From Free Press blog (08/4)
Weymouth voters rejected an operational override of Proposition 2 1/2 Tuesday, failing the measure by over 1600 votes.
Turnout for the override vote was 34 percent, far lower than estimates of a 60 percent turnout earlier this week. In total, only one of Weymouth's 18 precincts voted for the override, with Precinct 4 voting in favor of the override by four votes.
Voter approval of the operational override would have required a homeowner with a property valued at $302,000 to pay an additional $284 per year in taxes.
Approval of the override would also have boosted the school department budget $3 million annually. The spending plans for the police, fire department, and department of public works would have each received an annual $1 million boost to their spending plans if voters approved the override.
The ballot measure was supported by Vote Yes for Weymouth, a citizens group that has raised roughly $9,621 in donations to hold rallies, distribute flyers, and print supportive placards, according to town records. Weymouth Citizens, a citizens group opposed to the override, raised approximately $978 to urge voters to reject the ballot measure.

The Weymouth override was designed like ours to fund unnecessary positions bloated school dept, unneeded police officers. wake up people,the Melrose override is not to replace the outdated police station . Its not to reopen an elementary school. Its waste and padding of department budgets, vote no.

Does the Town of Weymouth pays GIC/Health Insurance for their Selectman?

I actually think the only part of the override I agreed with was the two extra cops. So "unneeded" isn't exactly true. Police are 20 patrolmen undermanned. yes, TWENTY.

Get real.....we need 20 more cops on the beat? Have you seen the recent crime summary from Chief Lyle recently? Crime is DOWN in all categories in Melrose and because of this we need 20 more cops because of some sort of union requirement or sujective number?

Cities and towns need to start thinking "smart" instead of cow-towing to unions and adhering to "rules" and "past and failed requirements".

Who said anything about adding 20, I'm just stating facts. Another 5 or so couldn't hurt. And MFD who do you think is responsible for that crime reduction? You? Me? Nope, neither of us, the Melrose PD. So if they can be this productive 20 men understaffed why NOT add another 5 cops or so? Lets keep the crime going down.

Just read the last posting - Chief Lyle did not even ask the Mayor for extra officers! Wouldn't you think that if the head guy needed the extra officers, he would have asked for them? The Mayor only added them to his list of "wants" (again not a city "need"), because he needed to add some sort of safety matter to help justify the override.

If the city really needed two extra officers, the surplus $600,000 from the school side this year could be used for it - just a matter of transfer from one account to another account like they do throughout the year. This is all "smoke and mirrors" from the Mayor! We have seen this show before - most recently back in 2003 and it didn't work then - and it won't work now!

Every city & town in Massachusetts is going through the same federal and state reductions in funding but not every city and town is going through an override attempt. The city needs to reduce costs by becoming more efficient, more creative in solving financial issues, and to better utilize existing resources. I guess we are asking the city to do what every resident of Melrose does every day!

No, no I don't. Because he doesn't blink, sneeze, or fart without the permission of Mr. 26%. Don't be so naive to think that the chief really runs the show. Look at it from a reverse angle, if the Mayor says "I want two more Officers" can the Chief override him?? No, no he can't. At the end of the day, the Mayor is the boss.

Get with the program...Yup....that is what I am inferring to above! The Mayor wants the extra police not the chief - and not because of crime but to help sell the override. The chief knows more about crime than Mayor Dolan - if he actually needed more police - he would be pushing this hard.

Are you constantly stoned!? It is a known fact the chief would like 5 or 6 cops PER SHIFT, never mind a total number of them for the department. The CHIEF does want more cops! Jeez man, you know it is possible to be wrong, right?? Happens to all of us from time to time.

Just because we are a decent community does not mean crime does not happen here. I for one (as you know) am glad they plan on adding cops. 3 per shift is not only dangerous to them, but bad for us. Yes crime allegedly has gone down over the past year but its a cycle thing. Could easily have some crazy call then all of a sudden all three of our officers are tied up at one scene!

MFD you and I agree on most things on this site, but we just won't agree on this one. Plain and simple.

When crime goes up - then add staff - not while crime is going steadily downward - doesn't make sense financially.

Very true. The Chief did NOT ask for two officers because he's been told not to ask. The Mayor included that to sell the override. The Chief has been told that the Mayor makes all staffing decisions.

Looking at the poor hires over the last few years in the school department, starting with the super, I would suggest that the last poster is correct.

With the population rising everyday, we need to keep pace. Crime is bound to go up with the population, just logically thinking.

The population growth in Melrose has been 1.5 % since 2010....and again crime has been going steadily down - your logic is therefore deficient....try another line of reasoning!

What don't you get, MFD? Crime goes in waves, and yes, it is currently going down. All it takes is a few stolen cars, a stabbing, and a few husbands with too many angry drinks in them and we're right back to square one. Also those 2010 numbers are garbage. Think about it, with this current hot market you have elders leaving and whose buying? Young families with kids, therefore you're basically exchanging 1 or 2 for 3 and 4. Hence the reason I said steadily rising. And you think this "hottest market" thing is going to slow that down? No way, MFD, it's going to do the complete opposite. Like I said we don't want to be caught off guard, we need to keep pace with the population growth that will will surely continue.

And just for the record, I can't remember if I covered this, I am also anti-overide. I simply want a stronger, younger force in our great city. There is nothing wrong with that.

Gosh...voting against the override...Yup....I take back anything I said about your reasoning!Let's just agree to disagree on the police matter. I know many officers on the force and if I thought or heard that they need more staff - I would be the one in front petitioning for more police.

One of the things people forget about is the issue of response time. Back in the day there were at least 6 and up to 8 cops on the street on the 4-12. Now there are three. More cops working ensures faster response time, because there's more likely to be a car closer to whatever incident arises that isn't already dealing with another call. That could make all the difference if there's some drug-addled fool breaking into your house.

There were also walking beats, like Main Street, Wyoming Avenue, and the Highlands. I've seen many complaints here about the conditions on Wyoming Avenue. A lot of that could be curtailed if there were a beat cop there, but you can't do that with only three cops on the street. One of the basic requirements of community policing is face to face contact, which is hard from inside a cruiser. City Ordinance calls for either 60 or 61 cops - I'm not sure how many there are now, but I'll bet it's less than 50.

By the way, I'll also be voting no. I'm sick of dumping 70% of all revenue into the dysfunctional school system. That's where the money for the missing cops went. The two the Mayor proposed in the override is a sham.