|
|
FARMINGTON – A good chunk of the selectmen’s meeting Tuesday night was spent discussing proposed town ordinances in public hearings and tweaking town policies.
Some discussion was spent on the town’s municipal vehicle operation policy with regards to adding Maine’s new distracted driver law that seeks to stop cell phone, computer or other distracting devices while driving a town-owned vehicle.
Selectman Dennis Pike, who is also Franklin County’s sheriff, said “it would be a bad mistake to impose this on law enforcement.” He said officers can pull over in most instances and use their cell phone or computer. But, occasionally officers need to be in constant communication with the dispatch center.
Pike asked Police Chief Richard Caton, III, how he felt, but Caton said his officers “should be pulling over and stopping to talk. They are held accountable to state law as well,” he said.
|
|
“To tie the hands of public safety is not something I can support,” Pike said. “My people will have every means of communication.”
Selectman Chair Steve Bunker said the policy’s intent is to promote and reinforce safe practices for town employees. Use of radio calls that the highway department use are not considered part of the policy because they are brief as opposed to longer conversations over a cell phone.
Farmington Police Sgt. Shane Cote wondered if the town were to get mobile data terminals, which receive text messages from dispatch center, would use of the computers be affected under the new policy? The general consensus was that an officer could quickly read a short text but would need to pullover to text back.
Town Manager Richard Davis said if the public sees an officer on the phone while driving there might be a perception that law enforcement is above the law. Selectmen voted 4-1, with Pike opposing to enact the policy amendment.
In other police department news, one of the two officers Caton was going to ask to hire called 10 minutes before the meeting to say he’d take a job with another department.
“He was offered a job that pays more and has a better benefits package,” Caton said. Hired was Kimberly Bates, 24, of Caratunk, who formerly worked at the Wells Police Department as a part time officer. She earned a bachelor’s degree in sociology and a degree in criminal justice, Caton said. She started training with the department at 7 a.m. this morning. The search for another officer will continue.
Voters will have the final say at the March 20 annual town meeting on two proposed ordinance amendments. One reduces the property owner notification requirement for appeals from 500 feet to 250 feet for urban lots. The 500-foot requirement would still remain in effect for rural areas.
Steve Kaiser, the code enforcement officer, said the change under the Appellant and Variance Applicant Requirements ordinance will save the town a lot of time and money. The current requirement of notifying all property owners within 500 feet in the town’s urban area often encompasses a lot of residences and that means a lot of certified letters need to be sent out. In addition, people often call wondering why they’ve been notified or mistakenly believe they have to attend the appeals board meeting even if they don’t have an interest in it.
“It’s really a burden on the town,” Kaiser said of the current requirement.
The second proposed change would repeal the selectmen’s authorization to accept streets and ways. To align the town’s ordinance with state law, a section granting selectmen the authorization to do so would be struck from the town ordinance, instead voters would be given the power to accept streets or ways.
Selectmen also discussed the tobacco use policy, which lists buildings, facilities, vehicles and properties that prohibit use of cigarettes. Added to the policy is the ban of smokeless tobacco products.
Selectman Jon Bubier said a blanket ban on smokeless tobacco products doesn’t take into consideration products that aid people trying to quit smoking. Bubier successfully argued that the verbiage “products that are expelled by spit are prohibited,” be added to the smokeless section of the policy.
In another matter, selectmen approved spending $300 from the special projects account to update the Seth Wescott Olympic gold medal recognition signs at the town’s entrances to indicate he’s won two golds now.
The driving while distracted law takes effect when someone commits another violation due to the fact he or she is on a cell phone, to include driving left of center, speed, ect… Driving and talking alone is not a crime. Again, it is not a violation of law to be on the phone unless your under 18.
“Driving and talking alone is not a crime.” well, it didn’t used to be. but that’s what this law/ordinance would seem to single out. what happens if i’m caught speeding and driving left of center while eating a hamburger, lighting a cigarette, playing with my radio and putting on makeup? and as applied to the farmington police, they’re nearly always speeding, so who’s going to pull them over? people do some pretty amazing things while paying full attention to the road, and then again, people do the same things and end up striking pedestrians. i think this is a case where people should be measured by their performance, and the police are generally well-trained enough to safely and prudently multitask behind the wheel. as for the rest of us, if you’ve got a bad driving record or have been driving only a couple years, you should probably be prohibited from doing anything but watching where you’re going.
postscript: the preceding comment was typed during my daily commute. not really.
cops above the law? of course not, remember there not there to protect you, they collect tax money for there king, let me see what else can i bust you for? i got it lets fine you for smoking a salem light.. i think we can make some money there ,heck i mean there is no jobs.lets do that council.
Most laws all have came from past cases where these factors played in. However I completely agree with the Sheriff in “To tie the hands of public safety is not something I can support,” We need our responders to be able to communicate effectively by best means possible at all times. Some information doesnt need to go out to the public via scanner. For these professionials to serve and protect they need to have access to information by multiple means.
13 Romans 1-2
1Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. 2Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves.
yeah yeah matt trust the authorities ask any indian if you can trust the goverment ,look how they treated and still treat them, but please matt there is a such thing as overgoverning…
Why can’t they use hands-free sets if they’re driving? I don’t care if they’re talking to someone, I’d just like to see the phones off of their ears and their hands back on the wheel.
“Hands-free cellphones just as likely to distract drivers”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/29/AR2010012900053.html
Ok, Ok, Ok. First off, if you are going to comment on something, take the time to educate yourselves to the facts. Don’t believe everything you read in the paper, or everything someone else tells you. All of Maine’s laws are available at http://www.maine.gov If you look under Title 29A, which is Maine’s motor vehicle laws, you will find that Aaron is correct. IT IS NOT ILLEGAL FOR ANYONE TO TALK ON YOUR CELLPHONE WHILE DRIVING. So, unless an administrator makes something that is not illegal, a departmental violation, there is no problem. The legislature creates the laws. It is up to law enforcement to enforce those laws with the discretion that is given to them. I support Sheriff Pike in his belief that police officers should not fear reprisal from their supervisor for effectively doing their job in a timely fashion and using the technology that is available.
The “Failure to maintain control of motor vehicle” law, Title 29A, Section 2117, is clear that this statute is only violated when the operator commits another infraction or the crime of driving to endanger or is involved in a motor vehicle crash, DUE to OPERATION WHILE DISTRACTED. So, don’t be a vicitm. Educate yourself. The resources are there.
for anyone who had as hard of a time finding this information as i did, here is a direct link: http://www.mainelegislature.org/legis/statutes/29-A/title29-Asec2118.html
where distracted driving is defined as:
“the operation of a motor vehicle by a person who, while operating the vehicle, is engaged in an activity: (1) That is not necessary to the operation of the vehicle; and (2) That actually impairs, or would reasonably be expected to impair, the ability of the person to safely operate the vehicle.”
so no hamburgers.
§2117 appears to be “use of traffic surveillance cameras restricted.”