 Posted: Tue, Apr 7 2009, 6:46 am EDT Post subject: Re: Budget |
|
| Budget,
I was at the meeting and tried to expain what the discussion was and why it occurred. The two vehicles are detective vehicles. It's fine that you question, but question based on facts or attend the meetings. |
|
| Posted: Mon, Apr 6 2009, 11:52 pm EDT Post subject: Re: Budget |
|
| Again with the vehicles. According to the Police Chief, the two hybrid vehicles are going to be used by the Chief and one by the detective. This is great considering neither drive that much and nothing is wrong with their current vehicles. Maybe ED K who comments on here frequently, will set the record straight for once.
Or maybe Smeltzer is getting a car, they let her destroy everything else, why not the police department too. |
|
| Posted: Mon, Apr 6 2009, 6:29 pm EDT Post subject: Re: Budget |
|
| The PW vehicle was turned down because it was not necessary. If people are going to complain then they really need to go to the meetings so they can hear the discussion. Not criticize the decision afterward based on a reading of the budget or notes.
All departments put in for wants. The TC then has to work with the head to refine the budget. It would be easier if the heads simply put in for absolute need, but that is not the case in Cranbury or any where else in the real world. |
|
| Posted: Mon, Apr 6 2009, 5:27 pm EDT Post subject: Re: Budget |
|
| The police are getting new vehicles , then why was the public works vehicle turned down ( at least we see them around doing work). | |
| Posted: Mon, Apr 6 2009, 5:03 pm EDT Post subject: Re: Budget |
|||
I don't know any of the facts here, but why do you say mistakes were made? Do you have inside facts or are just assuming because there's a settlement? A vast majority of these cases are settled not on the merits but because an analysis determines it is cheaper to settle than pay the defend, even if the plaintiff believes the case is without merit. |
|||
| Posted: Mon, Apr 6 2009, 3:38 pm EDT Post subject: Re: Budget |
|
| Not sure about other litigation. Most of this stuff is kept off the radar because it always points to a mistake by someone. Ego keeps people from admitting their mistake and moving forward. It sure would have been wiser to publicly say "In the course of terminating Kim, some mistakes were made and an effort is being made to correct the problem" rather then have citizens find that things were covered up and/or kept in the closet. | |
| Posted: Mon, Apr 6 2009, 12:01 pm EDT Post subject: Re: Budget |
|
| The kind of lawsuit does not look good for the township.
Any other ongoing lawsuits against the town? |
|
| Posted: Mon, Apr 6 2009, 11:31 am EDT Post subject: Re: Budget |
|
| It's a discrimination Lawsuit. Kim O'Shea was quietly dismissed last year and is litigating against the township regarding the circumstances of her temination. | |
| Posted: Mon, Apr 6 2009, 10:53 am EDT Post subject: Re: Budget |
|
| Township of Cranbury v. O’Shea-McMurtrie
What the lawsuit is about? |
|
| Posted: Sun, Apr 5 2009, 11:33 pm EDT Post subject: Re: Budget |
|
| I have heard that this commitee has spent a tremendous amount on attorney fees in general.Whats up with that? | |
| Posted: Sun, Apr 5 2009, 11:05 pm EDT Post subject: Re: Budget |
|
| TOWNSHIP COMMITTEE MEETINGS
March 2, 2009 31 Cranbury Township Resolution # R 03-09-032 A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF A CERTAIN SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND GENERAL RELEASE ON BEHALF OF THE Township of Cranbury BE IT RESOLVED by the Township Committee of the Township of Cranbury in Middlesex County, New Jersey that the Mayor or Administrator is authorized to execute a certain “Settlement Agreement and General Release” on behalf of the Township in the matters of Township of Cranbury v. O’Shea-McMurtrie, OAL Docket No. CLG-8565-08, and McMurtrie v. Township of Cranbury , Docket No. MID-L-5156-08, the terms and conditions of which are to be kept confidential to the maximum extent permitted by law. Any idea what this is about? How much it cost the township? |
|
| Posted: Sun, Apr 5 2009, 7:00 pm EDT Post subject: Re: Budget |
|
| Because the patrol cars were fine and the two detective cars were shot. Giving the shot cars to patrol would make no sense. | |
| Posted: Sun, Apr 5 2009, 5:26 pm EDT Post subject: Re: Budget |
|
| Well if the towns people really knew what they were talking about, it would be amazing. "Cranbury is a small town", maybe because they only consider "Main Street" actually Cranbury.
And if u think about it, any old police car can be made a detective vehicle. Why not take the police vehicle that is too tired for patrol and make it a detective car that will probably get a lot less use. And purchase a new patrol car instead. The patrol cars are the life line of the police department. |
|
| Posted: Sun, Apr 5 2009, 12:49 pm EDT Post subject: Re: Budget |
|||
You know what they say about someone who assumes...lol I remember some mileage figure given by the Chief at a meeting. I don't remember what it was but the combined mileage of the cars for a year was high. Cranbury is not just the village area. I think we are approx 13 square miles. It may not seem big but I'm sure there is lots of mileage put on these cars and a lot of idle time. |
|||
| Posted: Sun, Apr 5 2009, 11:04 am EDT Post subject: Re: Budget |
|
| What's the per-year average mileage driven on a detective vehicle and a patrol vehicle?
Cranbury is a small town. I would assume the police don't drive too far from the station, and the most mileage accumulated will be on the cars used to patrol the town. BTW, is Mr. Stout still running the town? The article quoted Mr. Stout's statement. http://www.centraljersey.com/articles/2009/04/02/cranbury_press/news/doc49d51f0f1f531832177770.txt |
|
| Posted: Sun, Apr 5 2009, 7:25 am EDT Post subject: Re: Budget |
|
| Yes they did 2 of the 4 were detective vehicles that needed to be replaced. The hybrids are detective vehicles not patrol, just as the ones they are replacing. | |