For those who thought our article on the resurrection of the Tower debate was merely "conspiracy theory and rumors", here is your answer. Tonight on the agenda at the selectmens meeting is going to be the discussion of either putting together a committee of police and firemen to look at the tower issue, headed for the third time by Lt. Baldwin!
Or having the technology committee look into it, preferable with Lt. Baldwins direction and guidance!
Third bite at the Apple, coming up!
From the Eagle Tribune;
Atkinson looks for solutions to radio communicaiton woes
By Eric Parry
eparry@eagletribune.com
ATKINSON — The town still wants to find a solution to its emergency communication problems.
Selectmen plan to discuss Monday whether they want to form an ad hoc committee of police and fire officials to come up with solutions or ask the town's technology committee to come up with options.
Police and firefighters have had difficulty for years communicating with dispatchers on their portable radios. There are many dead spots in town where emergency personnel have trouble communicating once they step away from their vehicles.
Selectman Bill Bennett said he would support giving the task to the technology committee since there are several members on that board who have experience solving these problems.
"It's a technological problem that needs to be solved," Bennett said.
In 2008, voters were presented with the option of building a cell tower in the center of town to fix the problems, but the proposal was defeated.
Bennett, who supported the tower in the 2008 vote, said the emergency communications problem is a separate issue from residents just wanting a tower for better cell phone reception in town.
Selectmen meet at 7:30 p.m. Monday at Town Hall.
Atkinson Town Hall
The Norman Rockwellian picture of Atkinson
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
30 comments:
"Or having the technology committee look into it, preferable with Lt. Baldwins direction and guidance!"
Where is the article did it say that? Is this statement based on first hand knowledge (site source please) or just another "opinion".
It didn't. That's where the conspiracy knuckleheads jump in. Anything, and I mean ANYTHING, that involves the PD is immediately assumed to be underhanded and evil. And what's with the assumption that a tower is going to be the solution to the dead spots anyway? There's your conspiracy knuckleheads at work again for you. The "voice" of Atkinson! LOL!
I thought you said "bye" already . What a disappointment you are . I guess you are self important after all.
Another knucklehead speaks. I'm a different person than the one who said "bye". Get a clue! Oh never mind, after reading your "informed" posts, it's clearly not within the realm of possibility.
"conspiracy theory and rumors"
I'm not sure anyone actually said that. I believe the point that was trying to be made is that someone heard part of a discussion and it turned in the party game "Secret". What when in came out completely distorted and biased. You had a grain of truth and a bushel of BS came roaring out.
A simple example the ET article heading this post. Simple, clear and easy to understand. The moderator then saw fit to add his uninformed spin and bias. And where in the article was "Tower" mentioned?
May 18, 2009 5:55 PM can't seem to get that through his tiny little mind. Next we'll be back to the 3 questions routine. He's more concerned what people think of Harold Morse rather than a real discussion. What'a putz.
Oh no!!! Not the three questions!!! Anything but that!!! Oh the horror of it all!!! It's worse than water boarding I tell you! Make it stop! Please OH PLEASE make it stop!!!
Anyone have anything to report on the meeting?
We have one critic that posts constantly - how cute and entertaining...
I can't believe this issue is being brought up again, The town defeated this idea by a large margin a few years ago. And I agree that this person who keeps making these childish statments is, well, just childish. Carry on Reporter, fine job!
An observation: I noticed that the moderator chose to add comments addressing "conspiracy theory" claims prior to posting (something he/she rarely does.) It appears to me that the unknown critic is exacting the effect he/she desires.
It is sad to see what has been taking place here on this blog and it is no fault of the moderator. True discourse disappeared long ago and has been replaced by anons taking cheap shots at each other. In a sense, you could say it reflects what is going on in our town. Nothing will be fixed this way.
What I thought I heard from Monday's meeting was that there will be two committees. The Technology Committee will continue and complete their prime mission, which is to assess all technology in Town Hall.
The Communications Committee will be composed of 7 people, of which four will be engineers - not salemens for various communnications companies - and the remainder to include police, fire and highway. The Selectmen are requiring resumes for the engineers. A man named (I think) Albright, who lives on Bittersweet Lane, read his resume last night. WOW. He said, as politely as he could, that engineers who have common knowledge and interests, work well together, but engineers don't normally work all that well with lay people, and he wouldn't be interested in working on a committee composed of people who lack the knowledge and expertise to come up with a good solution.
THe Selectmen voted to establish the two oommittees, and I'm encouraged.
Don't hit that stupid panic button yet, people.
Intrumental in getting to this solution was Mill Bennett. He's an engineer.
I think this is a very promising sign. It was not the exactly the outcome Mr. Bennett, this new guy, and the head of the technology committee wanted, but a compromise to get Bill Friel's agreement,
What the engineers wanted was the way it is done in the real world, one group defining the requirements, and the technical experts determining the best way to meet them. What ended up was the compromise posted above.
There is one other very important item that was agreed to. The BOS can chose who gets a vote on this committee. I think I can guess how Mr. Bennett would like this to go.
I remember the engineer from the Deliberative Session two years ago. If memory serves, he was very critical of the tower proposal and gave the consultant some hard questions he had trouble answering.
The conspiracy advocates will probably find a way to put their spin on this, but I suggest they assign some facts to back their theories rather than do a Chicken Little on us.
The BOS is trying to do it right. We owe them a pat on the back.
4:35,
THAT was Bennets original proposal to the Tech committee
because they have had TWO committee look into this already, ONe costing $15,000, BOTH with Baldwin, Murad, and the same cast of characters, and both coming to the same TOWER pre-determined conclusion.
DiMaggio even admitted last year that they were not looking at other options, just trying to figure out where the tower would go and how high.
TOWER was mentioned to the Tech committee, and in the meeting, last week.
Well, now that's the point isn't it. I will now be mostly a new set of "Characters", but ones with some technical knowledge this time, and some old "Characters", who can participate, but who very well not be able to vote on the recommendation.
I think it can be assumed Baldwin, Murphy, and Teddy will represent their departments, but unless the rest of the old crew can come up with resumes that past muster, we won't be seeing them again. I think Mr. Albright set the standard. And what he gave was brief. With that many years of experience, one page of notes may not even scratch the surface.
RE: May 19, 2009 10:11 AM - Well, that didn't happen, did it. I thought the boards intent was very clear, a technical person will be setting the direction.
Kudos to Bill Friel. His argument that the technology committee be allowed to finish the job they were chartered to do and not muddy the waters with life safety communications issues was first rate. I have tried to follow this issue for the past couple of years - it has been very quiet, but ocssionally there is pertinent info regarding how other towns handle similar problems reported on in the newspapers, so we know it is not going away in Atkinson. Hopefully a new committee with some fresh faces will be more open and creative in their thinking.
The one solution that the previous two committee REFUSED to consider was vehicles repeaters. Atkinson does not have a transmission problem, The communications problem as explained in the past two years, are not general "dead spots", but areas where the officer's shoulder radios can not make it back to the station.
This is understandable, because the power is much less on the shoulder radios, Whereas the CAR radios are around much more powerful. A vehicle repeater in each car looks similar to a CD changer mounted under the rear deck in the trunk. Cost is about $1,200.00 each. Installation and tuning is about $800.00 each.
This basically means that the officers shoulder radios would only need to transmit the 100'- 200' to the cruiser, and the cruisers much more powerful radio would take it from there transmitting the signal back to the station.
The previous two committees refused to consider that option, choosing instead to go with the $800,000.00 tower option. Lt. Baldwin, when asked about these at deliberative session 2 years ago, gave many vague, and unsubstantiated excuses why they won't work. But here we are again.
"TOWER was mentioned to the Tech committee, and in the meeting, last week."
The word may have been used because the Technology Committee knew they might be asked to take on the communications problem.
Problem with the word "Tower" is that it has become an euphemism for the problem as a whole and because the last proposed solution received such a poor reception by the voters last time, the simple word "Tower" has taken on a whole new meaning.
I think the BOS went to great lengths to avoid the word except that once Mr. Bennett said the word should not be used.
What the BOS has created is a new committee to address the towns communications issues and I think we should give this new committee the benefit of doubt for now and not refer to it as the "New Tower Committee". The BOS also took steps to help avoid the problems of the past efforts. What more could you ask of them?
Friel said he wants the technology committee to finish what they started a year ago and he had hoped that they'd have something ready for the voters in March, but that didn't happen.
It didn't happen because they did not form the technology committee until november or december and they still haven't given them a task definition. Oh, but he wants a schedule from them for whatever they're working on! What happens if they are working on something other than what the BOS 'thinks' they're working on? I hope they read minds.
Voters want the $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ TOWER on the ballot again. Pork barrel spending $$$$$$$$ run amok.
May 20, 2009 10:40 PM
If that is your reaction then you completely missed the point of what happen Monday night, or, you WANT people to think it is the old "Tower" come back to life.
Go to the library and watch the tape of the meeting again, and this time, listen.
May 20 2009 @ 10:40PM
Do you even know what "pork barrell" spending means? I didn't think so.
Good example. PORK $$$$$ for a too big generator for a police station that the budget committee didn't investigate. What are the real tech requirements for the generator and the true cost? Open it up. Pork, pork and more pork $$$$$$. Politicos on the tech committee. Guaranteed pork $$$$$$$$. Get em off.
The warrant for the generator allows for an expenditure up to the amount that was voted for. If it can be done cheaper, then the whole amount doesn't necessarily get spent. But don't bother yourself with facts. And who are these "politicos" that are on the tech comm? I'm sure the blog would love to know.
There are no town employees or anyone this blog considers controversial on the Technology Committee and their charter is basically to improve the towns documentation storage and distribution in electronic form, you know, like they do it in the 21st century. They are also looking to bring the town's web site up to date. Generator is not in their charter.
As far as the new Communications Committee - It only got created Monday night. To join any committee you need to fill out an application, give it to Barbra Snicer who forwards it to the board for consideration. It is they who decide who gets appointed. Since the board has not met since Monday, there is NOBODY on that board, politico or otherwise.
But hey, what do the facts matter when you have an open forum where you can spread lies, half-truths, and say virtually anything you want. Damn those pesky facts.
I can't believe people are still bitching about the generator.
It passed the Deliberative Session overwhelming. Did you get up to speak against it? Did you even attend? If not, shame on you.
It then went to vote. The voters approved.
Like it or not, its a done deal and was done in the procedurally correct way. You have a problem with that? Fine, I think the Budget Committee has an opening. If not that, attend the Deliberative Session and speak up.
Most of you are like the weather saying; you complain, but you do nothing to help.
"Most of you are like the weather saying; you complain, but you do nothing to help."
Lets all stop compaining and help the weather.
huh?
You know damn well what the poster meant.
He used a comma where a semicolon should have been used. His mistake, but a minor one.
The point remains. All most of you can do is bitch, bitch, bitch. When it comes to solutions, opps, sorry, I had to watch the game that day.
You expect someone else to solve the town's problems. Well, guess what, this is a very small town. You want a problem solved, you do something about it.
I was not commenting on the punctuation errors, I was commenting on the illogical statement about people complaining about the weather but not helping with it. Whatever he meant to say, it was not conveyed.
Post a Comment