the repeater Atkinson uses is located, right?
Sounds like all that you have is just that, an opinion, with nothing but a jaded view of the PD providing justification.
And you say repeaters are inexpensive (I'm going to take a leap here and assume you mean mobile repeaters). You've researched this also, right? You're sure that any repeater available is compatible with the mobiles in the cruisers, right? And, you are also aware of the problems associated with mobile repeaters, right? You're willing to bet an officers life that a mobile repeater will solve all his problems, right?
The taxpayers spoke against two specific proposals. They did not vote against solving the problem. So, when you "Get Your Facts Straight" and provide some real information, and not just an opinion, that all your statements really are, opinions.
Try this simple exercise. Buy yourself a topographical map of the area (there is a mountain hiking supply store in Andover that sells them), or pull up one on the net. Take an elevation reading of Plaistow at their PD. Then several along Rt. 121. Then, take several along the west end of town. You will find the ends have a sizable amount of granite in between. Then imagine a low power handheld trying to get through that. Now, you tell me. You still think there is no problem?
good grief. just reading the previous post gives me a headache. right?
May 31, 2009 10:35 AM
Then you have no business commenting on the matter. If you're not interested in the details and willing to understand them, go do a crossword or something.
You're clearly out of your depth on this one.
"May 31, 2009 10:31 AM"
Too many big words huh. To bad the author did not have crayons so he could explain it to you better.
You do know grants run out if not used by a target date. I believe the one you are referring to involved Hog Hill, and we all know how that turned out. Nothing was ever constructed there, so no grant money.
So, no. The town is not sitting on, or hiding grant money. It only exists in your vivid imagination.
Prove it by posting the terms and conditions for granting 2004 Homeland Security Grant, LETPP to the Town of Plaistow, NH. Post it here for all to see. Otherwise you do not have a clue.
June 1, 2009 11:25 AM
You apparently have a copy. Why didn't you just post it?
You proved the point. You do not have a clue.
June 1, 2009 10:08 PM
Proves nothing.
You claim documentation is available to prove your point. Well, go ahead then. Prove it.
Proves everything. Also proves you don't have a clue to your postings. Go rant someplace else for the uninformed people to listen to. We are not interested in your rants.
Documentation is available but you don't have it and would deny it when posted.
Truth will pervail. Have a nice day. We won't (don't) waste our time with stupid people with an agenda.
Would it break your back to provide a pointer to the documentation, or are just happy bust everyone's chops over it?
I think the guy is just looking for a fight. He sure hasn't offered anything tangible so far, just words.
"Documentation is available but you don't have it and would deny it when posted."
Sounds like a little kid yelling, "I know something you don't know, and I'm not going to tell you what it is."
Talk about rants.
"Truth will pervail."
We're still waiting. Please, enlighten us.
Post a Comment