Rarely would anyone agree with Council President Wade A. Hyslop except for the mayor and Chief of Staff and Personnel Directress Jane Glover. This is a time that even the average person on the street would have to agree with Council President Wade A. Hyslop.
The article in The Day http://theday.com/article/20140104/NWS01/301049961/1070/FRONTPAGE has a quote from Council President Wade A. Hyslop said. "I will be asking how he came up with that number.” This is in reference to the minimum manning number of 80 police officers that Michael Passero is proposing in a ordinance proposal before the New London City Council on January 6, 2014.
All probably agree that the staffing of the NLPD has been decimated in a systematic dismantling of the NLPD by the administration in an effort to root out those that the mayor has grudges with. The NLPD is at a dangerously low number; officers are ordered to work double shifts on a regular basis and severely fatigued police officers on the streets puts the officers and the public at risk.
The taxpayers of New London have paid for study after study over the years all sorts of things; one of those studies was specific to the NLPD and the staffing and organization of the NLPD. The recommended staffing number for the NLPD was 115 officers. The study begs the question, “Why 80 police officers as a minimum?” Did Michael Passero pick and arbitrary number out of the air? Does Michael Passero have some secret formula for police staffing that no one else has? Is Michael Passero the recipient of yet another police staffing study that the rest of the city has not been made aware of?
The biggest problem in New London and the past operation and mismanagement of the affairs of the city is knee jerk reactions and poorly thought out executive orders and motions in the conducting of city business. This seems like yet another poorly thought proposal from the desk of Michael Passero. It seems that his plan to get the FDNL union members into the MERF retirement program has his some snags, remember that was a plan to get then firefighters out of the 401K plan that Michael Passero was the driving force behind.
As much as it must pain the people of New London, they must agree with Council President Wade A. Hyslop in his quest to how did Michael Passero come up with that number.
Even more confusing is why it is that Council President Wade A. Hyslop could not get that information from fellow democratic councilor Michael Passero in caucus. I thought the big advantage of the “DREAM COUNCIL” was the ability to work so much through in caucus. Is there trouble in paradise?
The article in The Day http://theday.com/article/20140104/NWS01/301049961/1070/FRONTPAGE has a quote from Council President Wade A. Hyslop said. "I will be asking how he came up with that number.” This is in reference to the minimum manning number of 80 police officers that Michael Passero is proposing in a ordinance proposal before the New London City Council on January 6, 2014.
All probably agree that the staffing of the NLPD has been decimated in a systematic dismantling of the NLPD by the administration in an effort to root out those that the mayor has grudges with. The NLPD is at a dangerously low number; officers are ordered to work double shifts on a regular basis and severely fatigued police officers on the streets puts the officers and the public at risk.
The taxpayers of New London have paid for study after study over the years all sorts of things; one of those studies was specific to the NLPD and the staffing and organization of the NLPD. The recommended staffing number for the NLPD was 115 officers. The study begs the question, “Why 80 police officers as a minimum?” Did Michael Passero pick and arbitrary number out of the air? Does Michael Passero have some secret formula for police staffing that no one else has? Is Michael Passero the recipient of yet another police staffing study that the rest of the city has not been made aware of?
The biggest problem in New London and the past operation and mismanagement of the affairs of the city is knee jerk reactions and poorly thought out executive orders and motions in the conducting of city business. This seems like yet another poorly thought proposal from the desk of Michael Passero. It seems that his plan to get the FDNL union members into the MERF retirement program has his some snags, remember that was a plan to get then firefighters out of the 401K plan that Michael Passero was the driving force behind.
As much as it must pain the people of New London, they must agree with Council President Wade A. Hyslop in his quest to how did Michael Passero come up with that number.
Even more confusing is why it is that Council President Wade A. Hyslop could not get that information from fellow democratic councilor Michael Passero in caucus. I thought the big advantage of the “DREAM COUNCIL” was the ability to work so much through in caucus. Is there trouble in paradise?