Police logs (10/10-10/14/14): The color is back – hear about an egged house and punched male

When the Southborough Police Department switched to an automated system for generating police logs, some of you complained. The logs lost their detail and became colorless.

The SPD heard your complaint. Officer Ryan Newell wrote me to say he got permission to revert to old logs. This does mean that logs are likely to be published less often.

These logs include an egged house, punched male, vicious dog and a not-so-stolen car. Read about those incidents and more in the latest logs from the Southborough Police Department*.

Friday, October 10, 2014:

  • 0009 hrs- An officer on patrol checked on a suspicious motor vehicle that was parked next to a Turnpike Road business. The officer reported back that the vehicle and driver both checked out ok.
  • 0115 hrs- ARRESTED: A Framingham man was charged with OUI Alcohol (2nd Offense); Negligent Operation of a Motor Vehicle; Marked Lanes Violation; Possession of Open Container of Alcohol in a MV; and having No Inspection Sticker.
  • 0539 hrs- An officer assisted with mediating a customer/business dispute at a Turnpike Road business. The civil matter was worked out between the two parties.
  • 0755 hrs- An officer assisted a disabled motorist on Turnpike Road.
  • 0904 hrs- A Darlene Drive resident reported that their motor vehicle was stolen out of their garage. The reporting party called back to report that the vehicle was located, and that no crime had taken place.
  • 0910 hrs- Officers investigated a two car, motor vehicle accident on Boston Road at Valley Road. Injuries were reported at the scene of the accident.
  • 1109 hrs- A business owner came into the station to report that an ex-employee stole an item from the business. The matter is currently under investigation.
  • 1113 hrs- Officers investigated a burglar alarm at a Sears Road residence.
  • 1444 hrs- An officer investigated a report of two suspicious male parties walking & sitting on the train tracks off of River Street. The responding officer reported back negative findings in the area.
  • 1557 hrs- A medical was reported at a Cordaville Road residence.
  • 1613 hrs- A motorist from Princeton, ME was issued a Criminal Application for Unlicensed Operation of a Motor Vehicle.
  • 1703 hrs- Officers investigated a four car, motor vehicle accident on Turnpike Road. No injuries were reported at the scene of the accident.
  • 1807 hrs- An officer investigated a two car, motor vehicle accident that had taken place earlier in the day. No injuries were reported.

Saturday, October 11, 2014:

  • 0041 hrs- A medical was reported at a Newton Street residence.
  • 0102 hrs- Officers assisted a disabled motorist on Turnpike Road.
  • 0504 hrs- A resident of Sears Road reported a possible attempted B&E to their residence. The responding officers checked the home and the surrounding area and reported back negative findings.
  • 0923 hrs- Officers investigated an accidental 911 call from an Oak Hill Road residence.
  • 1137 hrs- ARRESTED: A Westborough man was taken into custody when it was discovered that he had an active arrest warrant for his arrest out of Westborough District Court.
  • 1395 hrs- An officer investigated a report of counterfeit money being used to purchase items at a Boston Road business. The Detective Unit is currently investigating the incident.
  • 1307 hrs- Officers responded to Southville Road to investigate a report of an erratic operator in the area. Southborough officers cleared when Ashland police reported that they had the vehicle stopped in their town.
  • 1351 hrs- ARRESTED: A Framingham woman was charged with Operating a Motor Vehicle with a Suspended License (Subsequent Offense); Defective Equipment; and Failure to Wear a Seatbelt.
  • 1638 hrs- Officers responded to Main Street to investigate a report of an erratic operator in the area. The vehicle was located and stopped by the responding officers. The officers reported back that the operator checked out ok.
  • 1826 hrs- Officers investigated a burglar alarm at a Northboro Road business.

Sunday, October 12, 2014:

  • 0009 hrs- An officer on patrol checked on a suspicious vehicle parked outside of a Turnpike Road business. The officer reported back that the vehicle checked out ok.
  • 0037 hrs- A medical was reported at a Stockwell Lane residence.
  • 0125 hrs- An officer investigated a parking complaint on Walnut Drive.
  • 0451 hrs- A medical was reported at a Jericho Hill Road residence.
  • 1124 hrs- An officer investigated a report of suspicious activity at a Cordaville Road business.
  • 1200 hrs- Officers investigated a burglar alarm at an Oak Hill Road residence.
  • 1241 hrs- Officers investigated a report of a tree down on telephone wires on Central Street. Verizon and the DPW were both notified.
  • 1344 hrs- Officers investigated a burglar alarm at a Marlboro Road residence.
  • 1843 hrs- An officer investigated a report of someone yelling behind Woodward School. The responding officer reported back negative findings in the area.
  • 2015 hrs- A medical was reported at a Turnpike Road business.
  • 2139 hrs- Officers investigated a report of vandalism at a residence on Banfill Lane. The reporting party called to report that kids were throwing eggs at their home. Responding officer checked the area, but the suspects had already fled the scene. A report was filed on the incident.

Monday, October 13, 2014:

  • 0143 hrs- An officer on patrol checked on a suspicious motor vehicle parked outside of a Turnpike Road business. The operator and the vehicle both checked out ok.
  • 0438 hrs- Officers investigated a burglar alarm at a Central Street business.
  • 1712 hrs- ARRESTED: A Southborough man was arrested on an active arrest warrant out of Westborough District Court.
  • 2106 hrs- Upton Police requested Southborough Police’s assistance in attempting to locate a male party at a Turnpike Road business. The business was checked, and the male party was reportedly not at that location.
  • 2108 hrs- Officers assisted a disabled motorist on Turnpike Road.
  • 2158 hrs- Officers responded to a General Henry Knox Road residence after receiving a call from a resident stating that their garage door opened, and their vehicle’s light came on. The responding officers checked the area and reported back negative findings.

Tuesday, October 14, 2014:

  • 0055 hrs- A William Onthank Lane resident called to report that someone had just rung their doorbell. Officers responded and checked the area.
  • 0657 hrs- Officers investigated an Assault & Battery at a Turnpike Road business. A male party reported that he was punched by another male party in the parking lot of the business. The matter is currently under investigation by the responding officer.
  • 0728 hrs- Officers investigated a three car, motor vehicle accident on Boston Road. No injuries were reported at the scene of the accident.
  • 1021 hrs- A Main Street resident reported a suspicious truck in their driveway. Responding officers located the vehicle and reported back that the driver was at the wrong address. Officers cleared without further incident.
  • 1125 hrs- Officers investigated an accidental 911 call from a Presidential Drive residence.
  • 1255 hrs- Officers investigated an accidental 911 call from an Oak Hill Road residence.
  • 1709 hrs- Officers investigated a two car, motor vehicle accident on Turnpike Road. No injuries were reported at the scene of the accident.
  • 1740 hrs- Officers investigated another two car, motor vehicle accident on Turnpike Road. No injuries were reported at the scene of the accident.
  • 1744 hrs- Officers investigated a vicious dog report on Nathan Stone Lane. The Animal Control Officer was notified of the incident.
  • 1755 hrs- Officers investigated a two car, motor vehicle accident on Cordaville Road. No injuries were reported at the scene of the accident.
  • 1942 hrs- A medical was reported at a Boston Road residence.

To view past Police Logs, click here.

*Note: per state law, the logs omit any domestic violence reports.

31 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
John See Something Say Something
8 years ago

It’s hard enough to ” fight city hall” alone. Thank goodness we have this blog for the people of Southborough to voice their grievances to the public. I was one of the people who wrote to the Chief of Police about the police logs, but the issue has more to do with accuracy of calls rather than the amount of verbage. On the log, the Police Dept. is changing the wording of the calls, in at least my two instances, so that the reason for the calls remains inaccurate and unrecognizable from the original phone call. Consequently, each time the call was not addressed properly. It should be known that the police logs are incomplete and only what the police want you to see is on there. Certain calls are culled out, so that leaves it open for the police to address only what they want to address. In my two cases, it was a roadway safety issue that put children at risk. I will be following this up, but I do want to give a town official every opportunity to rectify this situation before I provide more detailed information on this blog about the two times it has been done to my calls. By the log not being transparent and complete, it’s obvious safety appears not to be #1 priority. Do you agree that the Southborough Police Dept.’s # 1 goal should be safety???

Emperor Strikes Back
8 years ago

Perhaps if you didn’t hound the police department all the time, it would lend more credence to your complaints.

What you dislike in another take care to correct in yourself.
Thomas Sprat

John See Something Say Something
8 years ago

If you notice the “Emperor Strikes Back” comment (if it were true, or not), would only be known by a member of the Southborough police force or the perp! They are trying to discredit my info before I even divulge it. That tells you something right there, and the people of Southborough are smart enough to see right through it….As I said before, after I give the town official a chance to get back to me, I will be giving you more specific information here. I think every Mom and Dad in town would be interested in what I have to say about the Southborough Police Dept. and safety. By the way, as for the cryptic quote by Thomas Sprat, I’m sure the people of Southborough are more interested in what goes on in town with their police force, than what the author of “History of Royal Society of London” has to say about it.

Removed
8 years ago

Removed

Removed
8 years ago

Removed

johnseesomethingsaysomething
8 years ago

The following is the email I sent in a last ditch effort to have the police logs corrected. I went through the proper channels to have the police logs written accurately and not have certain reports culled out from the police log. I first sent communication to Chief Paulhus, several to Officer Hagen who was the designated liasson to the chief, then Mark Purple, and then the Selectmen. The info I will provide will show how the police dept. covered up the fact that it was a blockage in the road and a safety issue, especially to little kids -both calls. The police dept. is trying to muddy the waters to divert attention to anything but what I’m requesting. For some reason, the police do not want it in the logs that putting material on a public street is a safety issue. The real question is how often do the Southborough Police cover up information on the police logs? It is apparent from an email I received from Mark Purple this morning that a smear campaign is being started on me, which is the old “shooting the messenger” trick. This is the depths the police dept. will go to take time and money to besmirch a citizen rather than do their job. The police dept. has made this as convoluted and complicated as possible. My info will be fact based. There will be more detailed info coming.

Mr. Purple, Oct. 20, 2014
My two calls of June 21, 2014 and Oct. 3, 2014 to the police to report 40 yards of material purposely dumped on the public road both times have nothing to do with “tone of emails” or what anyone’s subjective opinion is of anyone else. The same infraction was not recorded accurately two times, so there was not even a warning given for the violations. Intentionally dropping material on the road is a safety hazard, and it should be accurately recorded that way. I did not ask for an investigation, nor a report so muddled that it would confuse even someone like yourself. I did ask for the two calls to be recorded accurately. If you, the Selectmen, and the police are reluctant to concede this is a road blockage-safety hazard, especially to small children, then the calls would not be accurately recorded when a small child is hurt, and a real investigation uncovers that the Southborough Police doesn’t record calls properly. You asked what to do as we go forth–Please have the police correct the log and record the calls accurately, and not inserted with an officer’s personal opinion commentary. There is no need to cloud this further. This could have been handled quickly, with efficiency and common sense. If you cannot have those calls corrected and a warning given to the violator and put safety first, it would be appreciated if you would let me know via email by Wed., Oct. 22, so that I can proceed in another direction. Thank you very much for your time.
John
“See something, say something.”

Matthew
8 years ago

What are the rules about reporting police logs?
With more officers visible on the road I wonder how much time they now have to do what must be a very low priority task especially if public safety is their main goal.

As for the incident being described, it sounds like recording the call as accurately as you may desire could alert the violator that the police have been notified. If this is actually an investigation I believe the police have the right not to disclose details that may affect the outcome. (at least that’s what I hear on TV).

I look forward to getting the rest of the info should the follow up with the town officials not prove successful.

For now the obvious question is if anyone else feels the logs are incomplete to the degree of being inaccurate or deceptive(my words not the previous poster)?

My answer would be that without knowing what has been reported by each person to the police how are we to know what was actually reported? Only the caller can confirm that the log for their incident was accurate. My own experience with at least 4 calls over the past 10 years or so is that the logs say about as much as I would expect. Any less and you don’t know what happened on what street, any more and you risk hinting at identities and compromising the privacy of those involved.

johnseesomethingsaysomething
8 years ago

This is the first communication to the police chief.
The ***** indicate the log entry in question.
There is a lot more information coming. There is too much info to get out at once, so I’m breaking it up in smaller portions & in chronological order.
Obviously, this is coming out now, because Chief Paulhus is digging in his heels about changing the log to reflect accuracy.

From: john]
Sent: Thursday, June 26, 2014 10:44 AM
To: Kenneth Paulhus
Subject: inaccurate police log

Chief Paulhus,
On Sat., June 21, 2014 at 1725 hrs. this post from mysouthborough.com was not reported factually. In this case, a resident had a truckload of mulch dumped in the middle of Cordaville Rd. (taking up more than half the road), it was definitely a road hazard. Also, I was concerned that the huge pile of mulch was going to be left there all night and it was unsafe. When I drove by, the pile of mulch was unattended. Just FYI, as new chief, you may not be aware that sometimes police department matters have been reported as personal commentary, which demeans the report being made at that time. I feel that inflammatory words like “neighborhood dispute” interpretation does nothing to keep the reports factual and honest. How is it that I call in a true road hazard, and it is documented as a neighborhood dispute?
Sincerely,
John
Saturday, June 21, 2014:
• 0202 hrs- ARRESTED: A Marlborough man was charged with OUI Alcohol.
• 0618 hrs- A medical was reported at a Flagg Road residence.
• 0925 hrs- An officer responded to Mt. Vickery Road to investigate a report of a young child pushing a baby carriage near/on the roadway. The responding officer checked the area and reported back negative findings.
• 1025 hrs- An officer took a vandalism report from a Ward Road resident.
• 1036 hrs- An officer investigated a report of unregistered solicitors in the area of Foley Drive.
• 1418 hrs- An officer took a report of a possible IRS scam from an Overlook Drive resident. The responding officer is currently investigating the report.
• 1442 hrs- An officer responded to a Turnpike Road business to investigate a report of suspicious behavior. The officer cleared from the business after reporting a negative finding.
• *****1725 hrs- An officer responded to a Cordaville Road residence to assist with a neighbor dispute.
• 2004 hrs- Officers responded to a Cross Street residence to investigate a report of an unwanted party at the residence. The individual left the area prior to the officer’s arrival on scene.
• 2120 hrs- Officers investigated a barking dog complaint at a Marlboro Road residence.
• 2227 hrs- A Ward Road resident reported hearing a possible gun shot in the area.
• Responding officers checked the area and reported back negative findings.

Chief Paulhus,
Thank you for getting back to me so quickly. I know you are very busy, and this is probably low on your priority list, but I think it is important. I am sensitive to how things are documented, because we have been the victims of inaccurate reporting in the past by some people in this department. I can’t help but think the officer took sides and negated my reason for the call. If there was a tree across the road causing similar blockage, would that officer think that a neighborhood dispute had anything to do with an obstacle on a public way? Why would the officer notate the excuse (neighborhood dispute) when he could see the obstacle was clearly in the middle of the road and obviously a hazard? I wouldn’t have called if the complaint was not a legitimate safety issue. Thank you for following up on that report.
John

From: Kenneth Paulhus
Sent: Thursday, June 26, 2014 12:11 PM
Subject: RE: inaccurate police log

Good Afternoon Mr.

The Sgt. who reviews the logs for submission tries to do a quick summary from the reports or log entries for the week or bi-weekly period. In this case, there is some notation of a neighbor dispute. I suspect the Officer talked to the party involved who had their own idea as to why the call was made, hence the notation. I will try to gather some more facts from the Officer who handled the call when he reports. I will also speak to Sgt. to make sure we are properly summarizing the calls. Thanks for bringing it to my attention.

Regards,

Chief Paulhus

Kenneth M. Paulhus
Chief of Police
Town of Southborough
19 Main Street
Southborough MA 01772
(508) 485-2147
kpaulhus@southboroughma.com

Townie
8 years ago

John, remember the SPD have a lot to deal with in this town. Perhaps they are preoccupied with pressing issues that are far more hazardous to the community as a whole vs. one resident’s belief that a pile of material in a very low traffic area is hazardous. Perhaps, Maybe, instead of the pile of material being a nuisance, it was the complainer.

Matthew
8 years ago
Reply to  Townie

Townie – just what part of Cordaville is a low traffic area? I’d love to know so I could direct the semi’s coming down Parkerville over to that mythical stretch of road.

Agreed that police have other priorities – that has already been covered in this thread.

I would ask that you not be so harsh about a citizen alerting the police to a safety issue, it is his right and the duty of the police to respond, somewhere along the way the “complainer” feels his complaint was misinterpreted as a neighborly dispute. From only what has been presented it seems hard to imagine how a road blockage was confused with a dispute but that is the mystery that John is trying to uncover. Best to let him try and hope we all benefit from his diligence.

Townie
8 years ago
Reply to  Matthew

Matthew, theres no myths, just facts. If you go to google maps and zoom in on the Cordaville Triangle Park you’ll notice a tiny section of Cordaville Road that does not connect to the main road (RT 85). I’m willing to bet the number of cars that actually travel on the section of road daily, I can count with my fingers and might have to include my toes.

As for the Police Report, It was very accurate the first time. Why? Because this resident has complained about neighbors in that neighborhood more times than cars travel on that road in one week. With that history of complaints from the same resident, I imagine that’s why the police filed it as a dispute. If you don’t think thats accurate, asked the SPD for how many times they have filed complaints from the resident. I’m sure they have the numbers, they are public records.

Matthew
8 years ago
Reply to  Townie

Wow and thanks!. I did not know it was that tiny section of Cordaville until you mentioned the park.
Clearly not as big a safety issue as advertised but maybe more of a nuisance to the neighbors and only John complained.

Regardless of the number of complaints I see his issue is that it was immediately seen as a dispute given his call history, like the boy who cried wolf. It may end up being more appropriate for the police to treat each call independently rather than complicate the matter. Probably a good one to debate over a beer with the neighbors!

johnseesomethingsaysomething
8 years ago

1.) I tried unsuccessfully to transfer the picture of the loam on Cordaville Rd. to the blog. (I will try to find out how to do that.)
2.) Important point–notice that my call of 10/3 was not recorded on the police log. The basis of my complaint is that they are subjectively picking what goes on the log & what doesn’t. Also, I had reported the same thing on 6/21 & pointed out the log was inaccurate. Isn’t it ironic when I complained about the inaccurate log of 6/21 and I called again 10/3 for the same problem, then police didn’t even put it on the log at all. I hope someone connects the dots. (Are they covering up for their friends, hiding safety issues, or are they covering up on 10/3 for the botched 6/21 log, etc.?) Shouldn’t a safety issue be #1 prioity for the Southboro Police Dept.? They sure don’t exhibit it here.
3.) Matthew–I couldn’t say it any better. You understand it! I hope the parents in town see it the same way as you do.
4.) There’s more coming. I hope you will hang in there with me to really see what’s going on.
Fw: inaccurate police log
john
To: kpaulhus@southboroughma.com;
Chief Paulhus,
Please see attached photo of material intentionally put on Cordaville Rd. I was going to comment on MySouthborough.com, but I decided I should write to you for an explanation first. Unfortunately, again there’s a problem with the police log on MySouthborough.com. As you know, the last time the log was inaccurate. This time, the Police Dept.didn’t put my call on the log at all. Just some info on my call—****** C******* of *** Cordaville Rd. continually drops truckloads of material on the public road. He’s done it many times, even though he has an acre of land to put material on. At first, I didn’t report it, because I was trying to be neighborly, and also I figured that surely Mr. C******* would realize that he was creating a road hazard and a safety issue. Twice now, it looks like the police are giving C******* a wink and a nod, and C******* by getting a pass is why he keeps doing the same thing over and over. (Mr. C******* is the type of person that likes to challenge authority, and doesn’t like to be told what to do, even when asked in a kindly manner.) This neighborhood has little kids ages 4-6 who ride their bikes and scooters there, so it really is a safety issue when traffic has to veer onto the other side of the road and can’t see the little ones behind the dirt pile. Little kids behind the pile of dirt are forced to turn into oncoming cars in either direction. On Oct. 3 I called and talked to the dispatcher who gave his name as Maida, and I gave him all the info, including my name and the fact that Mr. C******* has dumped tons of material on the road before, and I thought he had been at least warned. Now I have serious questions as to how the Police Log process works. The first call in June was inaccurately recorded, and this call was not recorded at all. It appears that the police didn’t follow through, and I’d like to know why. Is the convenience for Mr. C******* more important than the safety of the children and pedestrians walking? Was Mr.C******* even warned or given a citation either time for repeatedly intentionally blocking a public way, even though he’s been asked not to? I’m assuming because the police log has not indicated that the problem has been addressed, that that may be why C******* keeps doing the same thing over and over. I feel my calls are not being listened to, so I would appreciate it if you would get back to me and let me know 1.) What were the results of the first call when the dept.called it “neighborhood dispute”? Was C******* warned, or was it dismissed as a “neighborhood dispute” ? 2.) This call on Oct. 3—Did the Police respond, and what were the results, for example warning, citation, or no response at all? 3.) Why was the call not put on the Police Log? If you could answer these questions, it would help me understand the process and why this is still happening.
Thank you,
John
Friday, October 3, 2014:
• 0225 hrs- Disabled MV- No Action Required: Turnpike Rd
• 0256 hrs- Medical- Services Rendered: Wolfpen Ln
• 0905 hrs- Alarm, Burglar- False Alarm: Turnpike Rd
• 1317 hrs- Disabled MV- Services Rendered: Boston Rd
• 1637 hrs- Community Police Services- Services Rendered: Main St
• 1813 hrs- Community Police Services- No Action Required: Turnpike Rd
• 2205 hrs- General Info- Taken/Referred to Other

RE: inaccurate police log
Kenneth Paulhus (kpaulhus@southb… Add contact 10/8/2014 9:29 AM
To: ‘john”;
Cc: Dave Hagen; Ryan Newell;
Good Morning Mr.

I am having our Court Officer (Dave Hagen) review the photo and information to see if there is a violation. As for the log, the call was listed in our Dispatch Log for the day. An Officer responded and determined the material was already being moved and did not require further police action. The call was listed as a Request for Police Services. We are still getting used to our new software system and how we enter calls. I am assuming that an entry such as “Debris blocking the street” was not available in the drop down list. It is a work in progress to get more drop down options to better track calls.

The log provided to MYSouthborough or placed on Facebook is a convenience. The log for that day was some six pages long and has to be reviewed for laws regarding privacy, open records request, etc… A Sergeant goes through it at night every few days and lists what he deems relevant. It would be too long to list every traffic stop or walk in. There were several other “Request for Police Services” in the log that were not listed on that day. I can provide you with a copy if you want to see it.

Once I get an update from Officer Hagen, I will contact you with the information.

Regards,

Chief Paulhus

Kenneth M. Paulhus
Chief of Police
Town of Southborough
19 Main Street
Southborough MA 01772
(508) 485-2147
kpaulhus@southboroughma.com

John’s Comment – Lots of excuses by the police–“Just do your job!” You can’t keep looking the other way when someone keeps repeating the same offense. Imagine the chief and officers have the following mindset on a multiple safety offender who, based on our info, doesn’t even get a warning:

The chief wrote in his email to us on Oct. 8, 2014: “An officer responded and determined the material was already being moved and did not require further police action.” That officer should be enlightened that’s like saying that he saw a teen texting and driving, but when he pulled up to the car, the driver was already putting away his phone. Do you think that teen will continue his texting and driving habit? Absolutely, because he was never warned by the officer that chose to look the other way.

Emperor's New Clothes
8 years ago

Repost
Emperor Strikes Back is not my username or me, but someone is apparently trying to make it look like me. I have personal knowledge of this matter –that the police are “changing the wording of the calls” and that “certain calls are culled out.” Is this a case of police manipulating the system so they don’t have to deal with the calls? Sounds like arrogance that is inappropriate for a professional police dept. Do they think the regular guy has that much trust in the cops to let them change words and decide what to put in the log? (I believe the majority of the police are good, hardworking people who want to do the right thing, but unfortunately there are a few that give the rest a bad name.) I will be very interested in seeing how the town reacts to their police dept. allowing this to happen. I see the police dept. decided to go back to the old way of doing the logs. Rather than threaten not to put the logs on as often as they did, the chief should tell his dept. just like Coach Belichick tells his team: “Just do your job!” If these accusations are true, where is the outrage from the town officials if the police are deliberately leaving out calls and changing words?

John see something say something
8 years ago

Townie,
Tell all that to the parent who has to bury their child who was forced into oncoming traffic. Probably the number of calls reflects the number of infractions of a selfish, serial violator who constantly pushes the envelope and is inconsiderate of the children and adults who walk there. To your point, the calls to the police dept. probably match the number of violations. The resident you vilify didn’t drop 40 yards of material directly onto Cordaville Rd., but the person responsible on Cordaville Rd. did. Stop blaming others, diverting attention, and making excuses for the perp. If the police continue to ignore this and not at least issue a warning, of course the bad behavior will continue! The police have the power to limit the calls if they record them accurately and don’t leave them out of the police log. This is also important to reflect patterns of repeated and continuous bad behavior. I’ve been carefully trying to block out the specific address of the violator, but thanks to “Townie” he’s been outed. Thanks for bringing up Google, because when you go there, you can also see that this resident has planted ornamental grass that can reach 8-10 ft. high in the summer on the town-owned soft shoulder of the corner. So in addition to the yards of material dumped on the road, he has created a blind corner for those same little children on scooters and bikes. The police are aware of this, and in fact, Officer Hagen agreed with it being a blind corner between Hammond St. and Cordaville Rd. when he walked the area during his “investigation”. Add that blind corner to the piles of loam dropped on the road, and it becomes a real line-of-sight problem for both the drivers, as well as the little kids forced around the piles. Not to mention, there are no sidewalks. The town knows about this issue with minimal results. There are other neighbors who complain about the violator, too. What can you do when a person thinks the public road is part of his property, regardless of how his behavior affects others? Could it be due to the police not enforcing the law and instead sanctioning the infractions by either inaccurately recording calls or not having the calls on the log at all? Hence they are playing down the calls and shooting the messenger! What is the root cause of the problem–first and foremost it is the violator, and secondly, it’s the police condoning the behavior. Like all side roads, that area has daily traffic from mail trucks, UPS , FED EX, oil delivery, trailer trucks, landscaping, loam delivery trucks, residents’ cars, etc. , etc. It only takes one vehicle to kill someone, so that counting fingers and toes sounds similar to a teenage excuse from a supposedly grown up person. I’m sure in today’s society we all have to deal with inconsiderate people on a daily basis, but when that selfishness becomes a safety hazard to our children, it’s our duty as adults to protect those little kids.

Townie
8 years ago

John, you bring up good points. I will throw you a bone for that. Looking at the satellite of that section of road I couldn’t help but notice 2 cars parked on the no parking side of the road!

https://www.google.com/maps/search/cordaville+triangle+park/@42.2681715,-71.5234382,81m/data=!3m1!1e3

Emperor Strikes Back
8 years ago

“There are other neighbors who complain about the violator, too. What can you do when a person thinks the public road is part of his property, regardless of how his behavior affects others? ”

What neighbors besides you? And speaking of thinking other property is his own……you know what they say about people in glass houses

John see something say something
8 years ago

John’s comment: 1.) There are several more emails back and forth between the police and me. They are more efforts by the SPD to detract, defer, and convolute the need to have accurate police logs. Because of the volume of information for readers following my posts, I’ve decided not to provide on the blog more of the emails, but instead to cut to the chase. I’m not hiding anything. Readers get the gist. (If anyone is interested, I’ll gladly provide the rest of the back & forth emails.)
2.)Bloggers cannot put pictures on the blog with comments. The pile of loam in the road was approx. 14’w x 7’h. Approx. 99% of that material was on the road & the remaining was on the soft shoulder.
3.)Next, after this, I will enter Officer Hagen’s: “Applicable Statutes” and “Findings of Fact”, and you can come to your own conclusions.

From: Dave Hagen
Sent: Wednesday, October 08, 2014 1:34 PM
To: john
Cc: Sean James ; Kenneth Paulhus ; Timothy Slatkavitz
Subject: Our conversation this morning

Mr. :

It was nice to meet you and your wife this morning. Please allow me to confirm what I believe is my role in this issue and the methodology to be used. My chain of command is copied for their awareness.

• My log entry for this is: Material in roadway-safety issue. This is a newly created catagory, so going forward we may use this, if applicable;
• Regarding your concern of the June 21, 2014 entry (Case 293893), this is entitled “RP states large amount of dirt in roadway”. The case comments reflected an “ongoing neighbor dispute”.
• The scope of my inquiry is the October 3, 2014 placement of dirt on Cottage Street near its intersection with Hammond. My methodology is as follows:
• Review the existing log entries to gain a background;
• Reduce my interview with you and your wife to case notes;
• Meet with Mr. C******* for his side of the issue;
• Reduce interviews to writing, made findings of fact;
• Develop courses of action for resolution with pros/cons for each
• Brief Police leadership on those courses of action
• Meet with you and Mrs. with our recommendations.
I am not working tomorrow, however hope to meet with Mr. C******* on Friday and have recommendations done early next week.

Thank you

Dave Hagen

From: john
Sent: Wednesday, October 08,2014 5:31 PM
To: Dave Hagen
Subject: RE: Our conversation this morning

• My log entry for this is: Material in roadway-safety issue. This is a newly created category, so going forward we may use this, if applicable;

Although I appreciate you making a new category for this specific incident, in most programs, there’s usually a category of “other” where you can type in specific info that is pertinent. It makes more sense to be accurate, rather than generalize in a case like this. I agree with your general “material in roadway-safety issue”, but I believe that it should include “intentionally dropped on roadway”. There’s no way it was accidentally dropped. I hope in your investigation that you can contact the trucking co., whether they were asked to drop it in the roadway, or if it was an accident. In either case, the police should have been notified that the road was blocked. In most situations they have safety cones and a policeman on duty when the road is blocked. In other words, most things you deal with, like DUI, speeding, etc. is appropriate for a drop-down menu. The situation we are referring to, which is a small % of what you deal with, would be better served by using an “other” category to be typed in for accuracy.

• Regarding your concern of the June 21, 2014 entry (Case 293893), this is entitled “RP states large amount of dirt in roadway”. The case comments reflected an “ongoing neighbor dispute”.
I would like to stick with the facts of the incident. The facts are that there was material dropped on Cordaville Rd., blocking the road. The notation of that “ ongoing neighbor dispute” is speculation, not fact. The speculation of neighbor dispute was due to the officer at the scene making that assumption, the sergeant at the desk who does the report, or C******* suggesting that. How did the officer come to that conclusion without talking to me? I have had no discussion with Mr. C******* for many months, so whoever came up with “ongoing neighbor dispute” regarding this incident on June 21 needs to redact that from the police log, or prove that it had something to do with that incident. My expectation is that you will have this corrected if the facts bear out, and if not, you or the chief should tell me why.
• The scope of my inquiry is the October 3, 2014 placement of dirt on Cottage Street near its intersection with Hammond. My methodology is as follows:

It’s Cordaville and Hammond, not Cottage and Hammond. The scope of the inquiry should include the June 21 incident with the report changed as detailed above. The chief said he would contact the Sgt. & officer who handled the report, and to “properly summarize the calls”. My expectation is the chief, or you as his designated rep, owes me the courtesy of doing what he said he was going to do.
• Review the existing log entries to gain a background;

Sounds good. I agree.
• Reduce my interview with you and your wife to case notes;

I would like the opportunity to review the notes before they are filed, please.
• Meet with Mr. C******* for his side of the issue;

Sounds logical, I agree
• Reduce interviews to writing, made findings of fact;

I would like the opportunity to review the writing before it is filed, please.
• Develop courses of action for resolution with pros/cons for each

Pros and cons to what? We don’t understand this as it is written here. Could you please explain this one?
• Brief Police leadership on those courses of action

I understand there is a chain of command, but if Lt. James or Sgt. Slatkavitz have input into this case, I would like to be informed of the nature of their input, please.
• Meet with you and Mrs. with our recommendations.

Comment: It would be great to finally learn if there was ever a warning or a citation issued regarding the truckloads of material that have been being dropped on the road for a long time. Also, we hope to finally see it noted that we are concerned about the safety of the road situation.

The chief wrote in his email to us on Oct. 8, 2014: “An officer responded and determined the material was already being moved and did not require further police action.” That officer should be enlightened that’s like saying that he saw a teen texting and driving, but when he pulled up to the car, the driver was already putting away his phone. Do you think that teen will continue his texting and driving habit? Absolutely, because he was never warned by the officer that chose to look the other way.

Thank you for your time and effort, Officer Hagen. We look forward to our meeting with you.

John

I am out of the station – please let me work your questions and get back with you

You may certainly review my findings before they become record

David C. Hagen
508-485-2121

On Oct 10, 2014, at 11:24, “john” wrote:

From: Dave Hagen
Sent: Friday, October 10, 2014 8:18 AM
To: john
Cc: Timothy Slatkavitz
Subject: RE: Our conversation this morning

Mr. :

Thank you for your email, please allow me to respond.

1. My understanding is that you and I agreed that my log entry for our meeting would be “material in roadway-safety issue”. That was reflected in my notes, and my memory was I indicated that it was inappropriate for me to conclude intent at this stage in the process;

Yes, we agreed on “material in roadway-safety issue”, but we’d like to point out that in our discussion we suggested that in the police report the officer already established intent by making the inappropriate leap to “neighbor dispute”.

2. I have forwarded your request for a review of the June 21, 2014 incident to SGT Slatkavitz.

What happened to your idea of having officer Mattioli look into having the first report written correctly i.e. “material in the road-safety issue” ?

I have been asked to look at the October 3, 2014 matter, and, with respect, I’ll focus my work there.

With all due respect, these two incidents create a pattern & need to be addressed together. The way the June 21 incident was reported, as “neighbor dispute” hides the fact that it also was “material in the road-safety issue”: the very same problem! I have more confidence that you would be able to connect the dots between the two incidents. Do I need to request from the chief for you to be assigned to both incidents, since the two are so closely related and so pertinent to each other? Would you please get back to me on that?

3. Thank you for correcting me on the address, I’ll make that change;

4. I will make sure you have copies of the case file, and that your comments/responses are part of the permanent record.

May I please request that I have an opportunity to discuss your findings prior to them becoming permanent record?

5. The pros and cons are to the different (possible) courses of action. Generally those options range from taking no action through prosecution. Along the way, each course of action has a pro and a con, often that is articulted in time vs. possible result. This is not intended to indicate a preference on this case at this time, it is generic, and I like to explore each option with the reporting parties to ensure an understanding.

That is why it is so crucial that the 2 incidents be considered together, because the action taken would be much different if no one realized both incidents were the essentially same infraction on different dates, since both times the log was inaccurately recorded.

I hope this email is responsive to your questions; my next step is to speak with Mr. *******.

Request: May I please have the original police report for both incidents- June 21 and Oct. 3? Also, which Sgt. selects what comments get on Southborough.com, etc., specific to these 2 incidents?
Thank you,
John

Thank you

Dave Hagen

budget drain
8 years ago

“I have had no discussion with Mr. C******* for many months” This quoate could be the root of the problem. Maybe throw an olive branch out to your neighbor and discuss it like adults. No doubt both sides will have to concede something and everyone wins including us taxpayers funding this dispute. And you will get hours of your life back not having to write these transcripts and might get some mulch/dirt too!

Townie
8 years ago
Reply to  budget drain

budget drain, sadly, that olive branch was used to make the bridge that burnt down a long time ago. What’s even sadder is there was no attempt to cross it.

I applaud the police for dealing with this professionally for so long. But, at what point does the police stop entertaining “x” resident’s complaints against “x” amount of residents, (yes theres more than one that deal with this) for “x” amount of years, and brings out the real problem of harassment?

Nonsense
8 years ago

What a complete waste of time and effort!

*Mulch! It’s Mulch! Ahhhhh! Save the children! Someone get me a cop!*

Police Fully Loaded Billing Rate = 200$/Hour?
Hours answering Johnnys calls = 10/month?
Cost to the Homeowners of Southborough = $24,000 / year

Ring the doorbell next time!

Just Curious
8 years ago

Yikes!

After reading the ‘love thy neighbor’ postings from Johnseesomethingsaysomething, I am sure that neighborhood ‘Trick-or-Treating’ will be fun in that neighborhood.

Thanks to Townie for pointing out that this dispute is not occurring on busy Rt 85 (Cordaville Rd) buy on the adjacent tiny stretch of side street also named Cordaville Rd where there are probably no more than 5 or 6 house that use the small street that Johnsee.. is whining about.

The Southborough Police Department have serious issues to deal with. I hope the Chief understands that reasonable people in town would support him if he doesn’t spend more time on this issue.

Hats off to Officer Hagen for dealing with this issue in such a professional manner. I do not have the patience he has shown dealing with this resident. The caller wants to review the police officer’s notes?????? Geez. Maybe the next time he’ll want to check their patrol cars for cleanliness? Inspect their uniforms?

Emperor Strikes Back
8 years ago
Reply to  Just Curious

Try living in this neighborhood! The one thing we DO need to worry about is the kids in the area. We have a few families now with younger kids riding in the streets. We do need to slow down and keep an eye out for them

Nonsense
8 years ago

I do live in this neighborhood. Johnny is a well known crank that calls the cops for EVERYTHING! Its so bad that when you are the victim of one of his calls, the cops apologize.

John see something say something
8 years ago

* indicates John’s comments
APPLICABLE STATUTES
My research has found two pieces of legislation which may be applicable. The first is:
When you put the word “may”, I believe you already knew these statutes don’t apply here.
1. Town of Southborough By-Law Chapter 152 “Streets and Sidewalks”, Article II Section 152-8, Debris on public ways. This by law reads: No person shall throw or place or cause to be thrown or placed upon any public street or public way of the Town any nails, spikes, screws, glass, tin cans or refuse of any kind” (http://ecode360.com/9539415#./9539425?&_suid=1413223179999035300114890740663 accessed on October 13, 2014). And

2. Massachusetts General Law Chapter 270, Section 16 “Disposal of rubbish, etc., on or near highways and coastal or inland waters” This section reads, in part:
a. “Whoever places, throws, deposits or discharges or whoever causes to be placed, thrown, deposited or discharged, trash, bottles or cans, refuse, rubbish, garbage, debris, scrap, waste or other material of any kind on a public highway or within 20 yards of a public highway,”

*Clearly these two statues are not applicable here. So everything that you have in the “Findings of Fact ” is questionable, when it’s based on irrelevant statutes.

FINDINGS OF FACT
1. Cordaville Road is an accepted public way in the Town of Southborough.
2. Hammond and Cottage Streets are accepted public ways in the Town of Southborough;
3. The Southborough Police Log dated October 3, 2014 (call 14-1527) shows an entry alleging a large amount of sand which is blocking the roadway.;
4. The roadway in question in finding 3 is Cordaville Road, in front of number 2**;
5. The width of Cordaville Road in the vicinity of 275 is approximately 24 feet, 8 inches;
6. There are markings along the western side of Cordaville Road near 2** which were made by dirt; those marks are approximately 5’6” west to east.

*When was the measurement taken of the “marks” on the road–before or after the rain? Here is the fact I got from McIntyre Loam: 20 yards of loam dropped would leave a footprint of 8 ft. wide with a spillover of 3 ft. on either side. So based on my factual info from McIntyre and the photo I sent to you, I maintain that the pile could be up to 14 ft. and as little as 8 ft. I don’t believe your markings stand up to fact.
.
7. The dirt in finding 6 was ordered by the resident at 2** Cordaville Road (C*******);
8. Mr. and Mrs. C******* had 20 yards of fill and 20 yards of loam delivered to 2** Cordaville Road, Southborough, MA. This loam was delivered by Macintyre Loam of Hopkinton, MA.
9. Part of the loam delivered to 2** Cordaville Road, was unloaded on side of the road as indicated in finding 6. Mrs. C******* stated that the amount of dirt delivered on October 3, 2014 was more than she had expected when ordered. I find her statement to be credible;
10. Mr. C******* stated that when he saw the fill/loam being delivered, this was a larger amount than he had expected. I find his statement credible. I further find that his statement is supported by the statement by Macintyre Loam and is consistent with the empirical data in findings 12 and 13.
11. One yard of fill/loam is 27 cubic feet. 20 yards is 618.04 cubic feet of fill/loam.
12. The C******* had 40 yards delivered in total, resulting in 1, 854.12 cubic feet of fill/loam.
13. SGT Slatkavitz was personally on the scene and observed that there were workers moving the sand;
14. SGT Slatkavitz determined that the “roadway was clear”

*At what time did he determine the road to be clear? The facts and my picture show the road was not clear–not when I walked my dogs, not when I called police, and not when I took the picture, approximately an hour and a half went by from the dog walk to the picture.

15. The unloading of the loom onto the eastern part of the property as well as part of the roadway on Cordaville Road was the result of an underestimation of the volume when ordered;
*My picture shows that most of the material was on the road. Very little was on the town-owned soft shoulder per the picture and none was on C******* property.
16. The photograph provided by Mr. displays a vehicle consistent with that which is capable of moving loom;
17. 105 CMR 440.01 (Department of Public Health) defines refuse as “putrescible or non-putrescible solid waste consisting of all combustible and noncombustible solid wastes including garbage and rubbish but not including sewage”

*This is irrelevant, as were the first two statutes you cited above. We never claimed this was a Dept. of Health issue, nor did we ever claim it was refuse. This is a child safety issue. Please refer back to our original notes we sent to Chief Paulhus. “This neighborhood has little kids ages 4-6 who ride their bikes and scooters there, so it really is a safety issue when the traffic has to veer onto the other side of the road and can’t see the little ones behind the dirt pile. Little kids behind the pile of dirt are forced to turn into oncoming cars in either direction.” Your point # 17 is a diversion from the issue and I don’t know why you would make that statement here.

18. Massachusetts General Law Chapter 270 Section 16 is entitled “Crimes against Public Health”. This section addresses placing articles on a public way as it relates to the health of the general public.

*Again, your premise is wrong. From the start, we never claimed a health issue, as in rubbish. Safety yes.

19. The material placed on the roadway in the vicinity of 2** Cordaville Road does not involve public health.

*Officer Hagen, this is a road hazard. We have made it clear it is not a public health issue. Why even cite statutes that don’t apply to this case?

20. Chapter 270 section 16 is not applicable in this case.

*Again, you have made this more cumbersome by citing statutes that don’t fit here, are irrelevant, and have no pertinence to this case at all. We are not talking about litter, garbage, or trash here. We are talking about road blockage and safety.
21. The Town of Southborough By-law (Chapter 152 “Streets and Sidewalks”, Article II Section 152-8, Debris on public ways) covers nails, spikes, screws, glass, tin cans or refuse of any kind” There is no evidence in the record that there were nails, spikes, screws, glass, tin cans in the roadway.

*Again, an irrelevant code is used, this is not pertinent to a case of a road being blocked as a safety issue.

22. There is no evidence that there was any refuse, as defined by 105 CMR 440.01 was in the roadway.

*Again, irrelevant. This has nothing to do with the road blockage -safety issue.

23. Town of Southborough By-Law Chapter 152 “Streets and Sidewalks”, Article II Section 152-8, Debris on public ways” is not applicable in this case.

*Listing all these points of “fact” that are not applicable is diversionary.

CONCLUSIONS
1. The presence of the loam/fill in the roadway in the vicinity of 2** Cordaville Road was not intentional; it was a product of underestimating the actual volume of the material;

*How can you come to this conclusion when you stated in the email to us,” I am waiting for a return call from the Macintyre Loam driver.” If it was not intentional, how did the product end up on Cordaville Rd.? So apparently you didn’t ask C******* if he told the driver to drop the loam on the road. When I deal with McIntyre, they always ask where I want the material dropped. It was absolutely dropped there intentionally in the road. (FYI-C******* is a landscaper. That’s his job, so he knows what the volume of 20 yds. is, so you were tricked by him, but you find his statement credible, as you said. Officer Hagen, the fact that you bought everything C******* told you, makes me think you are gullible.)

2. The residents of 2** Cordaville removed the part of the fill/loam which was in the roadway in approximately twenty minutes;

*20 minutes is not credible. This is C******* “underestimating” to his advantage again. Maybe ask McIntyre when they dropped the load? This does not add up. When I was walking my dogs, there were several loads of material already dropped by the bobcat on C******* land. By the time I finished walking the dogs, calling the police, and taking the photos it was approximately an hour to an hour and a half, not the 20 minutes you concluded. Based on my photo, the material was still there.
3. SGT Slatkavitz determined that roadway was clear;

*So does this mean the road was clear after they moved the pile? The facts and my picture show the road was not clear–not when I walked my dogs, not when I called, and not when I took the picture, approximately an hour and a half went by from the dog walk to the picture. You need to be more specific as to when the road was clear.

4. There is no applicable town by-law or state statute for consideration

*Possibly there was no statute made for common sense & logic that putting things in a public road would block the road and become a safety issue. My interpretation based on your “findings of fact” is that any resident can put anything in the road not covered by your statutes citied, ie. trash, rubbish, litter, or sewage, etc.

5. The residents at 2** Cordaville have been and are aware of the need to maintain a clear roadway.

*And yet the C******’* keep repeating the same behavior, because the police keep enabling their actions, and have come to rationalize it by coming up with “facts” like this that embolden such behavior. If Southborough Police handled it properly the first time, this probably would not still be happening. It’s unfortunate that the police spend their time on treatises like this defending C*******, and my feeling compelled to answer, because it is so outrageous. If that’s true that C******* already knew to keep the road clear, then why do they keep repeating having material dropped on the road? C******* doesn’t consider the police the authority, and he will continue to do as he pleases, and then when you ask about it, he will buffalo the police again. You are contradicting yourself when you say C******* has been and is aware. Then why did C******* do it again this time

6. There is no further police action required.

*I hope based on the information we gave you in this document you realize that the information that you say is credible from C******’* is not and you reconsider your conclusion that no further police action is required. How is it that I have had 2 sets of construction and landscape workers warned by police for having material blocking part of the road, and you see fit not to give a warning to C*******? By the way, one of those warnings was issued via a call from C******* to the police. There seems to be 2 sets of standards going on in the Southborough Police Dept.
I appreciate that you are attempting to find facts and that you are, as you call yourself, “the problem solver”. However, my wife and I both think you are making this much more complicated than is necessary and diverting from the problem of a safety issue. The three statutes you have cited are irrelevant to this issue, because they discuss trash, litter, refuse in the road, and health issues. We are disappointed that you have gone on a wild goose chase. We are discussing ordered material purposely place on a road. It is a safety issue-road blockage. Also, we never said it took up the whole road, so your painstakingly measuring a stain in the road after rain is a fruitless endeavor. We merely said that children having to go around the pile was a safety issue. How long the pile was in the road was not the issue, since Mr. C******* has piles like that dumped frequently, and we do not call as often as we should. After seeing how we are made to look, it’s like you’re shooting the messenger. We are made to feel we did wrong to call the police!
If you are unwilling to warn Mr. C******* not to continually drop (good) material on the public road, then please tell me that. If you don’t want me to call for safety issues, you need to tell me that straight out. This issue is not going to go away, just because you decide to take no action. Mr. C******* does this frequently, so he will be eating up more of your valuable time in the future.
The original questions we emailed the chief: No one has addressed why my call June 21 was labeled a “neighborhood dispute”, when it really was a safety issue I called for. You also didn’t address the Oct.10 email and supply me with the information I requested. That would clear up many question marks. If you are unable to answer my questions about the police log of Oct. 3 and Oct. 21, please state that in writing.
Finally, I’d like to know if you even brought up to Mr. C******* the coincidence of when I call the police regarding Mr.C*******, we experience what we consider to be retaliation by Mr. C*******, one of which in particular, was meant to injure one of us. I’d be interested in how he reacted to the coincidences if they were presented to him.
The saying is, “If you see something, say something.” If you don’t want me to follow that saying, please tell me and the good people of Southborough.
John
Conclusions from John:
1.) As of Oct. 24, 2014, my concern remains that repeatedly intentionally blocking the road is a SAFETY issue, especially for children. There is not one mention of SAFETY in Officer Hagen’s report. Therefore, SAFETY is not a priority to the Southborough Police Dept. Officer Hagen, for some reason, spent more time trying to protect the violator.
2.) Because of Southborough Police Department’s inability to find applicable statutes (or common sense solutions), from Hagen’s investigation it seems you are able to draw the conclusion that you are okay to intentionally dump 40 yards of material on the public road, and you will not get a violation or even a warning.
3.) All we asked for was the S.P.D. to correct the June 21, 2014 police log to be accurately stated as road blockage- safety issue (not neighbor dispute). Then on Oct. 3 the police should not have been subjectively removing calls from the log. Again, it should have read road blockage-safety issue, which would have shown a pattern of the same behavior, so that the violator would have at least received a warning, if not a citation for the same thing.
4.) The investigation we never asked for was a complete waste of police time and taxpayer money. The police department took it upon themselves to divert or cover up the main issue. Nothing has changed. The repeat violator will continue to do as he pleases, getting a wink and a nod from the police. The message from the S.P.D. is if you see something, don’t bother saying something. The Southborough police will protect the violator and shoot the messenger (if he’s not a crony). And the little kids on bikes and scooters
will continue
to be
unsafe.

Townie
8 years ago

John, after reading the above comment I have come to a conclusion of my own. 95% of the literature in the above comment is aimed at you being rather upset that a resident had loam in the road way for a short period of time, and you didn’t like that.

#3 of “Conclusions from John” is the only mention of your original complaint of the log not being written correctly. Your research into this is extensive, and unnecessary. I find it disturbing that it has gone to this far. It is obvious the intent was to try to ruin another resident’s day, week, month, and most likely year over a pile of mulch. The only further police action that is left, is the investigation of harassment, because that is all it has been for years in that neighborhood. That is why the police logged it as a dispute. I hope the police put the big picture together and end the childish behavior of one who calls themselves an adult.

If the police find no problem, there is no problem.

Sincerely,
Townie “The Realist”

Donna McDaniel
8 years ago

Great idea, Beth, not to let this go on and on and…
Brief comment: when I was a Selectman or reporting on their meetings, a neighborhood situation like this would be brought to the board. Police duties don’t include mediating a neighborhood problem (ours were usually over dogs, barking, threatening, etc. it was up to the dog officer to report to us, give us his point of view, but not to try to resolve). Selectmen listened to both sides looking for the middle ground both parties can live with. I’d say it comes in the realm of filling the need of members of the community and of town departments to be heard and to share in finding a way through.

Resident
8 years ago

Neighbor disputes on BOS agendas? This may be one of the most ridiculous suggestions I’ve heard on this blog. How about additional agenda items like how high to cut the grass, colors of flowers for the All Wars Memorial, or being in charge of the turkeys in the roadway. While “Leave it to Beaver” may be your perspective on the ideal way of life, “times they are a changing.”

Just Curious
8 years ago
Reply to  Resident

I can’t say that I agree with all the statements Donna McDaniels makes at Town Meeting or the column she writes in the local paper. Yet I have great respect for her because she volunteered to be a Selectman in this town and spent thousands of hours volunteering her time for US.

Whether one agrees or disagrees with her, she deserves our appreciation and respect, as do all the current elected and appointed officials.

  • © 2023 MySouthborough.com — All rights reserved.