It's no secret that the pro-override people will be out in force on election day. It's crucial that those of us opposed to the override not abdicate our responsibility. We cannot assume that opposition to the override is strong enough that we, each and every one of us, isn't crucial to the effort to stop it. Get to the polls and cast a ballot.

There are some really clear choices available to us this time around, and we have a real opportunity to send a very clear message - that we are fed up with business as usual, that our patience has run out, and that we will not trust them with any more of our hard-earned dollars until it's clearly demonstrated that they have put their house in order.

Get to the polls and vote. If you don't you will have no right to complain about whatever comes next.

. Voting NO !

Voting NO!!!!!

Saying YES to Melrose by voting NO!!!!

Chew on this for a minute. The override in the first year is for 2.2 million. Thanks to compounding due to annual 2.5% increases, after 12 years it will be slightly over 3 million annually.

Voting no.

One other question - hiring 2 police officers in an attempt to reduce the overtime use. If you were to hire two officers, why couldn't you pay them with the overtime savings?

Excellent question. The overtime saved won't pay for those two police officers though. Won't even make a dent. The alderman completed a comprehensive study on this and determined it would require 6-8 new hires to reduce the amount of overtime. So hiring two officers just means two more full salaries and overtime to stand on street corners and supervise construction.

If the 2 new officers work 80 or 90 hours a week combined, that wouldn't reduce overtime? I understand that hiring new officers is more than hourly pay and that they receive costly benefits but how many overtime hours are granted in a week?

Hiring 6 officers would provide the city with an extra 240 hours of police presence a week. 8 officers would provide an extra 320 hours per week assuming a 40 hour work week. There are only 24 hours in a day. How much overtime is needed each week?

Yes exactly. Doesn't the number of overtime hours worked seem unfathomable? I encourage you to contact your alderman and ask him/her to share the study with you.

A couple of errors here. First you're referring to the study requested by the Mayor and Auditor a few years ago, correct? The one initiated because the Mayor and the Auditor accused the police of abusing overtime, an accusation which was thoroughly debunked by the study and by the accompanying overtime audit?

The study did not say it would take 6 to 8 hires to significantly reduce overtime. It said the City needed 6 to 8 officers to provide adequate manning for a City with the demographics of Melrose. Having one more officer per shift would absolutely reduce overtime because the PD operates right now at minimum manning. When one cop is out, they have to hire an overtime. With one more cop per shift, a lot of those hires could be avoided, thereby saving enough to pay most, if not all, of the salaries for the two hired.

Police don't get overtime pay for working details, which is what you are describing when you say "stand on street corners and supervise construction". They get detail pay, which has nothing to do with overtime. The City actually makes money on details because the City takes 10% of every dollar. And they don't "supervise construction". They control traffic to ensure worker safety and good traffic flow.

Smoke and Mirrors indeed.

This sounds like fuzzy math to me. So if the study, as you agree, revealed the city needs 6-8 more police officers (to do what exactly other than cover overtime)and we are hiring only two (if the override passes) you expect citizens to believe that paying these two salaries (150K) will reduce overtime "cost"? The city needs to pay these officers, correct? So even if they cover some overtime shifts it will not make up the differential of their salaries, benefits and pension. Pretending spending 150K will actually reduce costs overall is absurd. The city should stick to the facts and say they need more police officers (if that is in fact true).

Back in the middle to late 1980's there were 4 Lieutenants, 9 Sergeants, and 47 Patrolmen as per the city charter. Today there are 4 Lieutenants, 9 Sergeants, and about thirty five Patrolmen. Like a previous poster said one patrolman just retired and several more will have to in the next couple of years. Will they be replaced? The two officers that the override will fund are just a throw in for the first year to make it look like city hall cares about public safety. If they did they would hire two officers every year with the override funds. Voting NO on this one.

If two more policemen are needed, why did the police chief deny that he had asked for them at the budget hearing ?

Hey, I'm not disagreeing with you that there is a demonstrated need for at least 6 to 8 more officers. And I agree that the city should stick to the facts. (Which they won't.)
But if hiring two guys saves just one overtime per day, that savings would cover the 2 salaries. ie: $400 per OT shift x 365 = $146,000.00.

The point I'm trying to make to you is this: the City is playing a shell game here. The only reason the Mayor even included the two cops in the override is to make the override appear to also be addressing public safety, when in fact, it does not. Even if they pay for the salaries with override funds, where do you think the overtime savings is going to wind up? Might as well pay the cops with the overtime savings and apply the entire override to the schools, because in the end, that's where the money will go, whether it be from the override or from overtime savings. It's a classic Dolan misdirection, calculated to gain support for the override. It's a lie.

As for the study, Dolan tried to pull a fast one with that also, as well as that cockamamie overtime audit, but he was totally embarrassed when both came back and said everything he was alleging was a total fabrication.

Flatfoot hit it right on the head. His numbers are accurate.

And to Village Voice - Lyle said he didn't ask for them. That's not the same thing as saying they're not needed or wanted. This deception is on the Mayor - Lyle had nothing to do with any of it, and in fact, was not even consulted. The bottom line here is that Dolan HATES the cops. Don't let anyone ever tell you any different.

Show up on November 3d and vote. Send a message that you're fed up with this huckster and his lies.

The headline in the Melrose Weekly News on July 31 was "Big drop in major crimes here". It documented a 14 percent drop in tne crimes the first half of the year. What was the ansewr from the Mayor's office - add more police.

I think we are making a similar point. If the city hires the two new cops it is net neutral on their salaries (based on overtime "savings"). More police officers are needed to make a real impact on overtime and support the city. The word savings married with overtime is used just to solicit votes for the override. I'm voting no for no confidence.

We are.