Where will the prisoners go?

Uh,  me gango, is the pirate patois because it's pirate day or pirate week or something like that?

nicely done!

Gotta have a thick skin to post on Yack.  Yackers lose when there is less discussion and exchange of ideas. We pirates be messy, an' sometimes talk with a steel and lead, but we all be havin' a voice. Many a sailing, Grimy Grant be threatenin' me banishment, yet he still be me mate.  

Breadbeard

Grant, if you think there is someone to blame and that you specifically want to name me, then so be it.  I would simply come back at you with you're the one who's wrong in that you are completely missing the point in that if Mr. Gibson had signed his post "charlie gibson", no question would have been raised.  And, darn it, it was a question that was raised nothing more or less.  NOT A COMPLAINT.

Do you think I don't realize the service Mr. Gibson has given to the Town?  Do you for one moment think that I think "Charlie Gibson" should not be able to post on this site?  Do you think I think "Deputy Chief Charles Gibson" should not post on this site?  Of course not.  But I would say that "Charlie Gibson" and "Deputy Chief Gibson" need to be very separate in their postings.

My assumption is that if wants to, "charlie" can call me a dining table any time he wants to.  The "deputy chief" should not.

You're still WRONG, Grant (o.k., this is said (written?) in a joking tone because what is going on between you and me in these posts is that you're saying "she's wrong"; I'm coming back with "he's wrong..." ad infinitum.)

Carol

You know there are a lot of less-than-bright people out there who just might take your post at face value and not realize you were being sarcastic. I would suggest an emoticon or two. 

Yea, I was wondering when they are going to start the 2nd 1/2 of the police station, and if the indoor pool is going to be available to other than police. I'm also wondering if the helicopter can be used for transporting other than prisoners, like town employees, we could save on transportation costs for town employees. If we have the helicopter and are paying the pilot to be on standby, we might as well use it.

You are wrong. It was an awful thing to do. 

 If memory serves,"shock and awe" was used by the I&M (in the headline, I believe) in their article about the size of the police station.  On the other hand, you find it acceptable that Deputy Chief Gibson referred to a citizen/voter/taxpayer as "arguing with the dining room table" appropriate.

What IS appropriate and certainly NOT 'reprehensible' is to raise the question quietly and sensibly to avoid what Mr. Gibson has decided to bring to the public forum. 

 Grant, you completely missed the point of my response to Mr. Gibson's post. 

I don't believe anyone can or should silence 'Charlie Gibson', private citizen, in this forum. I'm not entirely certain anyone has.

Carol

I find the act of going to someone's boss to get them in trouble over something posted here to be about the lowest a person can sink. Carol, that was an awful thing to do. Not only have to made this discussion personal all along and have filled your posts with sarcastic comments like "McStation" and "Shock and Awe" but now you have set in motion action that will keep people like Charlie from posting on this site, and that means a valuable source of information has been silenced. 

Your behavior is reprehensible and because of it, we all lose. 

Thanks for nothing. 

G. 

What a very sad turn this discussion has taken. I try to live by the adage of "Always say the SECOND thing that comes to mind.", so I shall not comment now. But I suspect the word pitiful might be in my response.

To clarify: I asked Chief Pittman if it was appropriate for Mr. Gibson to make comments in a certain tone such as 'talking to the dining room table', etc. and sign such comments as the Deputy Police Chief  which gives the impression that such comments toward a citizen, voter and taxpayer are made in his position as a Town employee and a member of the NPD.  If he had signed his comment as 'Charlie Gibson' I would not have asked the question of the Chief.

Strong disagreement is not an offense on the part of either of us, but it does not serve the Town or the NPD well when something gives even the appearance of official sanction in signing with one's offical title.

Chief Pittman and I had been quietly "discussing" my question and concern.  I had no intent in escalating this to the public realm, but felt a response to Mr. Gibson's post was needed.

If anyone reading this even dares to presume I have any sense of 'winning this one' or whatever, then you are misreading me and presuming. 

This is something that could and should have been quietly handled between Chief Pittman, Mr. Gibson and myself.

Carol

Ms. Dunton took exception to my comments here and filed a complaint with my superiors.  This is my last post.

G. Please delete my account.  Thanks.

I have never deliberately posted inaccurate, misleading or insulting information.  Measurements are measurements.  Period.  If Mr. Gibson feels information provided is incorrect, please post it and I will correct or clarify if necessary.  Any insult perceived is in the mind of the reader. 

Does it therefore follow that if a new sheriff is elected, the space at the "shock and awe" police station designed specifically for him is no longer available to him?  Exactly how much rent is being paid by the DMV for their new space?

It would seem that moving the DMV AND the Sheriff's office from the Town Building would free up space desperately needed by Town Administration.

Carol

I'm just wondering... 

What if Richard Bretschneider is not the Sheriff in the next few months? Can the new sheriff find some home within the facility?

I have ignored Ms. Dunton's sarcastic post up to now since she has continually posted misleading and insulting information regarding this project and has continued here.  I know she has been present at Selectmen's meetings when it has been discussed that the Registry of Motor Vehicles will be moving out to the new facility instead of the Sheriff.  The same information has appeared in the I&M on several ocassions.  But there are readers here who may not have seen the I&M or the BOS meetings.  I would like to quote Barney Frank's line about arguing with a dining room table, but to set the record straight....

Last year, the Sheriff publicly stated that he would not move to the new facility even though there was space specifically designed for him.  The Sheriff could not be compelled to move if he refused.  Also, the Sheriff was transferred by an act of the Legislature, effective 1/1/10, from a County employee to a State employee.  The legislation removed allof the Sheriffs operations and funding from the County and transferred it to the State.  Since there was available space, and the RMV was looking for more room, it seemed a perfect fit.  The RMV will be paying rent in the new space and very little had to be done to accomodate them.  

Sitting here looking at the floor plans for "main Leveel area B" of the McStation.  Among other things, area B contains a section for the Sheriff.  This roughly 840 square foot section contains::

-the sheriff's department

-the sheriff's office

-a conference room

-a unisex toilet

-etc.

The things I've listed are the actual wording from the floor plan.  The '840 square feet' is my quick calculation from the measurements on the floor plan.

If you build it, they cannot come??!!

C

The issue never has been if the Nantucket Sheriff (which is now a State department) could keep prisoners at the new building.  Sheriff's prisoners would always have access to the new lock-up facility.  First thing is that the police facility has a "lock-up" and is not a "jail".  The difference is terminology defined by State Law.  A "Lock-up" falls under regulations set by the Department of Public Health, and prohibit long term detentions (generally greater than 72 hours).  A "Jail" falls under regulations set forth by the Department of Corrections.  To be a jail the facility must provide full-time medical, recreation and kitchen facilities among other things.

When a subject is arrested by the Police, they are considered "pre-arraignment".  Simply they have not yet had their first arraignment in Court.  Pre-araignment subjects are generally the responsibility of the Police and are held in the police lock-up.  If the subject is held by the Court on bail or convicted of a crime and held, that subject now becomes the responsibility of the Sheriff.  The Sheriff now has to transport the subject from the Court to the Jail.  Because Nantucket has no Jail, Subjects are taken to the Barnstable County House of Correction in Bourne.  The Barnstable Sheriff charges Nantucket a per-day charge for each subject held.  Because all Sheriffs now are State Employees, the County or Town of Nantucket no loger has any financial responsibility for housing prisoners.

Another wrinkle in this is that the District Court, another State Department, has its own Court Officers who handle subjects who are orederd held by the Court or subjects who are delivered to the Court by the Sheriff.  In any other Court house in Massachusetts the typical operation has the Sheriff deliver prisoners to the Courthouse who are then placed in the custody of the Court Officers.  After the Court appearance, the Court officer takes the subject from the Court and then delivers them back into the custody of the Sheriff who takes them back to the County Jail.  No where in this process are local police involved.

Only on Nantucket did the Sheriff drop the subject off at the police department and police officers took custody of the subject.  Court officers would then walk over and take the subject to Court and then bring them back.  The Sheriff at the end of the day would pick up the subject and bring them back to Barnstable.  While this sort of cooperative function worked.  It left the Sheriff and the Court off the hook for management of subjects who are by State law under their control.  It imposes a liability and cost on the Town that for handling subjects where the law says we shouldn't be dealing with.

Now with the move to 4 Fairgrounds in the Fall, the two State agencies (Sheriff & Court) on Nantucket will have to deal with prisoners.  It would be impractical costly for police officers to handle this function as it would require dedicated officers to handle prisoners for court.  And Court officers would have a long walk to get the prisoner.  So the responsibility is back with the Sheriff on how to get prisoners from Barnstable to the Nantucket Court. 

Options had the Nantucket Sheriff using a couple of the old holding cells in a reconfigured 20 S Water St building to still allow the Court Officers to walk over and pick up the prisoners, but the Sheriff has rejected this.

Thanks MK for the clarification.

Is the cost of any overnight or extended accomadations for guests of the County covered by sheriff funding? If so, would that payment go to the general fund?

The cells for downtown are just holding cells for prisoners while they are at court.

Didn't the original plan for the new building include a section for the sheriff's department? If so, when/how/why did that change?

I imagine the local sheriff's department would have to increase its numbers to staff a jail 24/7 when they held folks over. Not sure if they entertain enough for that to be cost effective.

Why would the local PD want to host (security, feeding etc) the sheriffs guest on the TON's nickle?

However, couldn't the County pay, using County receipts, the TON for operating the Grey Bar Hotel? The sheriff's department would be doing what it is supposed to do and not relay on support from other Counties and make use of the new local accommodations.

Thoughts?

I'm really confused.  (More so than usual.) Is Cheif Pittman offering the downtown cells, and is Bret refusing to keep prisoners there?  I thought all these details were decided and agreed upon when the Sheriff handed over the cash so we'd get the shiny new station for "free".  What"s changed?   

Matt